Delhi District Court
Raj Kumar & Anr. vs . Uoi & Anr. Page 1 Of 13 on 5 November, 2018
LAC No.120/2016
IN THE COURT OF DR. AJAY GULATI, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
ROOM NO. 606, SAKET COURTS, SOUTH DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
In the matter of
LAC No.120/2016
Filing No.22474/2016
CNR No. DLST010007972016
1. Raj Kumar (Deceased)
Through its legal heirs:
i. Smt. Omwati
W/o Sh. Raj Kumar
ii. Neeraj Dagar
S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Dagar
Both:
R/o House No.212/B, Peer Wali Gali,
Village Maidangarhi, New Delhi
iii. Ms. Manju Dagar
W/o Sh. Surender Singh
R/o Village & Post Office
Dobodha Khurd, Distt. Jhajjar
Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Haryana
iv. Ms. Anju Devi
W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Singh
R/o S. S. Timber Mark Camp2,
Power House Near Shitla Mandir,
Bhilai, Chhattisgarh
v. Ms. Madhu Gulia
W/o Sh. Dilpat Gulia
R/o Village Darya Pur,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana
vi. Ms. Veena Sehrawat
W/o Sh. Ravinder Sehrawat
R/o 23B, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi
2. Jaswant Singh
S/o Sh. Late Patram
Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 1 of 13
LAC No.120/2016
R/o Village Maidangarhi,
New Delhi.
...................... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
Office at M. B. Road, Saket, New Delhi
2. Delhi Development Authority
Through its ViceChairman,
INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
.....................Respondents
Reference received on : 01.06.2016
Date of institution : 01.06.2016
Date on which order was reserved : 05.11.2018
Date of Award : 05.11.2018
AWARD
(by the court under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, 1894)
1. The present reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was received from the office of Land Acquisition Collector on an application moved by the petitioners, who have sought enhancement of the monetary award given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the assessment of the market value of the acquired land was done on the lower side without considering the relevant factors for Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 2 of 13 LAC No.120/2016 correctly assessing the market value of the land in question. The reference was received from the office of LAC (South) on 01.06.2016.
For answering the present reference petition, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act 25.11.1980 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act 18.06.1985 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act Nil
(iii) for Project Planned Development of Delhi
(iv) Location/Name of Village Maidangarhi (va)Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC 23/198788 & date of award 17.06.1987 (vb) Area under acquisitionin question 897504 (via) Petition referred to Court on 01.06.2016 (vib) Date of possession 16.07.1987
2. The present reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act pertains to the award announced by LAC, Delhi for acquisition of land situated in village Maidangarhi which was acquired for the public purpose of 'Planned Development of Delhi'. The land in question was acquired by the LAC vide award No.23/198788 dated 17.06.1987 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 25.11.1980 which was followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 18.06.1985.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC), after considering the relevant factors, gave its Award No.23/198788 by determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 3 of 13 LAC No.120/2016 @ Rs.16,000/ per bigha for land categorized as ClassA.; Rs.14,000/ per bigha for land categorized as ClassB; and Rs.12,000/ per bigha for land categorized as ClassC.
4. Since the petitioners did not accept the award, they preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference filed by the petitioners, along with statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 (giving details of the acquired area, date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, date of possession, rates of compensation, and the share of the petitioners in the acquired land) has been sent to this Court by the Land Acquisition Collector for answering the same.
PETITIONERS' CASE
5. Reference was forwarded by the LAC with the claim of the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners were the bhumidars and were in possession of the Khasra No.792/744/129 measuring 2 Bigha 12 Biswa situated in Village Maidangarhi, and were having 1/5th share each therein. They were not served with the notices under Section 9 & 10 or Section 12 (2) of the L. A. Act. It was only on 26.02.2015 i.e. when the payment of compensation awarded by LAC was tendered to them did they get to know about the acquisition proceedings.
6. The petitioners have prayed for grant of compensation to Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 4 of 13 LAC No.120/2016 the tune of Rs.5,000/ per sq. yd. It was averred that the petitioners had been using the acquired land for agricultural purposes. The land in question was surrounded by residential colonies and commercial complex and the same could be used for construction of buildings, industrial complex as well as for residential and commercial activities. It was averred that the land in question was wrongly categorized in different categories and the LAC had erred in assessing the market value of the acquired land without taking into consideration the prevailing market value of surrounding areas. Petitioners have thus prayed for grant of enhanced compensation for the acquired land.
RESPONDENTS' CASE On behalf of UOI/respondent No.1
7. In its Written Statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed the claim for enhancement in compensation by submitting that the petitioners have not brought any cogent and specific evidence on record for the same; that the present reference is barred by limitation; and that the Land Acquisition Collector has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. Respondent No.1, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present reference petition.
Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 5 of 13 LAC No.120/2016On behalf of the DDA/respondent No.2
8. DDA in its Written Statement submitted that the LAC had correctly and adequately assessed the market value of the land in question on the basis of relevant Sale Deeds of the adjoining lands and documents produced before him; and that the present reference is barred by limitation. On merits, the Reference claim was denied and prayer for dismissal of the same was made.
ISSUES
9. On 17.05.2017, following issues were framed for answering the present reference:
1. Whether petitioners' reference petition dated 30.05.2016 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is within the prescribed period of limitation? OPR No.2
2. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on Parties
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation for the acquired land?OPP
4. Relief Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 6 of 13 LAC No.120/2016 EVIDENCE ADDUCED On behalf of the petitioner
10. Petitioners, in order to prove their claim, examined petitioner No.1 Rajkumar as PW1, who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied on the certified copy of the judgment titled as Jot Ram (deceased) Thr. Legal Heirs & Ors. vs. UOI as Ex.PW1/1.
