Delhi District Court
Sh. Sahib Singh vs Uoi on 25 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1 (NORTHWEST):
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No. 472A/12
UID No.02404C0250532012
IN RE :
SH. SAHIB SINGH
S/O SH. MAUJI
R/O V.P.O. PAHLAD LPUR (BANGAR)
DELHI42
...... PETITIONER
V
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DISTT.
NORTHWEST, KANJHAWLA, DELHI.
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN
VIKAS SADAN, DELHI.
........RESPONDENTS
Award No. 14/200203
Village PREHLADPUR BANGER
Date of Award/ Date of
Announcement of Award 08.07.2002
Notification U/S 4 F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/11394
dated 27.10.99
Notification U/s 6 F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/20
dated 03.04.2000
Date of Receipt of Reference : 25.08.12
Date of Arguments : 25.03.14
Date of Decision: 25.03.14
LAC No.472A/12 Page 1 of 8
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
JUDGMENT
1. This is a reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation awarded vide award no. 14/0203 pertaining to the land as mentioned in the reference u/s 18 LA Act acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 27.10.1999; declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made on 03.04.2000 Award bearing no. 14/0203 was announced by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC") on 08.07.2002. The LAC determined the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.12.16 lac per acre or Rs. 253333.33 per bigha.
2. The petitioner has challenged the market value of the land determined by the LAC vide award no. 14/0203 mainly on following grounds : i. that LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation and the market value as assessed is imaginary and without any basis, whereas he should have determined market value considering the situation of the land;
ii. that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development had issued the guidelines circular showing the statement of market rates of the colonies is under control of DDA year wise for the year 1995. Such rates in Narela Township is more than Rs.15,000/ per sq. yards and land of petitioner is situated 23 miles away from Narela which increase the marketable value of the petitioner's land;
iii. that the land of village Pehladpur Banger has been acquired for the purpose of setting up residence /industries, Plots of different sizes for which government has already invited applications for citizens of Delhi and price of plots has been fixed for more than LAC No.472A/12 Page 2 of 8 Rs.5000/ (approx) per sq. yards;
iv. that LAC has not taken into consideration the relevant transactions/sale purchase of the land in village Pehladpur (Banger) itself;
v. that LAC has not taken into consideration the future prospects and possibilities of fetching much higher price by the land as it is in proximity of the biggest colony of Asia called 'Rohini', where the market value of the land is minimum Rs.10,000/ per sq. yards, though in some locations it is Rs.10,000/ to Rs.50,000/ per sq. yards;
vi. that LAC has not given any compensation for the damages done to the standing crops, petitioner has invested the a sum of Rs.1 lac per acre for crops, which should have been paid to him ; vii.that as a result of acquisition of land of the petitioner his land severed from other land which is also situated in the village Pehladpur Banger, due to which he suffered damage of Rs.1 lac.
3. The petitioner prayed the compensation as under: i. Rs.10,000/ per sq. yard, besides solatium @ 30%, interest @ 24% P.A., additional amount @ 20% on enhanced amount as per law with other statutory benefits;
ii. Rs.1000 per quintal for trees;
iii. Rs.1,00,000/ as severing charges;
iv. Rs.1,00,000/ for damages done
4. The respondent no.1/Union of India and respondent no.2/Delhi Development Authority contested the reference petition by filing their respective Written Statements.
5. In its written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI it is stated that at the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act there were no structures, tree, well on the land in question. It is further stated that compensation has been legally and strictly assessed by the LAC No.472A/12 Page 3 of 8 LAC and the same is adequate and just and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement in the compensation awarded by the LAC.
6. In WS of Respondent no. 2/DDA, it is stated that the Land Acquisition Collector while making Award No. 14/20022003 relating to village Pehladpur Bangar had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of the sale deeds of the adjoining lands of the area as well as other documents which were made available and produced before the Land Acquisition Collector. It is further stated that LAC has awarded the adequate, sufficient, just and legal compensation which is based on cogent and reliable evidence and hence there is no scope for enhancement of the compensation.
7. The counsel for petitioner admitted the statement u/s 19 of the Act. The following issues were framed :
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount?
2. Relief.
8. The petitioner has not led any evidence and only adopted the evidences led on behalf of petitioner in case titled Jai Pal Singh V UOI, LAC no. 180A/09 and closed PE.
9. The respondent no.1/UOI has not led any evidence and only tendered the award as Ex. R1 and adopted the evidence led on behalf of respondents in leading case Jaipal Singh Vs UOI, LAC No.180A/09 and closed RE. The LAC No.472A/12 Page 4 of 8 respondent no. 2 /DDA adopted the evidence led on behalf of UOI.
10. I have heard the final argument and perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1
11. Petitioner has contended that valuation of land determined by LAC is not reasonable as LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation. However, petitioner has not examined any witness to support his case for enhancement in compensation, but Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has tendered the evidence of Jai Pal Singh Vs. UOI LAC No. 180A/09 which was decided by my Ld. Predecessor on 11.07.2011. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that Jai Pal Singh Vs. UOI (Supra) pertained to the same village, same notifications and same award by which the land of the present petitioner is acquired. Hence, same market value of petitioner's land be determined.
