Delhi District Court
Shri Satbir Singh vs Land Acquisition Collector (N/W) on 10 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -1 + MACT (NW)
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
UID/CNR NO.DL NW-01-000382-2012
LAC No. 202/16 (New)
LAC No.1989A/12 (Old)
[Old Case: more than 7 years old]
IN RE :
1. Shri Satbir Singh,
2. Shri Sukhbir Singh, and
3. Shri Jagbir Singh,
All Sons of Late Shri Parmati,
R/o Village & PO Karala, Delhi-81.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. Land Acquisition Collector (N/W),
Kanjhawla (District North-West), Delhi.
2. Union of India
Through: Secretary, Land & Building
Vikas Bhawan, ITO, .
3. Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
........Respondents
Village Karala Notification U/S 4 of L. A Act. F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/20112 dt. 21.03.2003 Notification U/s 6 of L. A Act. F.11 (19)/2004/L&B/LA/28199 dt. 19.03.2004 Award No. 22/2005-06 Date of Announcement / Award 02-01-2006 Date of Receipt of Reference : 18.12.2012 First date before the undersigned: 18.09.2018 Date of Arguments : 26.10.2020 Date of Decision:10.11.2020 Appearance: Shri Subhash Sherawat, Ld. counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri S.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the Union of India.
Ms. Ravi Prabha, Ld. Counsel for DDA.
Shri Kunj Bihari, Kanoongo for LAC (N-W).
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Arguments in this case have been heard through Video Conferencing (Cisco
-Webex) JUDGMENT / AWARD (Under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)
1. This is a reference petition u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), filed by the petitioners Shri Satbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Jagbir Singh mentioned aforesaid for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (North-West) (hereinafter called 'the LAC' ) for acquisition of their land for public purpose.
2. Vide notification No. F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/20112 dt. 21.03.2003 under Section 4 and declaration bearing no. F.11 (19)/2004/L&B/LA/28199 dt. 19.03.2004 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, for land ad-measuring 3244 bighas and 15 biswa (including the land of the petitioners as detailed in the statement under Section 19 of the Act), situated in the revenue estate of village Karala, Delhi, was acquired by the Government for public purposes namely "for Rohini Residential Scheme under planned development of Delhi". The Land Acquisition Collector after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act, announced the Award bearing no.22 of 2005-06 dated 02.01.2006 of village Karala and awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre or Rs. 16,354.16/- per biswa for the entire acquired land in addition to solatium, additional amount and interests etc.
3. The petitioners Shri Satbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Shri Jagbir Singh have claimed to be the owners/Bhumidars in cultivatory possession of their respective share of 1/5th each of land under acquisition out of khasra no. 47//24/1 total 1 Bighas and 12 Biswas in land situated in the revenue estate of village Karala.
4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the market value determined by the LAC vide award no. 22/2005-06/DC(N-W) which was announced on 02-01-2006, challenged the said award on the grounds as detailed in the reference petition which are summarized as under: -
(i) That the Land Acquisition Collector has not adopted the correct method of valuation. The market value as assessed by Land Acquisition Collector is imaginary and based upon the Govt.
Policy. The market value of the acquired land and the market value of construction/structure cannot be so fixed on the basis of any such policy of the Govt.
(ii) The LAC should have taken into consideration the future
potentiality of the land and should have determined the market
value by keeping in view the market value as fixed by the
Govt. for allotment of residential plots.
(iii) That the DDA with the approval of Govt. of India, Ministry of
Urban Development had issued the guidelines, circular
showing the statement of market rates or charging unearned
increase for the colonies under the control of DDA
yearwise. The DDA has increased the rate of alternative plots from
Rs.750./- per square yards to Rs.4000/- square yards(approx.).
(iv) That the land of the petitioners is very fertile and leveled and
it gave 2-3 commercial crops in a year
and were yielding at high income to the petitioners and without any kind of depreciation or defect.
