Delhi District Court
Vedwati vs . Uoi & Anr. on 10 December, 2015
Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District, Room No. 602,
Sixth Floor, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi
In the matter of :
LAC No. 278/2011
Unique no. 02406C0167442011
Senior Citizen case
Shrimati Vedwati, w/o Sh. Bhule Ram,
R/o Village Aali, P.O. Badarpur, New Delhi. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
through Land Acquisition Collector,
South District, M B Road, Saket
New Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority
through its ViceChairman,
INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. ...Respondents
Reference received from LAC on : 06.07.2011
Date of institution : 07.07.2011
Decision reserved on : 09.12.2015
Date of decision : 10.12.2015
AWARD
(by the Court u/s 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) 1.1 (Introduction) - The petitioner is seeking enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of land acquired, while dissatisfied with the Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Whereas, respondents stand by the Award that amount determined is correct and it represents fair market price vis a vis the petitioner's reference petition is beyond the time prescribed.
For deciding the petitioner's reference petition u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894) read with statement u/s 19 of the Act sent by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act 06.04.1964
(ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act 07.12.1966
(iii) for Project Planned Development of Delhi (iv) Location/Name of Village Aali (va)Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC 206/8687 & date of award 19.9.1986 (vb) Area under acquisitionin question ( 2 bigha 5 biswas) (vc) date of possession 22.09.1986 (via) Date of reference petition to LAC 12.03.2010 (vib) Petition referred to Court on 06.07.2011 (vic) Date of statement U/s 19 of the Act 01.06.2011 1.2 Pursuant to preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894), followed by declarations u/s 6 of the Act, 1894, the Government acquired lands of Village Aali Delhi for Planned Development of Delhi for public purposes by said Award. The lands of petitioner was also acquired as mentioned in para 1.1 above, Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
{hereinafter referred as lands acquired} as per detail statement U/s 19 of the Act 1894. All concerned were heard, inclusive of the interested persons applied before Land Acquisition Collector and considering the location of land, the Land Acquisition Collector determined market value of land @ Rs. Rs.6,000/ per bigha. Whereas the petitioner claims compensation @ of Rs. 20,000/ per square yard besides other statutory benefits and claim of damage of super structure of Rs.5 lacs. Thereafter, the petitioner filed reference petition u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 against respondents, which has been referred to court, the statement U/s 19 of the Act forwarded contains detail of land acquired, share of the petitioner and that on 05.03.2010 of amount of compensation paid to the petitioner, with further remarks that the reference petition is beyond the prescribed time. Petitioner's case 2.1 Petitioner, being feeling aggrieved by the said Award, filed a reference petition u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 before Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petitioner is seeking enhancement in compensation. 2.2 The petitioner claims that the market value of the lands has not been correctly assessed & awarded in the impugned Award by LAC. The paragraph 4 of the application contains ground for dissatisfaction with the Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
award that LAC failed to consider them for determining fair market value and the value determined is too low to represent market value of land, the land is surrounded by posh and developed area as Ishwar Nagar, Jasola Vihar Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar, Mathura Road, Haldi Ram Restaurant, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, several other Group Housing Societies. The Collector failed to consider that there are all civic amenities and facilities of water, transport, electricity, road, hospitals, Railway Station, Bus Terminal, Post Office etc. available even prior to issue of notification. In the open market conditions the value of land is not less than Rs.20,000/ per square yards, which could be fetched from willing purchasers on the date of preliminary notification. The land was fully developed and there is no necessity of spending any amount for leveling the same. The petitioner's land is fit for residential, commercial as well as industrial purposes as per its location. However, the Collector failed to consider it and various transaction of land in Village Aali besides that adjacent rates are very high but the rates on the basis of policy by Govt of Delhi fixed for agricultural land were considered. The petitioner's land has great potentials value and there were crops, yielding high income to the family of petitioner.
Moreover as per article 300A of Constitution of India, when a Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
person is deprived of his right to the property, then he should be compensated reasonably and if possible deprived person should be given an opportunity of being heard in deciding the price of land. That is why the present petition.
