Delhi District Court
( Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Vijay Laxmi ) vs Union Of India on 24 December, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (NORTH)-04 : DELHI
LAC No. : 215/1/08 AWARD NO : 02/LAC/N/2005-06
Old No. : 93/1/08 VILLAGE : Burari, Delhi
In the matter of :
Sh. Vijender S/o Sh.Balraj @ Mam Raj Singh
R/o 363, village Jagatpur, Delhi
( Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Vijay Laxmi )
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India
to be served through
LAC (North), Delhi & Anr.
( Through Ld. Counsel Sh.A.C. Tiwari & Sh. S.S.Mittal )
...Respondents
AWARD REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1 Vide notification No.F.11(30)/2003/L&B/LA/6600 dt. 18.07.2003 U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act) followed by the declaration vide notification No.F.11(30)/03/L&B/LA/ 23254 dated 08.01.2004 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act, the land situate in the revenue estate of village Burari, Delhi as per statement U/sec. 19 of the LA Act was acquired by the Govt. for Development of Bio-Diversity Park Phase-II at Burari, Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requirements as provided under the Act, announced the award bearing No.02/LAC/N/2005-06 on 07.01.2006 and awarded the compensation @ Rs.15.70 lacs per acre (Category-A) and Rs.5.05 lacs per acre (Category-B) besides statutory benefits.
22 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioner herein filed petition U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value of the acquired land which was sent to the reference court.
3 In this reference petition, the petitioner has sought the enhancement of compensation that the petitioner was the recorded bhumidar in possession of the land bearing khasra nos.113/22 (4-09), 115/16 (4-11) & 17 (0-1) mentioned in Annexure-P-1 filed with the reference petition. The compensation assessed by the LAC is too low, unjust, arbitrary, without any reasonable basis and the same is not acceptable to the petitioner. The land of the petitioner at the time of issuance of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act was well connected with mettled roads from all sides and was having great potential value as residential & commercial site of the land on the grounds among others that the petitioner land is levelled land because all sorts of civic amenities such as electricity, water, road, bus service, telephone, school, college, etc were easily available to the land of the petitioner, therefore, the land of the petitioner had great potential being developed as a perfect residential and commercial site. The land of the petitioner is very close to number of developed residential colonies such as Dhirpur, Nirankari Colony, Sant Nagar, Mukherjee Nagar, Timarpur, Hardev Park, Milan Vihar, Jharoda Majra Burari, etc. The land of the petitioner is very fertile and gives three crops in a year i.e. two main crops of Rabi and Kharif & one crop of vegetables also which is sown during the intervening period of reaping Rabi crop and Kharif crop. The land of the 3 petitioner was never under river bed. The land of the petitioner has never been in Yamuna belt which is clearly indicated from the revenue records. During the consolidation proceedings of this very village, the standard value of the land as per consolidation rules was fixed at 12 annas for 1 bigha whereas the land which was in the river bed was assessed at 4 annas standard value. Therefore, it clearly indicates that the value of the land of the petitioner which was assessed at 12 annas was much better located than the lands which were in the river bed. The land of the petitioner was a perfect agricultural site and major portion of the land which is subject matter of acquisition was orchard and the lands were never subject to Aviliation - Deviolation and the same always remained levelled land and had been used for purposes of agriculture. The land of the petitioner was cultivable and was having proper source of irrigation and was being irrigated by boring pumps by installing diesel engines, wells and electric tube-wells. It is further stated that the land of the petitioner is very close and is at the intersection of village Jharoda Majra Burari and its boundaries are touching each other and it is just about one furlong away from village Dhirpur. Village Dhirpur is situated on the eastern/southern side of the lands of village Burari. The land of the petitioner is very close to road No.50 which is a National Highway. The land of the petitioner is approachable by mettled road from main ring road and is also well connected to the adjoining area of the mettled road and as such the entire area which has complete electrification is a fully developed and is perfect site for agricultural as well as commercial/ building site. Therefore, at the relevant time, the value of the land of the petitioner was not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard and the petitioner 4 claim the sum of Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard amount as compensation for the acquired land in this reference petition.
