Delhi District Court
( Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Ranjana Doshi ) vs Union Of India on 19 November, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-04 (NORTH) : DELHI
LAC No. : 122/1/08 AWARD NO : 02/LAC/N/2005-06
VILLAGE : Burari, Delhi
In the matter of :
Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain
S/o late Sh. Jaggimal Jain
R/o 990, Kucha Natwa,
Chandni Chowk,
Delhi - 110006.
( Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Ranjana Doshi )
...Petitioner
Versus
1 Union of India
Through L.A.C. (North), Burari,
Kirpa Narain Marg, Delhi
2 Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
( Through Ld. Counsel Sh. A.C.Tiwari & Sh.S.S.Mittal )
...Respondents
Reference received on : 03.07.2008
Award reserved on : 19.11.2008
Award announced on : 19.11.2008
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 2 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. 2 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 on the grounds that the petitioner/ objector is owner and in cultivatory physical possession of agricultural land. The property of the petitioner is situated adjacent to proposed highway on one side and road on the other side. It is well situated at corner opposite to the Apex Public School which is very high value. The land under acquisition is a chahi land and being watered through a bore of tube-well and is being watered through pumping set of diesel and for flower, vegetables and other crops. The land yields three crops per year like Rabi, Kharif, Hari & procreates good income to the petitioner. In case, if Lal Dora is extended of village Abadi, the whole land will be covered within Lal Dora and the petitioner is entitled for the double land in lieu of it. The land of acquisition is also near to National Highway which is about 2 kms. On these grounds among others, the petitioner has filed this reference petition claiming Rs.25,000/- per sq. yard for the land. 3 4 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 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, proper, quite & reasonable. 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, 1954. The land in question was not surrounded by any 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. All other averments made in the reference petition except matter of record have been denied by UOI. Despite several opportunities given, DDA has not filed written statement, therefore, the right for filing of written statement by the counsel for DDA was closed.
45 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on 15.11.2008 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 6 Sh.Ashok Kumar Jain S/o late Sh.Jaggimal Jain/ petitioner has examined himself as PW1. PW1 has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. PW1, in his affidavit, has exhibited the documents as Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW1-A, Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4 & Mark-A. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the copy of the award in question as Ex.R-1, the photocopies of certified copies of registered sale deeds from Mark-A to Mark-C (certified copies of aforesaid sale deeds have already been placed and exhibited in similar leading reference i.e. in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal & Ors. Vs UOI & Anr).
7 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 8 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 5 before the LAC vide the diary No.404/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. 9 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 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 6 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 :
''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 7 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.''
10 The petitioner, in support of his case, has proved in evidence the documents i.e. tube well bill and installation charges bill as Ex.PW1/1 & Ex.PW1-A, photocopy of sale deed as Ex.PW1/2 (Original seen & returned), fard/ khasra girdawaries as Ex.PW1/3 and the copy 8 of the invoices for purchase of seeds & plantation as Ex.PW1/4. The respondents have not filed any document to prove on record that the land in question is not the agricultural land except relying upon the award in question and sale deeds. During cross examination, PW1 has denied the suggestion that the land in question was not the growing crops. However, it was volunteered by PW1 that the land in question is one of the best fertile land in Delhi according to the report given by the Horticulture Department. The petitioner has further filed and relied upon the photocopy of certified copy of judgment dt.14.07.2008 passed by this reference court in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal & Ors Vs. UOI as Mark-A. 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.
911 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 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. In view of the above judgments, the petitioner herein cannot be dis-entitled for enhancement in compensation of the land in question which is also situate in the same area, location and village i.e. Burari, Delhi. Therefore, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments for enhancement in compensation of the 10 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. These issues are answered accordingly.
RELIEF 12 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.116/19/2/2 (0-11), 22 (3-12) & 23 (4-16) total measuring 08 bighas 19 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 full share in the aforesaid land. 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 11 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 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 19.11.2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-04(NORTH)
DELHI
12
LAC No. 122/1/08
19.11.2008 (At 04.00 p.m.)
Present- Counsel for the parties
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-04(NORTH)/DELHI/19.11.2008