Delhi District Court
New Delhi Scotch Company Limited vs Union Of India on 23 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 25/10/06
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0605622006
Area: Tilak Nagar Industrial Area,
Minakshi Garden, New Delhi
Date of Notification u/s 4 : 09.10.2003
Date of Notification u/s 6 : 03.12.2003
Award No.: 12/DC(W)/2004-2005 dated 15.07.2004
New Delhi Scotch Company Limited
through its Managing Director
Sh. Sanjeev Jain,
C/o WZ-F-167, Uttam Nagar,
Near State Bank of India,
Delhi-110059. ....Petitioner
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
District West, Delhi.
2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar,
Bhishma Pitamah Marg,
Pragati Vihar,
New Delhi - 110053. .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 15.07.2006
Date of reserving of judgment : 06.02.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.02.2016
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 2686.56 Sq. meter (1515.66 + 1170.90) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 1/23 referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7(26)/2003/LA/L&B/MRTS (W)/ 11473 dated 09.10.2003 also under Section 6 vide notification no.
F.7(26)/2003/LA/L&B/MRTS (W)/20698 dated 03.12.2003. The land was notified under Section 17 (i) vide notification no. F7(26)/2003/LA/L&B/MRTS(W)/20699 dated 03.12.2003. The land was acquired for the purpose of Mass Rapid Transit System Project.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 12/2004-2005 dated 15.07.2004 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition 1515.66 sqm @ Rs.17,870/- per sqm. and 1170.90 sqm. @ Rs.10,569/- per sqm.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector petitioners were shown as recorded owner of the acquired land.
Sl. Entry Name of Field Total Share Kind Details of
No. No. petitioners No. area of Trees/
Bigha - soil Buildings
Biswa / Crops
New Delhi Scotch NIL NIL
Company Ltd., through
Managing Director
Sanjeev Jain
4. The petitioner filed the reference under Section 18 of the Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Land Acquisition Collector, West (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)' has been referred to the reference court.
LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 2/23
5. In brief, the facts are that the petitioner, New Delhi Scotch Company Limited is a company represented through its Managing Director Sh.Sanjeev Jain and was having its registered office at C/o WZ-167, Uttam Nagar, Near State Bank of India, Delhi-110059 and running/operating its business for the last more than three years from property no. WZ-101, Meenakshi Garden, Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject premises'). The total area in occupation and possession of the petitioner was 168 sq. feet on ground floor in the building. It is stated that the subject premises was an authorized and approved commercial building and the entire surrounding of the building is highly densed with commercial activities.
6. It is stated that the petitioner had taken the subject premises on a long term agreement. Thereafter, the petitioner made alteration/amendment according to necessity and spent huge amount. Till acquisition the subject premises was maintained with high quality material and all sort of modern amenities/fixture and fittings were procured.
7. It is further stated that the petitioner is engaged in the business of import of wine and was having five staf members. Petitioner company was running in huge profit. The petitioner is also maintaining the Accounts Book. The staf engaged in the petitioner were very experienced and petitioner was commanding good reputation, goodwill and clientele in the market and was having almost monopoly in its filed. The petitioner has Import-Export Code number of Ministry of Commerce, Government of India.
LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 3/23
8. It is further stated that the subject premises has been acquired vide above award and notice of acquisition under Section 6 of the Act was published after taking over the possession and demolition of the subject premises. The petitioner filed its objections and by its objections claimed that in case the Authorities acquire the premises then it be paid a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of goodwill, prestige and clientele; Rs.20,00,000/- towards damages to fittings and fixtures and for re-installation; Rs.5,00,000/- towards shifting expenses, connectivity and other ancillary and incidental expenses; Rs.2,00,00,000/- per annum as earning/gross profits which would be sufered by petitioner on account of loss of business. A writ petition with prayer to quash the acquisition proceedings has already been filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
9. It is further stated that as the premises was demolished before publication of notice under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector (West) awarded Rs.71,904/- for structure and nothing has been awarded for loss of business and other damages.