(v) That all kinds of civic amenities such as electricity,
metaled roads, general market, post office, transport
facilities, banking facility, hospitals, Engg. College, Schools,
Telephone Exchange, Nangloi Police Station,DSIDC Indl.
Area Bawana, Mangolpuri & Sultanpuri, Karala etc are there
and hence the potentiality of the village Karala is not correctly
assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
(vi) That many palatial farm houses in the close vicinity of
the revenue estate of the village Karala and its adjacent village
and the cost of land of such farm house is not less than Rs.40,000/-
per square yards which also increased the marketable value of the
land of the petitioners and the LAC has not assessed the
correct value of the standing trees.
(vii) That according to Chapter 3rd of the article 300 of Constitution
no person shall be deprived of their property saved by Authority of
Law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also interpreted this
article to the effect that when a person is deprived of his right then he should be compensated reasonable and if possible deprived person should be given an opportunity of being heard in deciding the price of the land.
(viii) That the LAC has not taken into consideration that relevant sale transactions/sale purchase of the land in the village of Karala and adjoining village itself. The LAC has ignored the future prospects and possibilities of fetching much higher price by the land and other well developed colonies and fully approved industrial areas, where the market value of the land is minimum of Rs.40,000/- per square yards.
(ix) That the petitioners were neither present nor represented
by the authorised person before the LAC when the LAC has
passed the award and the same has not been accepted as the
same is against the law and facts of the case.
(x) That the Market Value as assessed by the Land
Acquisition Collector based upon surmise and
conjunctures, otherwise should have been assessed
not below Rs.25,000/- per square yards which is the fare actual
value of the land on the
date of notification u/s 4(1) of he Land Acquisition Act.
(xi) That while passing the award, the Land Acquisition
Collector has erred in not awarding the sufficient
compensation for the loss sustained by the petitioners on
account of destruction of
sanding crops and trees.
5. The petitioners have prayed for enhancement in compensation already
granted by LAC for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per sq. yards and
Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha for loss and damages sustained by the petitioners while taking possession of the standing crops. They have also prayed for damages for Rs.1,00,000/- each for the value of boring and Structure, @ Rs.5,000/- per trees and Rs.50,000/- each for well. The petitioners have also prayed for alternate plot of reasonable size. The petitioners have further prayed for interest at the rate of 24% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation with effect from the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the L.A. Act, and also just and legal solatium alongwith cost of petition. The petitioners have prayed for appointment in Govt. Service from the family of Petitioners in lieu of acquisition of land.
6. The respondent no. 2/Union of India filed their WS thereby contesting the present petition. The respondent no. 1/ Union of India in their Written Statement has taken preliminary objections contending that the land has been acquired for the public purpose namely "for Rohini Residential Scheme under planned development of Delhi and notices under section 9 & 10 were issued to the land owners/interested persons inviting claims of the land and pursuant to that claims were filed by the affected persons claiming different value of the land and after considering all the claims of the land owners/interested parties, the LAC made and pronounced the award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, being Award No.22/2005-2006 on 18.11.2005. It has been contended in the preliminary objection that the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is sufficient and reasonable and it reflects the true market value prevailing at the time of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It has further been contended that the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute and the petitioners are not entitled for compensation in respect of any construction or structure which is raised without the sanction of law. However, it is submitted that at the time of issuance of section 4 notification there were no structures, tree, well on the land in question except mentioned in the award No.22/2005-2006 and the statement under section 19 under Land Acquisition Act, It has further been contended that the land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can be used for agricultural purposes only. It has further been contended that the Land Acquisition Collector in order to assess the fair market value of the land adopted the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for the agricultural land in Delhi as Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for the year 2001-2002 conveyed by the order No. F9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 dated 09.08.2001 which are applicable with effect from 01.04.2001. It has further been contended that the land owners/interested persons filed evidence in support of their claim which was exorbitantly high, however, the same was duly considered and since the same is without any merit or any documentary evidence, was rightly rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector.
