BHARAT SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM 906/2011 in LA.App.No.500/2008(Exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM 2171/2011 in LA.App.No.500/2008 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. LA.App.No.500/2008 and the other above captioned connected matters A large chunk of land in the revenue estate of village Kilokari, Nangli Rajapur, Garhi Mendu and Khizrabad were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 23.6.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the purpose of the acquisition was channelization of Yamuna River. Pertaining to the said notification, vide judgment and order dated 7.6.2011, dealing with lands in village Kilokari, Nangli Rajapur and Khizrabad I had dismissed all the appeals and cross objections holding that the fair market value of the subject lands assessed at '89,600/- per bigha by the learned Reference Court was correct. I had noted therein that the learned Reference Court had personally visited the site and had prepared a report dated 22.11.2006 graphically narrating the topology of the land. A rough site plan had been prepared. I had noted that the subject land was between the river bank of River Yamuna and the Forward Bund. I had noted that the subject land was in the Flood Plain area of river Yamuna and except for a few patches where agricultural activity could be undertaken, the land was mostly grass land, bushy and shrub vegetation. I had noted that the aquatic vegetation was poor in this stretch due to degraded water quality of river Yamuna. There being no sale deeds which could form some evidence pertaining to sale transactions for similar situated lands, I had opined that the same shows hardly any buyer interested in the lands. I had thus held that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as Tindey and Ors. Vs. UOI and Anr. 2000 (54) DRJ 384 where for salabi land in village Khizrabad fair market value determined per bigha as of 10.5.1976 at '35,000/- per bigha would be a good basis as a starting point. The reason was that in Tindey's case this Court specifically noted that the land was salabi i.e. waterlogged; as were the instant lands. Thereafter, noting the observations of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 General Manager Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jeewanbhai Patel and Anr., wherein the Supreme Court held that there was no universal rule that land rates appreciate by 10% or 12% each year and that various factors have to be considered; if with reference to the past prices the market price at a subsequent date has to be determined. I had specifically dealt with the argument that for agricultural land in village Kilokari, pertaining to a notification dated 13.11.1959 fair market value assessed as of 13.11.1959 was '26,000/- per bigha as per decision dated 10.10.1984 in RFA No.117/1974 Smt.Angoori Devi Vs. UOI and Ors., on basis whereof it was being urged that land in village Kilokari which is the subject matter of the present acquisition should be granted a higher rate not only for the reason that Kilokari was better situate but also that Kilokari was an urbanized village. Repelling Angoori Devi's case to be a good guideline, I had specifically noted that lands in village Kilokari with which I was concerned in the appeals which I was deciding were lying on the other side of Ring Road and between the river bank of river Yamuna and the Forward Bund and thus these lands could not be equated with the other lands of village Kilokari.

(2.) THE said decision would bind me today save and except depending upon the fate of CM No.13287/2011 filed by the appellant of LA App.No.59/2007, which appeal was decided by me in the judgment of mine which I have just referred to hereinbefore. THE application under Section 151, 152 and 153 CPC seeks clarification, correction and modification of my decision dated 6.7.2011 and as would be evidenced from its pleadings hereinafter noted, the application actually seeks a review.

(3.) IN my decision I had highlighted that as per Master Plan, the subject lands were to be developed as green areas having recreational activities around the river Yamuna and hardly any land to be used for a residential or a commercial purpose. I had highlighted that the appellant, Sh.Bed Ram, had admitted that there was just no development on the lands in question. I note that village Kilokari was urbanized in the year 1966. INstant notification is dated 23.6.1989. It is relevant that in spite of being urbanized in the year 1966, no development took place on the subject lands for over 23 years.