10. It is further stated that the subject premises was near to all wholesale markets of Delhi and being the single commercial market of West Delhi, the petitioner had number of customers from the surrounding areas. The subject premises was situated in very thick populated Abadi of Tilak Nagar. The entire area is fully developed area and was having all amenities/facilities of modern life like Electricity, Water, Telephone, Transport Schools, Colleges, Cinemas, Post Office, Hospitals and nursing Home etc. LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 4/23
11. The petitioner challenged the award, interalia, on the following grounds:
12. The Collector (West) has failed to consider that the premises was situated in heart of West Delhi and erred in fixing the market value of the land and structure at too low and inadequate rate. The Collector (West) has ignored the fact that the premises of the petitioner was an authorized and approved commercial premises and was surrounded all around by approved residential and commercial colonies much prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
13. The Collector (West) has failed to consider that the subject premise was situated in thick populated area in the wholesale market and the super structure raised by the petitioner was of high values. The valuation report submitted by petitioner was discarded without assigning reasons and valuation report of PWD was accepted unilaterally without assigning any reasons.
14. The Collector (West) has not considered the damages to be sufered by the petitioner on account of shifting of business and loss of goodwill, clientele, service of the staf and damages and loss of important documents as the building was demolished without publication of notice under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector (West) had also not correctly considered the amount to be spent by the petitioner on account of relocation of office, shifting expenses, installation of office equipments and other incidental expenses.
LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 5/23
15. It is prayed that petitioner be paid compensation amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards loss of goodwill, prestige and clientele; Rs.20,00,000/- towards damages of structure, installations, fittings and fixtures standing in the premises; Rs.5,00,000/- for relocation of office, shifting expenses, installation of office equipments and other incidental expenses; Rs.2,00,00,000/- per annum towards gross profit, loss of earnings due to suspension of business activities etc.; Rs.50,00,000/- towards actual damages sufered by the petitioner due to non publication of the notification before taking possession; exemplary costs of 20 times with 30% solatium.
16. Written Statement filed by Union of India, in which preliminary objections taken that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The land was occupied at the instance of DDA, which has also to make the payment for acquisition. The petitioner is not a recorded owner in the revenue record. The compensation has been assessed in the name of recorded owner as per revenue record. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can only be used for agriculture. There was no structure, treewell or tubewell on the land in question at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. On merits, all the averments in reference petition are denied. It is stated that the compensation has been legally and correctly assessed by the Collector (West) and the same is adequate and just. Therefore, reference petition may be dismissed. The petitioner is also not entitled to compensation for loss of earnings severance charges.
LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 6/23
17. Respondent no.2/DMRC also filed written statement and stated that New Delhi Scotch Company Limited has not been recorded owner/tenant of property in question. Property No. WZ-101, Meenakshi Garden, New Delhi comprised of 222.83 sq. mtr. of land owned by various persons. The petitioner has not placed any document on record to prove its title to the property in question. Respondent no.2 denied regarding the commercial activity or land in question. All the contents of the written statement and grounds are denied. It is stated that the petition may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
18. No rejoinder filed by petitioner to the written statement of both the respondents.
19. On the basis of pleadings, my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 29.01.2007 framed the following issues:
1. What is the right, share and interest of the petitioner in the acquired land?
2. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act?
3. To what enhancement in compensation, if any is the petitioner entitled?
4. Relief.
LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 7/23 Additional Issues framed on 13.01.2016:
(a). What damages, if any, sustained by the petitioner at the time collector's taking possession of land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his property, movable or immovable, in any other manner or its earnings? OPP
(b). Whether the petitioner is entitled for any damages bonafidely resulting from demuniation of profit between the time of publication of declaration U/s 6 of LA Act and the time of taking collectors possession of land? OPP
20. Petitioners in support of his case examined PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Managing Director of New Delhi Scotch Company Limited; PW2 Sh. Hari Dutt Kaushik, Kanoongo, LAC (West) office, Rampura; PW3 Sh. Rameshwar Dayal, Registered Architect; PW4 Sh. Sripat Singh, Foreign Trade Development Officer; PW5 Sh. Sandeep Maini, from HDFC Bank; PW6 Sh. G.C. Sardana, Head Clerk, L & B Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi; PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Dahiya, Executive, HDFC Bank. As per statement of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner evidence was closed vide order dated 19.08.2015.