11. He deposed on the lines of the reference claim/application. During his cross examination, he submitted that the acquired land was used for agricultural purpose; that they used to sow crops, vegetables and wheat etc there; and that he could not produce the record of such operation as they did not maintain any record. He denied the suggestions that the land in question was not suitable for raising any construction or running commercial/ industrial units; that the land of Village Maindangarhi is low levelled; and that LAC had correctly assessed the market value in accordance with its location and potential value.
No other witness was examined on behalf of the petitioners.
On behalf of the respondents
12. In evidence, on behalf UOI/respondent No.1, statement of Sh. S. K. Puri, Learned counsel for UOI was recorded whereby he Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 7 of 13 LAC No.120/2016 exhibited the Award No.23/198788 dated 17.06.1987 of Village Maidan Garhi as Ex.R1.
13. On behalf of DDA/respondent No.2, Ms. Sudesh Sharma, Learned counsel for DDA adopted the evidence led by UOI.
No other witness was examined by the respondents.
FINDINGS
14. The Court gave a patient hearing to the arguments addressed on behalf of the respondents, and has also minutely gone through the pleadings on record and the evidence adduced.
15. After giving due consideration to all of the above, the issuewise findings are as follows:
ISSUE NO.1 Whether petitioners' reference petition dated 30.05.2016 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is within the prescribed period of limitation? OPR No.2
16. The onus to prove this issue was on Respondent No.2. Petitioners have claimed that they came to know of the passing of the Award only on 26.02.2015 when they received the Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 8 of 13 LAC No.120/2016 payment of compensation amount. They further claimed that no notices under Section 9 & 10 or Section 12 (2) of the L. A. Act were received by them. On the other hand, respondents, in order to prove this issue and to rebut the claim of the petitioners, did not lead any evidence. Learned counsel for the DDA/respondent neither brought on record any documentary proof nor addressed any argument in this regard. Even otherwise, perusal of the record i.e. statement under Section 19 of the L. A. Act also reveals that though the Award was passed on 17.06.1987, petitioners received the payment of compensation on 26.02.2015. Thus, only when petitioners came to know of the passing of the Award on being given compensation amount, application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act was moved on 13.04.2015 (the date endorsed on the reference by the LAC office), which is well within the period as stipulated under Section 18 (2) (b) of the L. A. Act i.e. within 6 months from the date of gaining knowledge of the Award. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners were present at the time of passing of Award or that petitioners had even constructive knowledge of the Award. The reference application having been moved within 6 months from the date of the knowledge of the Award, is within the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 9 of 13 LAC No.120/2016 ISSUE NO.2 & 32. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on Parties
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation for the acquired land?OPP
17. These issues are taken up together for discussion since they require common discussion.
18. Respondents, in their Written Statements, submitted that the LAC had correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land. However, apart from relying on the Award Ex.R1, no other documents have been proved by respondents in support of their assertion with regard to correct assessment of compensation by the LAC in regard to the land in question.
19. On the other hand, petitioners in their evidence, relied on the judgment dated 04.05.2016 in LAC No.5/2013 titled as Jot Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. passed by the then ADJ02, South as Ex.PW1/1 which also pertains to the Award in question i.e. of Village Maidan Garhi.
20. Consequently, since the judgment relied upon by the petitioners pertains to the same Award of Village Maidan Garhi, which is in question in the present Reference also, it squarely Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 10 of 13 LAC No.120/2016 covers the present reference.
21. The Learned Reference Court while passing the judgment Ex.PW1/1, placed reliance on the judgment passed in LAC No.263/2011 Krishan Kumar & Ors vs. UOI & Ors. whereby value of land of Village Maidangarhi as on 25.11.1980 (the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act) was fixed @ Rs.59,770/ per bigha and held petitioners to be entitled to compensation at the same rate i.e. Rs.59,770/.
22. It is important to highlight that the respondents did not offer any counter to the Reference Court award Ex.PW1/1 pertaining to the same village i.e. Village Maidan Garhi and pertaining to the same notifications under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as in the present reference petition. No evidence was led to show that the said judgment/award has been set aside or modified by the Hon'ble Higher Courts.
23. As already observed, in the judgment titled as Jot Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr., the Learned Reference Court assessed the correct market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, @ Rs.59,770/ per bigha. Consequently, the correct market value of acquired land in the present reference petition is also assessed at Rs.59,770/ per bigha, irrespective of the nature of land. Accordingly, the petitioners are held entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.59,770/ per bigha.
24. In view of the above discussions, both these issues are Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 11 of 13 LAC No.120/2016 decided in favour of the petitioners.
RELIEF
25. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners are held entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.59,770/ per bigha with respect to the land acquired as mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 alongwith 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 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 possession of land for period upto one year; and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period till the such amount is deposited in court as is required under Section 28 of the Act.
26. Further, petitioners are also held entitled to other benefits allowed in the Award passed by Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The compensation will be disbursed to petitioners as per the statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894.
27. The reference petition stands answered as above. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, South District, Delhi, for necessary information, action Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 12 of 13 LAC No.120/2016 and immediate compliance on his part for remitting of amount payable to the petitioners. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (AJAY GULATI)
COURT ON 05.11.2018 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 13 of
13