AMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the decisions of the learned Additional District Judges, Delhi in references made to them under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the instance of the Land owners. The acquired lands of the appellants fall within the revenue estate of village Mukandpur, Delhi. The dated of notification under sectiop 4 of the Act are as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_346_DRJ47_1998Html1.htm</FRM> As a matter of fact the land which is subject-matter of the present appeals was acquired under the emergency provisions of section 17 of the Act and the date of notifications under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act are the same. The urgent requirement for acquiring the land was for construction of supplementary drain. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 4,400.00 per bigha vide his awards with respect to the acquired lands subject-matter of these appeals. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector and sought reference under section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judges who dealt with the cases fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 10,000.00 per bigha. The land owners have come to this Court by way of the present appeals and have demanded that the market value of their acquired land be fixed at Rs. 20,000.00 per bigha.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly relied on a decision of this Court in RFA No. 190/1983 Bahadur etc. V. Union of India decided on 15th November, 1996 by Division Bench of this Court in which the market value of land in village Bhalswa Jahangirpur was fixed at Rs. 17,800.00 per bigha for land acquired vide notification under section 4 dated 25th March, 1977. It was submitted that village Bhalswa Jahangirpur was adjacent to village Mukandpur which is subject matter of the present appeals. Village Mukandpur is adjacent to the eastern boundary of village Bhalswa Jahangirpur. The learned counsel for the appellants urge that since there were no sale transactions available with respect to Mukandpur, the decision of this Court for the adjoining village could serve as the best guide for determining the market value of land in the present appeals. There is proximity between the notifications under section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land in the two villages.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent tried to counter the arguments of the appellants on the ground that there was an instance of a sale deed Ex. R-l with respect to village Mukandpur itself pertaining to the year 1974 and when evidence of a sale transaction in the same village was available, there was no need to go to the adjoining village. Secondly, it was submitted that map shows that there was a drain by the side of village Mukandpur which would detract the value of land in the side village. So far as the instance of sale deed Ex.R-1 is concerned even the learned Additional District Judge did not place any reliance thereon for the reason that there was a long time gap between the date of section 4 notification in the present case and the date of the sale deed Ex.R-I. The learned Additional District Judge also found that the transaction in Ex.R-1 did not represent the real value of the subject matter of the sale deed. It appeared to be a distress sale. The learned Additional District Judge put it "it does not seem to be a free and voluntary sale." In view of the aforesaid reasons we feel that the learned Additional District Judge rightly declined to place any reliance on Ex.R-I. About the argument that existence of a drain would diminish the market value of the land, it is only to be noted that the land itself was acquired for purposes of construction of a drain. The Eischer Map from which the location of the drain was sought to be shown is a map of recent origin whereas the acquisition in the present case was of 1978-79. Therefore, if a drain is shown to be in existence now, it will not make any difference for determining the market value in 1978-79. It will be further noted that the acquisition was by invoking emergency provisions of section 17 of the Act. This will show that construction of drain was urgently required. It follows that the drain must have been constructed soon after the acquisition and is, therefore, being shown in the map which is of recent origin.