21. Respondent no.1 - Union of India, as per statement of Sh. S.S. Mittal, Advocate tendered award no. 12/DC(W)/2004-2005 as Ex. R-1. Statement of Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer of respondent no.2/ DMRC tendered certified LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 8/23 copies of judgments dated 15.07.2008 in LAC No. 40/05 in case titled 'Khush Bakt Rai vs. UOI' decided by Sh. O.P. Gupta, Ld. ADJ as Ex. R2 - 1; judgment dated 15.07.2008 in LAC No. 50/05, titled 'M/s. Suri Brothers Vs. UOI' decided by Sh. O.P. Gupta, Ld. ADJ as Ex. R2 - 2; judgment dated 04.05.2009 in LAC No. 145/09 titled 'Harbans Singh vs. UOI' decided by Sh. Ashwani Sarpal, Ld. ADJ as Ex. R2 - 3 and judgment dated 19.04.2010 in LAC no. 80/09 titled 'Madan Lal Khurana vs. UOI' decided by Sh. Ashwani Sarpal, Ld. ADJ as Ex. R2 - 4. Thereafter, evidence was closed on behalf of respondent no.2/ DMRC.
22. I have heard Sh. I.S. Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. S.S. Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the Union of India and Sh. A. S. Rao, Law Officer of respondent no. 2/DMRC and also gone through the written submissions. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO. 123. The petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW1 and filed affidavit Ex. P1. He deposed that he had been running its business from the premises bearing no. WZ-101, Meenakshi Garden, Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the last more than 5 years from its acquisition. Petitioner was in possession of rented area of 168 sq. ft. on the ground floor. Rent was Rs.8,600/- per month for a period of 10 years and now he has taken the rented accommodation of similar nature in the same locality @ Rs.20,000/- per month and paying Rs.11,400/- per month up to December, 2007. He proved rent agreement Ex. PW1/2. In the cross-examination on this LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 9/23 aspect, he stated that no agreement was executed between his family members and his mother since 1981 to 1986. Petitioner admitted that the firm was under the tenancy of his mother. He denied that the agreement Ex. PW1/2 is false and has been prepared in order to create the evidence.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was legal tenant in respect of the acquired property. The agreement Ex. PW1/2 proved by the petitioner. The owner of the property is Smt. Sarla Devi Jain. Therefore, the petitioner has every right and interest in the acquired property. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that Ex. PW1/2 is a sham agreement and prepared only to get the compensation. It is an agreement between mother and son for 10 years and same is not registered. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that it is not a legal piece of evidence and not proved as per law. Therefore, it cannot be read as evidence in favour of the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioner has no interest or tenancy rights in respect of acquired land.
24. I have considered submissions of both the Counsels and perused the record. The right, title or interest arises legally on the basis of a relation of a party with the property in question. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of owner Smt. Sarla Devi Jain, who happens to be the mother of the petitioner Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Manging Director of New Delhi Scotch Company Limited. I have gone through the contents of Ex. PW1/2, it is notarized. As per the body of the agreement, it must have been of 01.08.1993 and then again extended on 29.08.1998 for 10 years. As per law, the agreement is mandatory to be registered and appropriate stamp duty has LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 10/23 to be paid by the parties. However, the agreement sufers from this deficiency and lacuna. Therefore, it is not proved as per law. Hence, it cannot be read as rent agreement in order to establish any interest or tenancy rights between the parties. Further more, the most important is that the best evidence would be the rent receipt of the paid rent by the petitioner to the landlady. However, no rent receipt filed on record to establish that petitioner firm used to pay rent as per their agreement. It is pertinent to mention her that in the absence of these documents, the best evident available to the petitioner is the oral deposition of the landlady Smt. Sarla Devi jain. The petitioner has not examined the landlady to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner is a limited company but no Board Resolution proved by PW1 regarding the authorization of entering into rent agreement for running its business since 1995 and then further rent agreement since 29.08.1998, whereas as per Ex. PW1/3, the petitioner company incorporated in the year 2001. Both documents are not in consonance with each other. The petitioner miserably failed to establish any tenancy relation with the acquired property in question. Hence, on the basis of above observations and discussion, issue no.1 is decided against the petitioner and in favour respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2 & 325. In view of finding on issue no.1 that petitioner has no right, share or interest in respect of acquired land and the fact that present reference petition filed by the petitioner firm is to claim compensation under Section 23 of the Act and there is no averment in the petition regarding the LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 11/23 determination of market value of the acquired land. Further more, no evidence led by the petitioner on these issues. Therefore, there is no occasion to determine the market value of the acquired land in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Further more, when petitioner is not the owner of the acquired land and has not claimed fair market value or determination of market value of the acquired land, then there is no question of enhancement of compensation as per Section 23 of the Act. Hence, on the basis of above observation and discussion, issue no. 2 and 3 also decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO. (a) & (b)
26. The onus of the issue is on the petitioner, who examined in total 7 witnesses as mentioned herein above. The vital witness is PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Managing Director of Company. In the affidavit, the petitioner stated that the company has been running New Delhi Scotch Company Limited at the acquired premises for last five years from the date of and carrying out business of imports exports, distribution of liquor and garments etc. and proved certificate of incorporation Ex. PW1/3. In the petition it is mentioned that business of import of wine has been carried out for more than 3 years whereas in the affidavit Ex.P1, it is stated that premises is taken on rent for a period of 10 years. Further, as per Ex. PW4/1, it was the year 2001. In the affidavit Ex. P1, he deposed that he has been carrying out business for the last more than 10 years. Further, he relied on rent agreement which shows that he was alleged to be tenant since 1993, then renewed the alleged rent agreement on 29.08.1998.
LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 12/23 Although it has already been observed that the rent agreement is not a legal evidence but for arguments sake, these three stands are contrary to each other. Further more, the witness examined by petitioner PW4 Sh. Sripat Singh, who proved Ex. PW4/1, a document issued by Foreign Trade Development Office and same has already been filed and exhibited as Ex. PW1/4 by the petitioner. According to this document, petitioner firm registered with this Department for carrying out import and export on 11.04.2001. As per law, it is essential to get registration for carrying out any import export business. It is pertinent to mention here that as per testimony of PW4, even this document is not proved as per law because original record has not been produced. PW1 and PW4, both filed photocopies of the said document. In the absence of original record, it is not proved as per Evidence Act. Therefore, it cannot be read and relied. However, the pleas of the petitioner are diferent on diferent occasions. They are contrary to each other. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove the business has been carried out by the petitioner at the acquired premises on the basis of inconsistent stand as discussed herein above.
27. The petitioner in para 5 of affidavit in evidence stated that petitioner firm had annual turn over of Rs.12,15,000/- for the financial year 2002-03 and imported consignment of scotch whiskey valued at Rs.2,40,000/- were kept with custom warehouse for marketing and proved Ex. PW1/4 invoice of UK Company and certificate of origin Ex. PW1/5 and photocopy of bill of entry Ex. PW1/6 and balance sheet of 2002-03 Ex. PW1/7. I have gone through Ex. PW1/4 to PW1/7. Ex. PW1/7 is a balance sheet prepared, typed and LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 13/23 signed by petitioner himself. When a company, who is dealing in crores of income is subject to proper accounting as per law of the land. The balance sheet has to be certified by a proper Chartered Accountant. The petitioner has not examined his Chartered Accountant to prove this balance sheet. Further more, he has not filed duly certified copies of books of accounts and also not produced original books of accounts to prove his actual turn over to the tune of Rs.12,15,000/-. The balance sheet Ex. PW1/7 is not admissible as legal evidence. The petitioner has not proved Ex. PW1/4, PW1/5 and PW1/6 on the basis of original documents. Therefore, cannot be read and relied. Therefore, petitioner failed to establish that his actual income is Rs.12,15,000/-.
28. The petitioner further deposed that he was issued authorized import export code number Ex. PW1/8 and registration cum membership certificate of Apparel Export Promotion Council Ex. PW1/10. However, no original documents proved. The photocopies cannot be read and relied as legal evidence. As discussed herein above, PW4 appeared in witness box but he has not proved Ex. PW4/1 as per law as no original file and documents in this regard produced from the concerned department. No original record shown by the petitioner, therefore, petitioner has not established that he was duly registered with Import Export Department. The petitioner further deposed that he had received orders worth Rs.10,00,00,000/- but loss the business due to acquisition to the worth of Rs.10,00,00,000/- and proved the statement of orders Ex. PW1/11. It is pertinent to mention here that this fact is not specifically pleaded in the petition. I have gone through the Ex. PW1/11. The Ex.
LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 14/23 PW1/11 is again prepared, typed and signed by the petitioner. There is no original order placed on record and proved, issued by the buyers of the petitioner. The petitioner further relied on certificate of appointment of distributorship for the year 2001 to 2003 Ex. PW1/12. However, no original record produced. The photocopy cannot be read and relied in these circumstances. No witness from the concerned company examined to authenticate the distributorship as alleged. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no mention of the person or the company from whom the alleged orders were received. Neither any buyer has been examined regarding giving advance orders nor any document pertaining to any order proved on record. Therefore, petitioner failed to establish that he sufered loss of Rs.10,00,00,000/-.
29. The petitioner claimed as per Ex. PW1/13 amount of Rs.1,53,478/- on account of retrenchment compensation paid to the employees. The petitioner relied on Ex. PW1/13. Again, it is prepared, typed and signed by the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that Ex. PW1/13 is contradictory to para 5 of the petition, wherein it was mentioned that only five staf members were working whereas now it shows seven employees. Therefore, this document is unbelievable. The petitioner has not produced the original books of account or any other original documents regarding the employment register or registration with any Government Department dealing with the employees or ESI record, salary register or extract of bank account showing the payment of salary for 7 years as claimed by the petitioner of business life at the premises prior to acquisition. Further more, under Section 23 of the Act, retrenchment compensation does not fall because LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 15/23 as per assertion of the petitioner that he has shifted to another premises in the same locality at a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. It means he must have employed most of the employees leaving aside those, the petitioner ought to have produced, as mentioned herein above, the relevant original record or witnesses to prove that 7 employees were employed by him. It is contrary to averment in the reference petition where number of employees mentioned as five. However, the petitioner failed to establish on the basis of Ex. PW1/13, the loss of retrenchment compensation to the tune of Rs.1,53,478/-.
30. The petitioner further claimed compensation of Rs.2 Crores due to loss of goodwill, prestige, clientele; Rs.3,22,700/- towards damage to furniture, fittings/fixtures; Rs.23,64,000/- on account of office equipments, computers, computer dates, EPABX, Air conditioners, account books and other accounts related to exports, office stationary and literature; Rs.5,00,000/- towards relocation expenses, connectivity and other ancillary and incidental expenses; Rs.94,00,000/- as profit and Rs.10,00,00,000/- as profit from the growth of business for the next ten years towards earnings as gross profits on the basis of Ex. PW1/14. I have gone through Ex. PW1/14. It is typed and signed on behalf of the petitioner. It mentioned only the address of manufacturer of whiskey situated at London, U.K. It does not contain any details of amounts at stated herein above. It cannot be believed and relied. The petitioner must have at least proved the letterhead or any correspondence with this buyer or any order or any correspondence or any transaction as per alleged five years business but nothing proved. It is a simple LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 16/23 typed paper, which cannot be relied and it also not proved as per law. Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish above mentioned losses.
31. The petitioner further claimed that a complaint was registered with the police Ex. PW1/16 regarding the demolition and damages of the goods. However, no witness from the police station examined by the petitioner. Even the contents are that one Ms. Renuka Jain lodged a report regarding theft and she stated regarding theft of household goods etc. It does not mention regarding petitioner's firm. The compliant is also not registered by petitioner firm. Therefore, it has no relevance. Although it is not proved as per law and Ex. PW1/16 is not admissible as legal evidence.
32. The petitioner further deposed that valuables like Laptop, computers, CDS, computer software, data and other records were lost and destroyed. He proved Ex. PW1/17. He further deposed that high quality fixtures and fittings were installed and same were destroyed in demolition and proved as Ex. PW1/18. I have gone through Ex. PW1/17, it is typed, prepared and signed by the petitioner. Similarly, Ex. PW1/18, the petitioner has not produced any original record to support his deposition with respect loss of valuables and goods as mentioned in these documents. There is no bill or photographs or any correspondence or any witness of the firm from where these goods must have been purchased, produced in the court. If the plea of petitioner is that during demolition everything got destroyed, then he must be having business relations with the vendors for a long time, then he could have examined those vendors to prove purchasing of LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 17/23 these articles on the basis of typed document Ex. PW1/17 and Ex. PW1/18, which is not admissible as per law. The petitioner failed to prove loss as mentioned in Ex. PW1/17 and Ex. PW1/18.