4 It is also stated that the LAC erred in placing the land acquired vide above award in two categories and erred in awarding Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for block-A and Rs.5,05,000/- for category-B. The categorisation of the land as done by the LAC is bad in law. However, all the lands which are subject matter of acquisition have a similar potential and consequently one market value ought to have been awarded for the entire land under acquisition. Moreover, the land of the petitioner was not subject to Aviliation - Deviolation and it was a levelled land which was being used for agricultural purposes. Further, the observation of the LAC as given in the award also indicates that the land of the petitioner was neither in the river bed nor was subject to Aviliation - Deviolation and the same was being used for agricultural purposes so the same ought to have been placed in A-category and ought to have been paid compensation at least Rs.15,70,000/- per acre (though not conceding Rs.15,70,000/- to be market value of the land at the time of initiation of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act). The another factor which goes to show that the categorisation as done by the LAC is bad in law is that during consolidation proceedings, the land of the petitioner was assessed at a standard value of 12 annas per bigha whereas, the lands which were in river bed or which were subject to Aviliation - Deviolation were put in the standard value of 4 annas per bigha. The difference which has been maintained by consolidation authorities was due to quality of the land and due to the apparent fact of situation of the land is 5 in the category of 4 annas standard value, the land was in the river bed and in the other category of 12 annas was a perfect agricultural site not being in the river bed or not subject to Aviliation - Deviolation. This fact also finds support from the award itself where the LAC himself had visited the land under acquisition and has found that the land is not placed to Burdhi or Baramadi. Despite inspection, the LAC failed to place the land of the petitioner in A-category.
5 It is further stated that the LAC erred in fixing the market price of A-category and B-category lands on the basis of policy which was effective from 09.08.2001 meaning thereby that the Govt. was willing to pay as on 09.08.2001, the price of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre. According to the petitioner, it is undisputed that in the instant case, the notification u/sec. 4 was issued on 18.07.2003 and the petitioner was entitled to the market value as on 18.07.2003. The LAC erred in not fixing the price which was determined by the Govt. as on 09.08.2001 without giving any escalation for the period from 09.08.2001 to 18.07.2003. The LAC ought to have awarded at least 12% p.a. on Rs.15,70,000/- for arriving at the market value which was being offered by the Govt. On these grounds among others, the petitioner has filed this reference petition claiming Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard for the land along with statutory solatium & interest and also the other benefits besides cost of trees and super structures.
6 The UOI, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the ground that the petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed 6 on false, baseless, frivolous, concocted ground and the same is liable to the dismissed. The LAC has already assessed the correct market value of the land in question at the time of publication of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The value assessed by the LAC is just and proper. The petitioner has failed to furnish and supply any evidence in his favour in respect of the relief claimed in the present petition in respect of the notice issued by the LAC u/sec. 9 & 10 of the LA Act. The petitioner failed to submit any documentary proof regarding recorded owner in revenue record as such he has no locus standi to file the present claim/ compensation. The petition is not maintainable as the land in question is governed by the DLR Act. The land in question was developed or under developed colonies and was used for agricultural purpose only. There was no standing trees, boundary, wall, etc. on the land in question at the time of publication of the notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The correctness of khasra numbers, their area and the extent of the share of the petitioner therein have been admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished u/sec. 19 of the LA Act. The present petition is barred by the period of limitation. All other averments made in the reference petition except matter of record have been denied by UOI. Despite opportunities given, DDA has not filed written statement, therefore, right for filing of written statement by DDA was closed.
7 As no one was appearing in the proceedings of this reference, therefore, vide order dt. 19.08.2008, this reference petition u/sece. 18 of the LA Act was adjourned sine die. However, upon application u/sec. 7 151 CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner, this reference petition was revived to its original number vide order dt. 13.12.2008. 8 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on 22.12.2008 which are as under:
1 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act? Onus on parties.
2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 3 Relief
9 The counsel for the petitioner has tendered in evidence the photocopy of the certified copy of the judgment dt. 14.07.2008 passed by this reference court in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal & Ors. Vs UOI & Anr. as Mark-X. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the copy of the award no.2/LAC/N/2005-06 pertaining to village Burari, Delhi as Ex.R-1, photocopy of the registered sale deed registered dt. 21.01.2003 executed by Smt.Bimla Devi in favour of Sh.Birendra Yadav as Mark-A, photocopy of the certified copy of registered sale deed registered on 22.11.2003 executed by Sh.Ram Pal & Ors. in favour of Smt.Nisha Tyagi as Mark-B, photocopy of certified copy of registered sale deed registered on 02.01.2004 executed by Sh.Daya Nand & Ors. in favour of Smt.Shobha Tyagi as Mark-C and photocopy of certified copy of sale deed dt. 22.05.2003 vide regd. no.2380 in book no.1, volume no.765, pages from 162 to 171 as Mark-D (certified copies of the said sale deeds have already been exhibited in similar leading reference in LAC No.226/1/07 titled as Raj Bal & Ors. Vs UOI & Anr). 8 10 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire records. My issue-wise findings are as under: ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 11 Before deciding these issues, let us examine whether the reference petition has been filed by the petitioner within the limitation period. The award in question was announced on 07.01.2006 and the reference petition has been filed by the petitioner before the LAC vide the diary No.361/ADM/N on 17.02.2006. In this context, a reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs UOI 1988, RLR 224 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that bare knowledge of the award is not enough. Parties must have knowledge of the contents of the award. Further in Rajjan Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Panam project, Godhra and Ors AIR 1995 Gujrat 170, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that Collector has not merely to intimate parties about passing of award but he has to communicate essential contents of award, if not copy of award. The counsel for the respondents have not led any evidence on record that the essential contents of the award were communicated and the petitioner had constructive or actual knowledge of the award at the time of announcement of the award by the LAC and the reference petition is barred by limitation. Therefore, I hold that the reference petition has been filed within the period of limitation. 12 Now, I shall decide the issue nos.1 & 2. Both the issues are inter- connected and I shall decide both the issues together. The onus to prove 9 these issues is upon the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner has claimed for enhancement in compensation of the land in question on the aforesaid grounds mentioned in the reference petition which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It has been held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which is sought to be acquired by the government, situation, nature, potential/ user and neighbouring land, etc, is to be considered. In this context, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :
''The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes'' In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam Vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :10
''In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.'' In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1996) 2 SCC 152 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when on record there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself, then it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
''It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.''
