ORDER
Devinder Gupta, J.
1. Out of these 61 appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), 54 appeals are by the Claimants seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation whereas the remaining 7 appeals are by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation.
2. By notification issued Section 4 of the Act on 24.10.1061 by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi about 16000 acres of land in 24 blocks stretching over a number of village in the then Union Territory of Delhi was notified for being acquired by the Government at public expense for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi. Out of this land notified under Section 4 of the Act, from time to time declarations were issued under Section 6 of the Act for separate portions of land to be taken over for various schemes connected with development of Delhi.Considerable land of village Rthala was also included in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 24.10.1961. On 11.1.1967 declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made notifying that land measuring 2838 bighas 10 was being taken over for Planned Development of Delhi as per filed book, which ultimately was taken over by the Government worked out to 2859 bighas 11 biswas. After completing necessary formalities, the Collector Land Acquisition on 25.4.1980 made this award No.19/80-81 by which compensation was offered to the complainants for their land, which was classified as per revenue records as follows:-
BAGH NEHRI Rs.3300/- Per Bigha NEHRI LAND Rs. 3000/- Per Bigha CHAHI LAND Rs. 2500/- Per Bigha ROSSLI LAND Rs.2250/- Per Bigha BANJAR KADIM Rs.1730/- Per Bigha SEMI GADHA Rs.1730/- Per Bigha GADHA LAND Rs.1100/- Per Bigha OTHER GIER MUMKIN Rs.1300/- Per Bigha
3. Feeling dissatisfied the claimants sought references, which were forwarded to the References, Courts. Separate awards were made by the Reference Courts in each case. In most of the cases, the Refeerence Courts allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per bigha for the land, which was found to be neither by the side of road nor any rasta and at the rate of Rs.4750/- per bigha for the land, which was found to have been dug up. In a few faces compensation was assessed at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per bigha for all categories of land excluding the land, which had been dug up for which compensation was allowed at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per bigha. The claimants still feeling dissatisfied field these appeals seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Claims in appeal is up to the extent of Rs.15,000/- per bigha excepting RFA.455/90 in which the claim is at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha besides claim on account of severance charges and compensation for well and fruit trees.
4. Union of India has preferred 7 appeals questioning the award of the Reference Court in seven cases by which additional benefit at the rate of 12% p.a. under Section 23(1A) of the Act has been allowed as also allowing of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for one year from the date of Collector taking possession and for subsequent period at the rate of 15% p.a. and also questioning the enhancement.
5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length and we have gone through the record, paper books and record of the Reference Courts.
6. The claimants are seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation on the ground that the acquired land situate in village Rithla was very fertile from the point of view of productivity. Rithala as one the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was situated in close proximity of Delhi and a few developed colonies were also located nearby.Various amenities like puce roads, hospital and higher secondary school were also available as on the date when the land was acquired, which added to the potentiality of the land for being utilised both for developing housing colonies or for making commercial use thereof. Their claim is that for land situate in village Dheerpur acquired through notification issued on the same day compensation had been allowed at the rate of Rs.116,000/- per bigha by Shri S.R.Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi in his award dated 28.2.1986 in Land Acquisition Case titled as Smt.Gianwati v. Union of India. A Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 6.8.1984 in Guljari Mal (deceased)through L.Rs. v. Union of India (LPA.132/79)had also assessed the market value of land situate at village Dhaka at Rs.20,000/- per bigha Therefore, the claimants/appellants pray that they are entitled to compensation, if not more, than at least at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per bigha.
7. The Collector Land Acquisition in his award noticed that the whole chunk of land under acquisition situate in village Rithala was of agrarian nature, which was governed by Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Provisions contained in the Delhi Land Reforms Act forbids the conversion of land use and restricts even the transfers, which if done would amount to contravention of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. As such agricultural character of the land had to be the main factor for reckoning its market value besides its size, situation, fertility etc. Collector in his award also recorded that on inspection he found that the recorded classification in the revenue records was to a large extent different. Quite a sufficient part of land had been converted into pits by digging earth for the purposes of manufacturing bricks. At some places pits were found to the extine of 4 to 6ft. deep. Despite this change as regards clasfication.Still in the revenue records the land was being record as Banjar Rosli. As regards the quality of acquired land, he observed that it was inferior to the land, which was situate in village Nagharpur and Mangolpur whose boundaries adjoin village Rithala. Consequently, the Collector Land Acquisition preceded to asess the market value as per the classification in the revenue records barring that portion where the land use had been converted and pits had been dug after removing the soil.
8. During the course of evidence recorded before the reference court no efforts was made by the claimants/appellants to show better potentiality then what had been stated by the Collector in his award except by leading evidence to the effect that a metalled road existed from Rani Bagh colony to Pitampura, then to Naharpur and Rithala. In addition there were kachha road form village Nadli to village Rithala going through to Mangolpur Kalan. Claimants in their reference petitions had claimed that village Rithala was very fertile from productivity point of view and was situate in the vicinity of Delhi and developed colony of Rani Bagh, which was at a distance of 5 K.M. Sough East of this village. In the absence of any cogent material or substantial evidence it is not possible for us to come to a different conclusion than the one, which has been arrived at in the impugned awards by the reference courts about the nature of the lands and its potentiality. In almost all cases there is a positive finding recorded by the reference courts that the acquired land was subject to restrictions under which the land could be used only for agricultural purpose, therefore, it had to be assessed as agricultural land and that it had no potentiality of being utilised as a building site or commercial site.No other circumstance was brought to our notice for coming to a different conclusion.Accordingly, we have to proceed to assess the amount of compensation on the premises that it was an agricultural land.