UOI / Respondent No. 1's case 3.1 The respondent no. 1 had filed its written statement and opposed the reference petition that it is barred by time, being governed U/s 18(2) of the Act, the findings given by Collector in his Award is based on market value of the land, the compensation was just, adequate, sufficient and it was rightly assessed in accordance with the conditions prevailing at relevant time inclusive of location, surroundings, availability of civil amenities and other resources available, petitioner failed to bring on record any specific and cogent evidence to claim higher compensation. The fair and reasonable market value is always a question of fact depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case and onus of claiming higher compensation is always on the claimant, There is no scope for enhancement of compensation, hence petition deserves dismissal.
DDA / respondent no.2's case Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
3.2 The DDA has also opposed the petition. It is barred by time. The Collector had considered all aspects inclusive of sale deeds and documents filed or produced and then award was given, the amount awarded is adequate, sufficient, just and legal vis a vis it is based on cogent and reliable evidence. The land in question is governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954. The land was placed at the disposal of DDA on 22.09.1986 and it was transferred to SEDIII on 22.09.1986. The petition is frivolous and vexatious, it is liable to be dismissed as petitioner is not entitled for more compensation.
Issues 4.1 On 21.05.2013 issue no.1 was framed by ld. Predecessor and 29.09.2015 two other additional issues were framed by this reference court for determination:
1. Whether the reference forwarded before this court is within the period of limitation or not? Onus on parties.
2, What was the market value of acquired land on the date of preliminary notification dated 6.4.1964 u/s 4 of the Act 1894 pertaining to Award no. 206/198687 ? onus on parties
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement compensation? OPP
4. Relief.
Evidence .
4.2 In order to establish the issues the petitioner was given opportunity Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
to lead evidence and to prove her case. Petitioner by way of special Power of attorney (Ex PW1/1) appointed her son Sh. Anjay Kumar/PW1 as attorney, who entered into witness box as an exclusive witness. He tendered copy of judgment 27.11.2013 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sh. Mangla Ram Vs. UOI (Ex. PW1/4 that market value of land was determined as Rs.28,000/ per bigha on the date of preliminary notification of 06.04.1964 of Village Kotla Mahigram). He also tendered copy of judgment dated 21.04.2003, LAC 13/2000, Sh. Giasi Vs. UOI (Ex. PW1/2 of suppl. Award no. 6D/8687 of Village Jasola, to prove market value determined was Rs.28,000/ per bigha on 06.04.1964), copy of judgment dated 27.05.2015, Sh. Mawasi Vs. UOI (Ex. PW1/3 of Award no.205/8687 of Village Kotla Mahigram, to prove market value determined was Rs. 28,000/ per bigha on 06.04.1964), copy of judgment dated 24.02.2007, LAC no. 101/05, Vinod Kumar & others Vs UOI (Ex PW1/5 of suppl. Award no. 3/9798 of Village Aali, to prove market value determined was Rs.12,000/ per bigha on 06.04.1964) and reported judgment Hari Chand Vs UOI, 45 1991 DLT 61 (DB) to prove market value determined was Rs.21,000/ per bigha on 27.07.1973 in Village Aali). Then evidence is closed. 4.3 The respondent no. 1 through counsel Sh. S. K. Puri, Advocate has Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
tendered Award (now Ex. R1) and respondent no. 2 DDA through its counsel Sh. P. M. Bhatt, Advocate tendered the same Award in evidence . Then evidence was closed by the respondents.
Final Hearing
5. At the juncture of final hearing, Sh. Inder Singh, counsel for petitioner, Sh. S. K. Puri, counsel for UOI / respondent no.1 and Sh. P. M. Bhatt, Advocate for DDA/ respondent no.2 advanced their respective submissions.
Findings 6.1 The rival contentions are analyzed, assessed and considered in the light of material on record and evidence, precedent besides findings given in case law presented in evidence. Now the issues are taken. 6.2 Issue no.1 Whether the reference forwarded before this court is within the period of limitation or not? Onus on parties.
The onus to prove this issue no.1 is on the parties, but they maintain rival stand, as petitioner claims it is within time from the date of receipt of compensation vis a vis there was no notice to the petitioner and respondents compute the period from date of award and date of filing of petition, on the ground the petitioner was given notice U/s 9 and 12(2) of 1894 Act.