On merits, the respondent no. 1/ Union of India denied the averments pleaded in the reference petition and asserted that the compensation has been legally and correctly assessed by the LAC as per the market value of the land in question prevailing at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4 of L.A. Act, considering all the facts such as existing location, surroundings, availabilities of Civic Amenities and other resources available. The Land compensation was calculated by the Land Acquisition Collector as per the prevailing norms at the time of acquisition and as per the demand placed by Land Acquisition collector, the compensation amount has already been paid to him. It has further been stated that the reference is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs and the petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement over and above the value assessed by the LAC.
7. Respondent No.3, DDA has filed Written Statement and in the written Statement, all averments have been denied as pleaded in the reference petition. It has been contended that the LAC while making Award No. 22 of 2005-06 relating to the village Karala, Delhi had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of 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. Moreover the area of the land and other appurtenances amenities/facilities were also taken into consideration while assessing the compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector and hence the reference under reply for enhancement of the amount of compensation is not justified and is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It has further been contended that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in the present case is adequate, sufficient, just and legal. Objection has also been taken with respect to the limitation that the present reference petition is barred by the period of limitation and is not maintainable. It has also been contended that the directions of L & B department, after announcement of award reference/request should be forwarded by LAC to the Ld. Court within 60 days from the date of filing of the reference. It has been contended that the present reference petition has not been forwarded to the Ld. Court within 60 days from the filing of the reference by the petitioners. Hence, DDA/beneficiary of land is not liable to pay interest, if any, for the delayed period. It has also been contended that since the petitioners are not admitted to be the owners/bhumidars with respect to the land in question and as such they have no locus standi to file the present petition for enhancement of compensation. On merits, it has been contended that the land in question situated in the revenue estate of village Karala, Delhi as detailed in the statement u/s 19 of the Land Acquisition Act which has been acquired vide award No.22 of 2005-06 and notification under section 4 has been issued F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA dt. 21.03.2003 Notification U/s 6 of L. A Act. Vide F.11 (19)/2004/L&B/LA dt. 19.03.2004 and physical possession of the land has been taken over by the Delhi Development Authority on 18.07.2007 from LAC/L&B and the same has been transferred to RPD.1 of the DDA on 18.07.2007. It has been denied that the compensation awarded to the petitioners is inadequate. It has been prayed that present petition be dismissed.
8. Respondent No.1 has not filed WS despite repeated opportunities.
9. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and documents filed on record, the following issues were framed by the court on 23.10.2013.
ISSUES.
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhancement in compensation, if so, to what extent ?
2. Relief.
10. In order to prove their case, the petitioners through their counsel have relied upon the evidence led by the petitioners in case bearing No.178/16 (new) and 1967A/12 (old) titled Pardeep Mathur Vs. Union of India & Anr. However, no specific separate additional evidence for enhancement of compensation has been led.
11. On the other hand, the respondent no. 2 i.e UOI has tendered the award dated 02.01.2006 passed by LAC as Ex.R-1 and also adopted the evidence led on behalf of Union of India in Pradeep Mathur case (supra) and has not led any separate evidence. The respondent No.3 DDA through its counsel has also adopted the evidence led by respondent No.2 i.e. Union of India. Respondent no.1 has not led any evidence.
12. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the entire record including the documents and the evidence led by the parties. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the same.
ISSUE NO. 1.: "Whether petitioner is entitled to the enhancement in compensation, if so, to what extent?"
13. During the perusal of the record, doubts have come in respect of the present reference petition being filed beyond the period of limitation as the award was made by the LAC on 02.01.2006 while the application for reference u/s 18 of Act was filed by the petitioners before LAC on 10.01.2007. The question being legal in nature, therefore, requires to be decided first. In any case, the entitlement to the enhancement in compensation as mentioned in the issue is imperatively the legal entitlement of the petitioners.