13 The counsel for the petitioner, in support of her evidence, has relied upon the photocopy of the certified copy of the judgment 11 dt.14.07.2008 passed by this reference court in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal & Ors. Vs UOI which is Mark-X. The counsel for the respondents have proved in evidence the award in question as Ex.R-1, copies of sale deeds Mark-A to Mark-D. In Raj Bal case (supra), the land situate at village Burari, Delhi was acquired vide the same notification dt.18.07.2003 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act, whereby this court thoroughly considered the materials placed on record i.e. the sale deeds relied upon and the evidence led by the parties and held that the petitioners' land is the agricultural land and petitioners therein are entitled to uniform compensation for the land under acquisition at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre i.e. the rate assessed by the LAC for category-A land. It was further held by this reference court in Raj Bal case that the petitioners therein were also entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually on the compensation amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the land therein as per their shares from 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003 which roughly comes to the total enhanced compensation of Rs.19,20,568/- per acre (total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/- per acre - Rs.5,05,000/- per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/- per acre enhanced) as on 18.07.2003. 14 It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have held in catena of judgments that same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimants for similarly situated land, same date of notification and same purpose of acquisition of the land. In this context, I would rely upon some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court 12 of Delhi. In Nand Ram & Ors Vs State of Haryana JT 1988 (4) SC 260, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the state cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date. In Krapa Rangiah Vs Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (1982) 2 SCC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the selfsame notification for Housing Scheme it seems to us proper that the same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimant herein as was awarded by the High Court in Appeal No.50 of 1970. The Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted to the claimant by Rs. 2 per sq. yard. with consequential increase in solatium and interest. Therefore, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments for enhancement in compensation of the acquired land in dispute in this reference. Thus, the uniform compensation for the land in question is fixed at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre i.e. the rate assessed by the LAC for category-A land and compounded increase @ 11.5% annually is also given on the compensation amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the land in question from the date i.e. 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003 which roughly comes to the total enhanced compensation of Rs.19,20,568/- per acre (total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/- per acre - Rs.5,05,000/- per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/- per acre enhanced) as on 18.07.2003. Perusal of the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act reveals that the petitioner herein 13 son of Sh.Balraj has received the original compensation amount of the land in question according to his share. Therefore, the petitioner being one of the LRs of Sh.Balraj is entitled to enhancement in compensation of the land in question accordin to his share. The petitioner has not filed and led any evidence in support of his other claims i.e. trees and super structure, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the said claim. These issues are answered accordingly.
RELIEF 15 In view of my findings on the above issues, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for category A land at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre and the petitioner is also entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually from 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003. Therefore, I fix the market value of the land bearing khasra nos.113/22 (4-09), 115/16 (4-11) & 17 min (0-14) total measuring 09 bigha 14 biswas at Rs.19,20,568/- per acre as on 18.07.2003 (i.e. total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/- per acre - Rs.5,05,000/- per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/- per acre enhanced) as per the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act acquired vide the award no.2/2005-06. The petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid enhancement in compensation according to his share. Besides it, the petitioner shall also be entitled to get additional amount u/sec. 23 (1A) of LA Act @ 12% per annum on the said increase from the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall also get solatium u/sec. 23 (2) of LA Act @ 30% on the said increase in compensation and interest u/sec. 28 of LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the 14 date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation i.e. increase awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. The petitioner is further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex court titled Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. This reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioner within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 24.12.2008 ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE(NORTH)-04
DELHI
15
LAC No. 215/1/08
24.12.2008 (At 04.00 p.m.)
Present- None
Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioner within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ(NORTH)-04/DELHI/24.12.2008