HARBANS LAL JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had purchased land measuring 206 bighas 11 biswas in village Dhirpur sometime in 1950. This land had a frontage on Princess Road off Kingsway and was behind the colony known as Model Town Colony. In 1951-52, the appellant sold certain plots out of this land without getting any plans sanctioned by the appropriate authorities. On October 3, 1959, the Government issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring. 43 bighas 4 biswas out of this land. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. l.00 per square per square yard which as increased to Rs. 2/8.00 per square yard by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, upon reference made to him and this was further increased to Rs. 8.00 per square yard by the High Court of Punjab by its judgment dated July 24, 1963 (Exhibit (A.34).

(2.) The remaining land comprising an area of 163 bighas and 7 biswas was notified under section 4 of the said Act on July 23, 1962. The seKction 6 notification followed on September 13, 1963. By his award dated January 28, 1963, the Collector offered Rs. 2,500.00 per bigha against the appellant's claim of Rs. 70,000.00 per bigha. In this land there was an area of 4 bighas 10 biswas which was a Nullah for which the Collector awarded Rs. 1,000.00 per bigha. After excluding the land which was the subject matterr of previous sales by thappellant and the land comprised in the Nullah, the appellant was left with 76 bighas 6 biswas in respect of which he asked for a reference claiming at the rate of Rs. 70.00 per square yard or Rs. 70,000.00 per bigha. The appellant's case was that in 1950-1951-1952, the appellant himself had sold various plots of land at rates varying between Rs. 4.00 and Rs. 5.00 per square yard; that the value of the land at the time of the notification in 1962 was more than ten times the prices prevailing in the year 1950-1952; that the land in question was adjacent to the fully developed D. L. F. Model Town Colony where all services such as pucca road, electricity, water supply, sewage etc. existed and where the price of land was about Rs. 100.00 per square yard; that the land also abutted on a metalled road known as Princess Road and had a potential value being situated in the best expanding locality; that the land was not in a low lying area as held by the Collector and was suitable for developing a colony and that the Collector should have awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 70.00 per square yard.

(3.) It appears that in 1952, the appellant had submitted a lay-out plan to the Notified Area Committee, Delhi, in respect of the entire area for a colony to be developed as Harbans Nagar under cover of letter dated May 3, 1952 (Exhibit A.18). It was stated in this letter that this land was bounded on the east by Princess Road; on the West by the land belonging to cultivators; on the north by Military Grass Farm, and on the South by the aforesaid Model Town Colony. It was further stated that it was intended to develop this land into a model colony consisting of plots of 200 square yards and 350 square yards to cater to the needs of the lower middle class; that it was intended to fill in earth in order to bring the level of this land up to the standard required so as to be of a level with the land of Model Town and that out of the total area, 11,832 square yards had been allotted for gardens, school, bus stand, religious places etc.; 58,634 square yards had been allotted for roads and lanes-thus covering an areas of 35.5% of the netire land and the balance was to be plotted. The Notified Area Committee directed the appellant to contact the Delhi Improvement Trust by their letter Exhibit A. 19. It appears that the lay-out plan was submitted to the Delhi Improvement Trust who raised various objections and made some suggestions by their letter dated March 25, 1955, (Exhibit A.22). Afresh lay-out plan was submitted by the appellant under cover of his letter dated June 23, 1955 (Exhibit A.23) staling that the obections raised had been met and the suggestions carried out. There was some further correspondence and ultimately the matter came to be dealt with by the Delhi Development (Provisional) Authority. Certain objections were made to the lay-out plans of various proposed colonies including the appellant's colony, Harbans Nagar, in respect of which it was pointed out that the land was low-lying and liable to flooding. Thereupon the aforesaid Authority passed a resolution that the consideration of the lay-out plans may be awaited till the preparation of the Master Plan. The result of all this correspondence was that the appellant could not carry out his object of developing his colony and ultimately the land was acquired as stated earlier in 1962.