Section 18(2)(b) of 1894 Act prescribes period of six weeks from Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
receipt of notice from Collector [when petitioner is attending the proceeding or receipt of notice U/s 12(2)] or six months from the date of Award for filing reference petition. Moreover, notice of award means constructive notice in respect of contents of award. However, by analysis of their submissions and record, there is no proof by the respondents that petitioner was served with notice U/ss 9 or 12 of the Act 1894. For the purposes of proof of issue no.1, the respondent ought to prove specific date when petitioner had knowledge of contents of the Award, reliance is placed on Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs UOI, 1988(4) DRJ 221 and Parsottambhal Maganbhai Patel and others Vs State of Gujarat through Dy Collector, 2005 SCCR 801. The date of payment is 05.03.2010 as per statement U/s 19 of the Act and reference petition was filed on 12.03.2010 immediately before the Collector after receipt of amount. Thus, it is held that petition is within time, it is not beyond time, accordingly issue no.1 stand disposed off. 6.3 Issue no.2 and 3
2. What was the market value of acquired land on the date of preliminary notification dated 6.4.1964 u/s 4 of the Act 1894 pertaining to Award no.206/198687 ? onus on parties
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement compensation? OPP The onus to prove issue no. 2 lies on on both parties and onus to Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
prove issue no.3 is on the petitioner, both are taken together, since they are interconnected and common discussion is needed. On the one side the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount awarded in award Ex. R1 and on the other side respondents opposed the claim that Land Acquisition Collector has awarded the amount after considering, location, potentiality to use the land as well as other relevant factors while determining the market value of land and other aspects.
Both the sides have their reservations, however, petitioner has also relied various judgments to show trends in the nearby or adjacent areas and value of similar situated lands, particularly of judgment dated 24.2.2007, LAC no. 101/05, Vinod Kumar & others Vs UOI (Ex. PW1/5 of suppl. Award no.3/9798 of Village Aali, wherein market value was determined Rs.12,000/ per bigha on 06.04.1964), which in respect of determination of value of land of the same date of 06.04.1964 of notification in same Village and the same is to be considered for petitioner's land also. There is no contrary evidence by the respondents in this regard. It is also matter of record that both the notifications are of same date and lands are similarly placed lands. Thus, case of petitioner can be treated on parity with Vinod Kumar case (supra). Therefore, on 06.04.1964 the market value of Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
land was Rs. 12,000/ per bigha, whereas the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was @ Rs. 6,000/per bigha.
To say, petitioner has succeeded to establish issue no.1 in his favour that market value of land was Rs. 12,000/ per bigha on the date of preliminary notification and petitioner has also established issue no. 2 in her favour that she is entitled for compensation @ Rs. 12,000/ per bigha consequently amount @ Rs. 6,000/ per bigha stand enhanced. In view thereof, it is held that the respondents could not established issues in their favour and it is decided against them. Thus, the issue no. 2 and 3 are determined in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. Issue No. 4 - Relief 7.1 In view of the findings given on issues no. 1 to 3 above, the petitioner is held entitled for compensation @ Rs. 12,000/per bigha by enhancing the compensation from amount @ Rs. 6,000/ per bigha, which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of petitioner's land acquired (as detailed in the statement u/s of 19 of the Act, 1894); the compensation @ Rs. 6,000/ per bigha stand enhanced; besides 30% solatium under section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land, interest @ 12% per annum under section 23(1A) from the date of Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
notification upto the date of award by LAC; 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC or date of taking of possession, whichever is earlier; 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court (from the date of dispossession of land to date of deposit of excess amount in the court, for one year) and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in court.
8. The reference petition stand answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance for remittance of amount. File is consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today (Inder Jeet Singh ) on Thursday Agrahayana 19, Saka 1937 Additional District Judge02 (South), Saket / New Delhi /10.12.2015 Vedwati vs. UOI & Anr.
LAC no. 278/2011
10.12.2015
Present : Proxy counsel for petitioner.
Proxy for Sh. S.K. Puri, counsel for UOI/ respondent no. 1. Proxy for Sh. P.M. Bhatt, counsel for DDA/ respondent no. 2. It is judgment day today. Vide separate award by court announced today, the reference petition stand answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and compliance. File is consigned to record room.
(Inder Jeet Singh)
Addl. District Judge02 (South),
M Saket, New Delhi/ 10.12.2015