14. It may further be seen that the onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The onus of proving the aforesaid issue including other issues, has not been specifically mentioned at the time of framing of issues, however, since the present petition is a reference petition u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the onus ought to have automatically fallen upon the petitioners. Even otherwise, it is settled proposition of law that the onus to prove the market value of the acquired land or inadequacy of compensation awarded by LAC is always upon the petitioners. The aforesaid proposition of law has been authoritatively held by our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP & Anr Vs. Rajender Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1564 as under:
"The onus is on the petitioners to prove that their lands are capable of fetching higher compensation then what has been determined by the LAC and that he is entitled for enhanced compensation".
15. The petitioners have averred in this petition that award was announced in their absence and they were neither present nor representate by authorized person when the LAC has passed the award. However, it may be seen that the petitioners have not led any evidence on this aspect that the reference petition has been filed within the period of limitation as provided u/s 18 (2)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor they have stated in the witness box nor even confirmed on oath the averments made by them.
16. Ld. Counsel for petitioners Shri Sehrawat has vehemently argued that besides being absent at the time of passing of the award by LAC, no notice under section 12(2) of the Act has been served upon the petitioners. It has further been submitted that no intimation was ever given to the petitioners either regarding passing of the award by LAC. He has further argued that though the petitioners have preferred their claim u/s 9 (2) of the Act, but the same is in response to the statutory notice u/s 9(1) of the Act and has no co-relation with the limitation as stipulated under section 18(2) of the Act since the scheme of the Act requires, the presence of the interested person/petitioners at the time the collector made his award. He has further sought to rely upon the certified copies of the LAC file filed by him at the time of arguments with an application u/s 151 of CPC for considering the certified copies within the purview of section 114(e) and (f) read with section 79 and 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1961 SC 1500 Raja Harish Chander Raj Singh Vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Ors, reiterated by the Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 10039/2016 Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Union of India, Ld. Counsel for petitioners had stated that "the date of the award" under proviso to section 18 of the Act shall be the date on which the award was communicated or made known to the owners or interested person actually or constructively. He has argued that at best the date of knowledge or the date of constructive knowledge in this case shall be the date on which the possession of the land of the petitioners was taken which is 25.07.2006 and the petition being filed on 10.01.2007 well within the period of 6 months as stipulated under proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act. He has finally argued that the compensation has been accepted by the petitioners under protest and the application for reference u/s 18 of the Act being filed within limitation, the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation.
17. Ld. Counsel for Respondent no.1 Shri Pandey has vehemently argued that the reference is blatantly time barred and the same is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the outset. He has further argued that the petitioners have filed the present reference on 10.01.2007 and the award in question was passed by the LAC on 02.01.2006. He has further argued that the possession of the land in question was taken by the LAC on 25.07.2006 and was delivered to the beneficiary on the very same day. He has further argued that the very fact the petitioners have filed the claim and their names are reflected as Entry No. 432 clearly reflects that the petitioners had full knowledge about the acquisition proceedings and they even participated in the proceedings before the LAC and as such they are required to file the claim within six weeks of the collector's award under proviso (a) to sub section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. He has further vehemently argued that judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioners in Shanti Devi (supra) and Harish Chander Raj Singh (supra) has no relevance to the facts of the present case as they operate on completely different facts. He has further argued that Section 9, 11, 12 and 18 of the Act are not mutually exclusive and the fact that the claim has been preferred u/s 9 of the Act by the petitioners should be considered as their presence at the time of enquiry and award by the collectors u/s 11 of the Act and consequently should be automatically read for the purpose of limitation laid down by u/s 18 of the Act. He has further argued that the petitioners should have filed the present reference petition either within 6 six weeks from the date of collector's award, if a person making a reference who was present or represented before the collector at the time when the award was made by LAC in terms of section 18 (2)(a) of LA Act, or should have been filed within 6 weeks of receipt of the notice from the collector u/s 12 (2) of LA Act or within the outer limit of 6 months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire and, therefore, the reference petition is clearly beyond limitation.
