- (1.) CHILLA Saroda Bangar is now a part of East delhi. There is another small village in the said area known as Chilla Saroda Khader For development of the said area, several notifications were issued not only in respect of the aforementioned two villages but also villages known as Gharoli, Kondli and dallupura. Indisputably, lands of all these villages were subjected to acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act wherefor diverse notifications were issued from 1979 to 1987 land Acquisition proceedings were, however, initiated in respect of different villages separately.
(2.) AMOUNT of compensation awarded in respect of villages Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura were subject matters of some decisions before this court, namely, Karan Singh and Ors. v. Union of India [jt 1997 (8) SC 257 : 1997 (8) SCC 186] and Delhi Development Authority v. Bali ram Sharma and Ors. [jt 2006 (4) SC 422 : 2004 (6) SCC 533]. 2. 2 Before, however, we advert to the aforementioned decisions and some others, we would like to notice the basic details of these cases : JUDGEMENT_134_JT11_2009Html1.htm We may furthermore notice that in respect of lands situated in village Gharoli, the learned Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per Bigha. 3. 1 We may also notice the respective dates of the awards made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court, the High Court as also this Court in respect of the aforementioned four villages in the following comparative chart: JUDGEMENT_134_JT11_2009Html2.htm In Karan Singh (supra), this Court laid down the legal principles required to be applied in arriving at the market value of acquired land in awarding compensation to the claimants, stating "when a land is compulsorily acquired, what is basically required to be done for awarding compensation is to arrive at the market value of the land on the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act. The market value of a piece of land for determining compensation under section 23 of the Act would be the price at which the vendor and the vendee (buyer and seller)are willing to sell or purchase the land. The consideration in terms of price received for land under bona fide transaction on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act or a few days before or after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act generally shows the market value of the acquired land and the market value of the acquired land has to be assessed in terms of those transactions. The sale of land on or about the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act is stated to be the best piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. Often evidence on transaction of sale of land on or a few days before the notification under Section 4 is not available. In the absence of such evidence contemporaneous transactions in respect of lands which had similar advantages and disadvantages would be a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. In case the same is not also available, the other transaction of land having similar advantages nearer to the date of notification under Section 4 of the act would guide in determination of the market value of acquired land. In the present case, in the absence of evidence of any transaction or sale of land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the act. the Court would be justified in relying upon the transaction of sale of land having similar advantages nearerto the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act which can be taken as a guide for determining the market value of the acquired land and compensation to be awarded to the claimants. Thus the transaction of sale of land after the issue of notification under section 4 of the Act can guide the court in fixing the market value of the acquired lands under certain conditions. " 4. 1 Opining that a judgment rendered in respect of the lands similarly situated may be required to be taken into consideration as an instance or as one from which the market value of acquired land could be inferred or deduced, it was held that: "it is only the previous judgment of a court or an award which can be made the basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired land subject to party relying on such judgment to adduce evidence for showing that due regard being given to all attendant facts it could form the basis for fixing the market value of acquired land. " 4. 2 However, it was held that the judgment relied on therein was not relevant. 4. 3 In Karan Singh (supra), we have noticed hereinbefore, the High Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 76,500/- per bigha which was upheld by this Court.
(3.) IN Bali Ram Sharma (supra), Karan Singh was followed noticing that the same set of evidence had been adduced in both the matters. It was stated: "5. Having regard to the undisputed facts and the material placed on record and in the light of judgment of this Court in Karan singh case it is not possible for us to take a different view as regards market/value df the lands covered by the same notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Under these circumstances these appeals are entitled to succeed. They are accordingly allowed and the impugned judgments are modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 345 per sq yard (amounting to Rs. 3,45,000 per bigha) to rs. 76,550 per bigha. The impugned judgments stand modified accordingly so far they concern fixation of market value making it clear that the respondents are entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation as modified above. " We may also notice that a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Bedi Ram and Anr. [civil Appeal No. 4404 and 4403 of 2005 decided on 20. 7. 2005] disposed of appeals with respect to villages Dallupura and Kondli following of the judgment in Bali Ram Sharma (supra ).;