12. On perusal of said judgment, I found that Ld. Predecessor had determined the market value @ Rs.12,85,628/ per acre. Relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
"Ld. counsel for the petitioner has contended that the LAC has not taken into account the location, potentiality of the land, that same is fit for residential/commercial purpose and is very closed to the developed area of Rohini Township where DDA has developed residential colony and commercial. He has further contended that from the award itself it is proved that land of village Pehladpur has been acquired for developing Phase IV, V of Rohini Residential Scheme. To prove the location of land Ld. Counsel has relied upon testimony of PW2 Sh. Prem Singh, Patwari who has proved Sizra of Village Alipur Ex.LAC No.472A/12 Page 5 of 8
PW2/1. PW2 has deposed that petitioner land is situated at a distance of one km from Rohini Sector 23,24,25. Delhi Engineering College is at a distance of one or one and half kms and Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar at a distance of 2 ½ km and 82 ½ fut vide road from village Samaipur of village Bawana passes through village Samaipur. No cross examination has been done on this respect. Hence, it is proved that petitioner's land has future potential to be used for residential or commercial purpose. But onus was on the petitioner to prove the potentiality of his land has not been considered by LAC. LAC has determined the market rate on the basis of Govt. policy dated 11.09.01 whereby Govt. determined minimum price of agricultural land @ Rs. 12.16 lac per acre for period 01.04.99 to 30.03.2000. Govt. determined minimum price of agricultural land on the report of expert committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the absence of any other evidence, adopting the govt. policy of minimum price of agricultural land is a wrong method. However, I am agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that land rates were increasing, which is evident from the Govt. policy Ex. PW4/1 to Ex. PW4/8. On perusal of the policy it is evident that Govt. vide policy dated 03.05.90 has determined the minimum market price of agricultural land @ Rs. 4.65 lac per acre from 27.04.90., Rs.10 lac per acre from 01.04.97 and Rs.11.20 lac from 01.04.98 and Rs.12.16 lac for period from 01.04.99 and Rs.13.82 lac from 01.04.2000. Therefore, considering these I am of the view that atleast petitioner is entitle to escalation for the intervening period from the date when the Government policy (become effective till the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 01.04.1999 to 27.10.99). But what should be the percentage of increase for intervening period? There are numerous judgment in this regard. In Karigowda case (Supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded 15 percent LAC No.472A/12 Page 6 of 8 enhancement for intervening period between 2 sale deeds. Recently in Chiranji Lal Vs. UOI LA Appeal no. 489/2008 decided on 02.06.2011, Hon'ble Justice Pardeep Nandrajog has while relying upon Partap Singh Vs. UOI LA Appeal No.193/2006 dated 19.12.08 has observed that till year 1996 the increase was 12% and thereafter 10% per annum. Considering all these judgment and the fact that gap between two notifications is just four month, I am of the view that it would be justified to give increase @ 10% for the intervening period between the date of government policy & notification u/s 4 of LA Act i.e. from 01.04.1999 to 27.10.1999 (209 days), which comes to Rs.1285628/ per acre (1216000 X 10 X 209/365 X 100 = 69628, 1216000+69628 = 1285628). Hence, I determine the market value @ Rs.1285628/ per acre thus giving enhancement of Rs.69628/ per acre. Besides this petitioner should be entitled to 12% additional amount u/s 23(1)A and 30% Solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act. He should also be entitle to 9% interest per annum as the enhancement compensation for the first year and thereafter 15% per annum till the realization of last enhanced compensation as per Section 28 of LA Act".
13. Since no evidence has been led by respondents to controvert the said judgment, therefore, I find no justification to differ from the judgment Jai Pal Singh Vs. UOI (supra). Hence, I determine the same market value @ Rs.12,85,628/ per acre thus getting an enhancement of Rs.69,628/ per acre.
14. The findings of issues no. 1 are as under:
i. Market value of the land as mentioned in the statement u/s 19 of the Act is fixed @ Rs.12,85,628/ per acre thus getting an enhancement of Rs.69,628/ per acre.
15. Besides this petitioner would be entitled to other statutory benefits i.e. LAC No.472A/12 Page 7 of 8 12% additional amount u/s 23(1A) and 30% Solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act. He is also entitled to 9% interest per annum on the enhanced compensation for the first year and thereafter 15% per annum till the realization of enhanced compensation as per Section 28 of LA Act.
Issue no. 1 decided accordingly.
16. Issue No. 2 - RELIEF i. Market value of the land as per statement u/s 19 LA Act is fixed @ Rs.12,85,628/ per acre thus getting an enhancement of Rs.69,628/ per acre.
ii. Additional amount u/s 23 (1A) of the Act @ 12% p.a. from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
iii. Solatium u/s 23(2) of the Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation;
iv. Interest under Section 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till payment.
17. The reference is disposed of accordingly. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after completing necessary formalities.
PASSED AND ANNOUNCED IN OPEN
COURT TODAY (MANISH GUPTA)
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1(NW)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
25.03.2014
LAC No.472A/12 Page 8 of 8