18. A careful perusal of the record, the arguments advanced and the law on the field raise an important legal aspect before the court in as much as the court has to examine the aspect of limitation for filing an application by an interested person for reference before the LAC as provided in the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, besides examining the scheme of the Act to understand the interplay of Section 9, 11 and 18 of the Act. This requires a little elucidation.
19. At the outset, the relevant extracts of Section 9, 11 and 18 are reproduced as under:-
"9. Notice to persons interested-(1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him.
(2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned(such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publications of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections(if any) to the measurement made under section 8. The Collector may, in any case, require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent."
"11. Enquiry and award by Collector-(1) On the day so fixed, or any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections(if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurement made under section 8, and into the value of the land (at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section(1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of-
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him;
[Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf;
Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.] "18. Reference to Court (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken.
Provided that every such application shall be made:-
(a) If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire".
20. A simple examination of these sections in the light of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts show that once the notification u/s 4 of the Act and the declaration u/s 6 of the Act for acquisition, land for public purpose ( or for a company) is made by the appropriate government through collector and the order for acquisition of land has been taken by the collector from the appropriate Government, he is mandatorily requires to give a public notice to all such interested on two aspects, one, informing the intention of the Government to take possession of the land and two, to enable all interested persons in such land to file their respective claim. This notice u/s 9 of the Act has to be an effective notice and is required to be given to all including occupier/known or person believed to have interest in the land. The section itself provide that even if the person is residing outside or elsewhere and has no agent then he has to be informed through post or his last known address of residence or place of business. The very purpose of this notice is to facilitate all the interested persons to approach the collector with their claims for the purpose of enquiry and the award which the collector is required to make u/s 11 of the Act. Further, once the enquiry concluded by the collector after consideration of not only the claims but all other relevant factors, he has to make an award clearly mentioning the true area of land, the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for restituting the affected person for acquisition of land and even the apportionment of said compensation amongst all the persons known or believe to have interest in the acquired land.
21. Section 18 of the Act, on the other hand provides a remedy in the form of a reference to the court of law for any objection as to measurement of land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of compensation among the person interested. The application for reference is required to be made in writing specifying the grounds on which objections to the award is taken. At the same time, the application in order to be a valid reference, is required to be made within the limitation period stipulated under the proviso to sub section 2 of Section 18 of the Act,. An additional requirement for making a valid application in case of inadequacy of compensation is either non-acceptance or acceptance under protest of the Award Amount(1997 9 SCC 710 Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Shiv Bhai). The Act clearly provides commencement of limitation from the moment award is made by the LAC. The conscious use of the phrase at the time when the collector made his award by the legislature in a statute reflect that for the purpose of limitation, it is not the enquiry but the moment of making the award by the LAC which is relevant. The legislature in his wisdom has thus provided mandatory issue of notice u/s 9 of the Act for the purpose of filing the claims by the interested person which is prior to initiation of enquiry proceedings by the LAC while the limitation commence at the time of making of the award which means at the time the enquiry is concluded or terminated by the LAC. Thus, Section 9 and 11 are closely co-related while limitation period prescribed under section 18 of the Act is totally different from the issuance of notice or participation of the interested person in the award proceedings. This position is further clarified by Section 12 of the Act, which provides the award of the collector to be final and conclusive as between the collector and the person interested in respect of area and value of the land and apportionment of the compensation among the person interested. The award of the collector is final irrespective of the fact that the interested person had appeared before the Collector or not. The law provides for the eventuality where the interested persons are not present at the time when the award was made by the collector by incorporating sub section 2 in Section 12 of the Act, where the collector requires to give and immediate notice of his award (not merely of the intention of the Government to acquire the land as provided under section 9 of the Act ) to such interested persons as were not present personally or by their representative when the award was made. In simple words, at the time of making the award the collector is required to specify who all were present (either personally or through representative) when the award was made, otherwise, he is required to give a notice u/s 12(2) of the Act to the interested person. It is this preposition of Section 12(2) which finds mention in proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act and lays down the commencement point for the purpose of limitation for making an application for reference before the collector.