9. Our attention was drawn to a filed map of various villages in Delhi to show that village Pooth Kalan is situated towards West of village Rithala.Villages Naharupur and Mangolpur are situated towards Sough of Rithala. Developed colony of Rani Bagh was located at a distance of 5 K.M. towards Sough East. Village Badli and Haiderpur are located towards North East. Towards East of village Rithala is situated village Salipur-Majra-Madipur. Lands of villages referred to by us were also acquired through the same common notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 24.10.1961 for same public purpose.
10. A Division Bench of this Court in RFA.531/69 ( Mali (deceased)through L.Rs. v. Union of India) decided on 11.9.1984 held the fair market value of land sifuate in village Salimpur Majra Madipru at Rs.7,000/- per bigha for all categories of land irrespective of their classification in the revenue records.Incidentally the said land was also acquired for the same public purpose through the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. For village Hbaderpur also Divsion Bench of this Court in Khazan Singh v. Union of India held the fair market value of all categories of land at Rs.7,000/- per bigha, which was acquired through the same notification issued on 24.10.1961 for the same public purpose. For village Badli also this Court in Dharam Pal v. Union of India assessed the market value at Rs.7,000/- per bigha for such of the lands, which were acquired through the same notification issued on 24.10.1961 for the same public purpose. Land situate in village Wazirpur was also acquired through the same notification issued on 24.10.1961 for the same public purpose and this Court tin Tek Chand v. Union of India 89(2001), D.L.T. 18 held Rs.7,000/- per bigha to be the fair market value irrespective of classification of land in revenue records. In Mange Ram etc. v. Union of India , Rs.6500/- per bighas was assessed to be the fair market value of all categories of land situate in village Mangolpur Kalan as on 24.10.1961. It is thus clear that except for village Mangolpur-Kalan in all other adjacent villages where lands were acquired through the same notification issued on 24.10.1961 for the same public purpose consistently the market value has been fixed at the same rate of Rs.7,000/- per bigha irrespective of classification of land as per the revenue records or the classification of land as was made by the Collector Land Acquisition in his awards.
11. From the record and other material brought to our notice, it is not possible to come to a different conclusion than the one that the potentiality of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was only for agriculture purposes with restrictions, which were attached for conversion of land use.
12. In Nand Ram and others v. The State of Haryana J.T. 2988 (4) S.C.260 Supreme Court held that when large extent of area is acquired by the same notification, it is necessary that each one is paid compensation at an uniform rate without any distinction except for special nature, if proved separately. Reliance placed by the claimants/appellants on the decision of this Court in Gianwati’s case (supra) decided by Shri S.R.Goel. Additional District Judge in LAC No.4/83 and in Gulzari Mal’s case (supra) is misconceived since no evidence was adduced before the reference court to show that the acquired land situate in village Rithala was in any manner comparable to the land situate at villages Dhaka or Dheerpur.In the absence of any such evidence about comparison, these awards will not be relevant in order to arrive at correct market value. Accordingly, we hold the claimants to be entitled to compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.7,000/- per bigha irrespective of classification of land recorded in the revenue records.
13. There is no material brought to our notice by the claimants in RFA No.455/89 to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the reference court on the amount of compensation for the fruits trees or of the well.
14. In some of the cases, the reference courts has not allowed interest under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation)Act, 1967. Claim is also for such interest.
15. Since there is difference of more than three years form the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 the claimants will also be entitled to simple interest calculated at the rate of 6% p.a. on the market value of land, as determined under Section 23 of the Act from the date of expiry of the period of three years to the date of tender of payment of compensation awarded by the Collector.
16. There is also dispute in these cases about the additional compensation payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Reference Court answered the references and passed the impugned awards after the cut off date of 31.4.1982, therefore, the claimants have prayed that in addition to the market value of land they will also be entitled to benefits as allowable under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.Needless to add that this point is now well settled by a decision of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in K.S.Paripooran v. State of Kerala and others inter alia holding that Section 23(1-A) providing for additional compensation is attracted in every case where reference was pending under Section 18 before the Court and is also payable in all those cases where the proceedings were pending and the award had not been made by the Collector on or before 30th April, 1982.
17. Consequently, all appeals stand disposed of by holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.7,000/- per bigha irrespective of the classification of land with proportionate costs of the appeals. Over and above the amount of compensation, the claimants will also be entitled to solarium at the rate of 30% on the market value of land, additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award or taking over of possession by the Collector, whichever is earlier, as per the ratio of decision in K.S.Parippoornan’s case (supra); interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of the one year form the date of the Collector taking over possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of payment; and interest under Section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 at the rate of 6% p.a. on the market value of the land, as determined by this Court from the date of expiry of period of three years of the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. to the date of tender or payment of compensation, which was awarded by the Collector. incase interest is held payable on solarium by the Supreme Court in the reference, which has been made in Kapur Chand Jain (dead) and others v. State Government of H.P. and others , the claimants will also be paid such interest.
18. Decree will be drawn up on the claimants/appellant’s making good deficiency in court fee, if any to the extent of the amount of compensation allowed, as per our judgment within a period of four weeks from today.