(Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.)
Hari Chand _________________________________________ Appellant
v.
Union of India & Anr. ____________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 11091/2013, decided on September 15, 2016
With
C.A. No. 11092/2013, C.A. No. 11093/2013, C.A. No. 11094/2013, C.A. No. 11095/2013, C.A. No. 11096/2013, C.A. No. 11097/2013, C.A. No. 11098/2013 and C.A. No. 1809-1811/2014
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The present group of appeals of the landowners seeks to challenge a common order dated 29th May, 2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi by which the claim for enhanced compensation for acquisition of land of the appellants in village Aali has been refused. The compensation awarded is at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha.
2. By a notification dated 6th April, 1964 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) the land of several villages including Tehkhand, Bahapur, Jasola, Tuglakabad and Aali was proposed for acquisition for a public purpose i.e. “Planned Development of Delhi”. Insofar as acquisition of land belonging to the appellants in village Aali is concerned, the Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. In an appeal under Section 54 of the Act by the landowners the same rate of compensation has been maintained giving rise to the present set of appeals.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. On behalf of the landowners reliance is placed on the order of the High Court in other acquisitions of land in villages Tuglakabad and Tehkhand made by Notification dated 23rd January, 1965 whereby the High Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. An order of the High Court awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 28,000/- per bigha in respect of village Jasola covered by the same Notification dated 6th April 1964 has also been relied upon to support the claim for higher compensation. It is urged that higher compensation having been awarded for lands of adjoining villages covered by the same Notification or Notification(s) issued soon after the present Notification under Section 4 of the Act, the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- needs to be suitably enhanced. The above appears to be the principal basis on which the claim for higher compensation has been made.
5. Having considered the elaborate order passed by the Reference Court as well as the High Court, we find that the basis of grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha in respect of village Tehkhand (in the year 2001) was on the strength of an earlier decision of the High Court dated 20th July, 1992 awarding compensation at the same rate i.e. Rs. 40,000/- per bigha for land covered by village Tuglakabad. The argument advanced is that village Tehkhand is a village adjoining Aali village. Similarly, the materials on record discloses that the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 28,000/- per bigha for Jasola village is based upon an earlier order awarding the same rate of compensation for Bahapur village. Appreciating the aforesaid contention the High Court has taken the view that it is nobody’s case that village Bahapur is adjoining, adjacent or even nearby village Aali. So far as compensation in respect of land in Tehkhand village is concerned the same was based on a finding that the said land is similar/comparable to the land in Tuglakabad village for which compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha was awarded. There is no material laid before the Court to show that the acquired land is similar/comparable to the land in Tehkhand village. The claim for enhanced compensation, therefore, seems to be based on a reasoning which could appear to be far fetched. That apart, the High Court in the impugned order had referred to a grant of compensation in two other cases involving Badarpur village at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha and Molarband at the same rate of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. The notification involved in both the cases is of the same date i.e. 6th April, 1964. Both the aforesaid villages i.e. Badarpur and Molarband were found adjacent to Aali village. The High Court has also taken into account the award of compensation of land in village Aali itself at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per bigha. The Notification involved in the said case is 6th January, 1969 and suitable deductions from the aforesaid awarded amount at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per bigha for each year as made by the Reference Court was found to be justified by the High Court to arrive at the conclusion that award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha is fair, just and reasonable. The appellants, as observed by the High Court, also had failed to produce any sale deed proximate to the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act in support of their claim which could act as a suitable exemplar to assess the compensation due and payable.
6. Though an attempt has been made on behalf of the appellants to convince the Court with regard to similarity of the land located in village Jasola and village Aali on the basis of the testimonies of the claimants’ witness No. 1 -Ashok Kumar, Halqa Patwari, a perusal of the deposition of the said witness goes to show that in cross-examination the said witness has clearly stated that his statement with regard to similarity of the lands of the two villages i.e. Jasola and Aali is based on the fact that the lands of both the villages were used for agriculture purpose. The said witness has specifically stated in his cross-examination that the land which was developed in village Jasola for residential-cum-commercial purposes is at a considerable distance from the acquired land and the same is also far away from the main road. Having read and considered the evidence of the said witness we are of the view that the same does not assist the appellants in their claim for higher compensation.
7. In the light of what has been stated above, we cannot take the view that the conclusion of the High Court that the landowners did not deserve a higher rate of compensation is so palpably erroneous that the same would require our interference. We, therefore, will have no occasion to cause any interference with the order passed by the High Court. The appeals consequently are dismissed and the order of the High Court is upheld.
———