22. Now adverting to limitation as provided under proviso to section 18(2) of the Act, The proviso provides two eventualities and three periods. Eventuality one when the applicant is present either personally or represented through his representative before the collector at the time when the collector made his award, the limitation for filing the application in such an eventuality is six weeks from the date of collector's award. Eventuality two when the applicant is not present (personally or through representative) at the time when the collector made his award. Now, this eventuality provides for two periods- First when the applicant has received a notice u/s 12(2) of the Act, in such case the limitation is six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice. And second when the applicant has not received a notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act, in such case the limitation for filing the application for reference is six months from the date of collector's award. Interestingly, the second eventuality also perceives a situation where a notice u/s 12(2) of the Act is received in a delayed time and provides for the period of six months from the date of award or six weeks from the date of award, if the notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act is received. In such case, the limitation shall commence from the date or the period which expires first.
23. It is settled preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the validity of a reference petition can only be decided by a Civil Court. Reliance placed on (1997) 9 SCC 710 Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Shiva Bhai. Further, Section 5 of Limitation Act has no application since the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is a complete code in itself and only Civil Court is competent to decide whether reference within a period prescribed by proviso to of Section 18 (2) of the Act. Reliance placed on (1996) 2 JT (SC) 278 titled Officer on Special Duty Vs. Shah Mani Lal Chandu Lal.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chander Raj Singh (supra) has held that the award of collector is not a decision but an offer of compensation on behalf of a Government to the owner of the property and it is not effective until it was communicated to the owner. The making of the award did not consist merely on the act of writing of the award or signing it or filing it in the office of Collector but it also involves the communication of the award to the owner either actually or constructively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in a case of Madan & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 06.12.2013 (Civil Appeal No.10813 of 2013) has held that "it will be a unreasonable to construe the words from the date of collector's award in proviso to section 18 in a literal or mechanical way.
25. Our own Hon'ble High Court in Shanti Devi (Supra) while discussing the aforesaid judgment has held that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and does not permit for application of general principle of law and even of the Limitation Act by the collector which has no power to condone the delay. It has succinctly held that the most fair reason construction of this proviso would the date of knowledge of the contents of the award which would enable the applicant to pursue his remedy like a common prudent man in accordance with law. It has further held that the limitation in the absence of material to show the presence of the applicant shall commence from the date, the party has constructive and/or actual knowledge of the information of award in regard to its essential features. Once the award has made and the parties have knowledge of its ingredient the time limit on a realistic interpretation would commence from that date and expires on lapse of six months. In simple words, the date of collector's award must be a date on which the award is either communicated to or is made known to the interested persons actually or constructively. Reliance placed on AIR 2005 SC 3464 Purshottam Bhai Madan Bhai Patel Vs. State of Gujrat.
26. Applying the aforesaid discussion and preposition of law to the facts of the present case, it may be seen that the petitioners have made an application u/s 151 CPC for taking judicial note of the certificate copies of collector's file in respect of the land under question. Though the certified copies have been filed at a belated stage of the case, however, it may be seen that the same are relevant for the purpose of the present determination and do not require to be proved in view of the presumption laid down u/s 79 of the Indian Evidence Act read with section 114(e) and (f) and can be considered for the purpose of present reference for dispensation of justice to the parties. Admittedly, the petitioners have averred in the petition that they were neither present nor represented through authorised person before the LAC when the LAC has passed the award. The certified copies which contains the noting of LAC clearly shows that no presence was recorded by the collector at the time the award was made and has been written in the order that award has been announced in open court in presence of interested persons who chose to be present. Interestingly, no such reference for those persons chose to be present has been made by the LAC which is a mandatory requirement of Section 12 of the Act. This being the position taken on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioners were proved to be not present at the time of collector made an award taking them out of the purview of first eventuality referred to above and laid down in proviso to section 18(2) of the Act. Nothing has been shown on record by the respondent to prove that the petitioners were ever served with a notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act. Even, the internal notings of the file does not show any acknowledgment of any notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act being given to the petitioners. The respondents were required to prove the same in order to avail the benefit of taking the reference petition out of limitation. This leaves the court with two facts being proved, one that the petitioners were not present at the time of award and two notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act being not served upon them. Now how to calculate the commencement of the limitation in the present case. In view of the discussion held aforesaid and the settled preposition of law made by Hon'ble Supreme court in Raja Harish Chander (supra) and our own Hon'ble High Court in Shanti Devi (supra), the date of commencement of limitation shall be the date on which the award was made known to the petitioners either actually or constructively. Now the constructive knowledge can only be deciphered from the record on the basis of the Kabza Karyawahi (possession proceedings) on which the acquired land was possessed and handed over to the beneficiary DDA which according to the documents and the statement u/s 19 of the Act is 25.07.2006. The case of the petitioners is clearly covered within the purview of second period of second eventuality and therefore, the petitioners shall get a limitation period of six months from the aforesaid date i.e. 25.07.2006 which can only be taken to be the date of constructive knowledge of the petitioners. Nothing contrary to the aforesaid has even come on record to show that the petitioners have any prior knowledge of award. The petition has been filed on 10.01.2007 and is found well within the purview of limitation of six months. The reference is accordingly held to be a valid reference filed within a prescribed period of 6 months.
27. Now adverting to the entitlement to the enhanced compensation, in order to prove its case, the petitioners have adopted the evidence led in case Pradeep Mathur Vs. Union of India & Anr. LAC No. 178/16 (New), LAC No. 1967A/121 (Old). During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed in the aforementioned case on 01.10.2019 and has argued that the petitioner may also be awarded compensation as awarded to the petitioner in the aforementioned case.
28. Even, the respondents have also relied upon the evidence led by the respondents in the aforementioned case and no separate evidence has been led by them in the present case.
29. Since the fair market value of the land situated in village Karala and covered by the award-in-question has already been determined by this court and the petitioner as well as the respondents have relied upon the judgment dated 01.10.2019 in Pradeep Mathur's case (supra). Further, no separate evidence has been led by either parties. Thus, this court has no reason or evidence to deviate therefrom.
30. In the aforesaid case, this court had adjudicated the market value of land of village Karala acquired through Award No.22 of 2005-06 dated 02.01.2006 as Rs. 19,73,583/- per acre i.e. an enhancement of Rs.4,03,583/- per acre has been given. There is no evidence on record to gather that the land of the petitioner herein was in any way inferior to the land involved in Pradeep Mathur's Case. The petitioner is, accordingly entitled to the same compensation for the land as was awarded in Pradeep Mathur's case. Therefore, this court adjudicate the market value of land of the petitioner as Rs.19,73,583/- per acre thereby giving an enhancement of Rs.4,03,583/- per acre.
31. The petitioners have not led any evidence with respect to alleged damages of the growing crops and structures or other claims. Therefore, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any damages on the aforesaid counts. This issue is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 2 :- RELIEF
32. In view of the findings on Issue No.1, the petitioners are granted the following reliefs:-
1) Fair Market value of land of petitioners @
Rs.19,73,583/- per acre. An enhancement of
Rs.4,03,583/- per acre is accordingly accorded.
2) Additional amount @ 12% ( in terms of Section 23 (1A) of the Act).
3) Solatium @ 30% on the enhanced compensation ( in terms of S.23 (2) of the Act).
4) Interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the payment of enhanced compensation by LAC is made (in terms of Section 28 of the Act).
33. Reference petition is accordingly, answered with parties to bear their own respective costs.
34. File be consigned to Record Room after due completion.
Passed & announced in (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) open court today i.e. ADJ-1 + MACT (NW) DISTRICT: 10.11.2020 ROHINI: DELHI (PK)