33. The petitioner further claimed compensation of export goods/ articles during demolition on the basis of Ex. PW1/19 to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-. I have gone through Ex.PW1/19. It is again typed paper signed by petitioner. In the petition, it is stated that company was dealing in import/ export of whiskey and garments. However, no supporting document filed or witness examined in this regard. The orders which must have been received, the petitioner ought to have again taken from the vendors to show that this much of stock was lying on the day of alleged demolition. However, nothing has been proved. Therefore, Ex. PW1/19 cannot be believed and relied. Therefore, petitioner failed to establish loss of Rs.50,00,000/-
34. The petitioner further deposed that damages, claimed by the petitioner of Rs.2 Crores towards goodwill, prestige and clientele; Rs.20,00,000/- towards damages to fittings and fixtures and damage for shifting the business; Rs.5,00,000/- towards relocation of office, connectivity and other ancillary and incidental expenses; Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards earning as gross profits and Rs.1,00,00,000/- for additional damages sufered for non publication of notification. Further, petitioner proved the site plan Ex. PW1/20 showing the area in his possession. However, as already held that he has not established and proved to be the tenant in the premises. Therefore, it has no value in the eyes of law.
LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 18/23
35. The petitioner further proved the valuation report Ex. PW1/21 by Valuer. In addition to it, petitioner examined PW3 Sh. Rameshwar Dayal, the Valuer. He also proved this valuation report Ex. PW1/21. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he had visited the property on 26 th / 27th November, 2003 i.e. one month prior to the day of acquisition of the property i.e. 23.12.2003. He admitted that he did not measure the premises personally. He further admitted that initially area was residential but later on converted into commercial. The year of construction informed by the petitioner was 2002. He further admitted that the petitioner approached him for assessing the value of disputed property. However, he denied the suggestion that the report is false. It is pertinent to mention here that in mid November, the petitioner himself approached the PW3 Sh.Rameshwar Dayal for assessing the valuation. It suggests that he has already the knowledge of acquisition, therefore, prepared himself from all corners. Therefore, it suggests that he must have taken all the steps to secure all his belongings and prepared himself for acquisition, which has to be followed on 23.12.2003. I have gone through the report Ex. PW1/21. PW3 admitted that the report is prepared on the instructions of the petitioner. The report has not mentioned what are the approved standards taken by valuer for determining the valuation of land, rent, cost of construction and other technical details on 06.12.2003. The notification of acquisition was in force since October, 2003 and for Metro Project. But the Valuer has not joined any official of land department for preparation of his report. He has not annexed the Government approved rates or any other authenticated government document which are the basis of his valuation LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 19/23 report. He has also not conducted joint inspection. The report is also not certified by any governed concerned official. It is prepared on the instructions of the petitioner, therefore, does not inspire confidence and it cannot be relied in the present circumstances being ex-parte report. The valuation report without associating the representative of LAC is liable to be rejected. It is supported by the judgment of 'Kalawati Devi vs. Haryana State' 1996 (2) PLR 471.
36. Now coming to Ex. PW1/23, which is a paper book, which was submitted by petitioner before the Collector (West). It is not averred in the petition and it is not mentioned when and how the Ex. PW1/23 was submitted before the Collector (West). Even in the affidavit, no date has been mentioned. It is also not pleaded and deposed the relevance of Ex. PW1/23. Therefore, Ex. PW1/23 is not at all relevant for deciding the issue in question. Further, the petitioner also proved one document Ex. PW1/A, which is the letter addressed to Smt. Sarla Devi Jain by MCD authorities. No original has been produced through the concerned department. No documents, which shows the relevance of this reply by MCD to Smt. Sarla Devi Jain filed on record. It is not clear in what context the MCD has written this letter. Photocopy cannot be proved by the petitioner, therefore, Ex. PW1/A is not a legal evidence and cannot be read and relied on behalf of the petitioner.
37. Another document proved by PW7 Sh. Vinod Kumar Dahiya is Ex. PW7/A, which is statement of account. However, it is mandatory as per law that statement of bank account shall be proved as per Bankers Books of Evidence LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 20/23 Act. However, Ex. PW7/A does not bear any certification by the bank official as per Bankers Books of Evidence Act. Therefore, Ex. PW7/A is also not read and relied on behalf of the petitioner. More so, this account is very recent to the acquisition about one year prior to it. Although the petitioner claimed that he has been running the business for the last more than 3 or 5 years from the date of acquisition in the petition and as per Import Export Department registered in 2001. In these inconsistent, incoherent pleas, Ex. PW7/A is also not a reliable legal piece of document.
38. The fundamental basis of claim of all the compensation is the loss and profit of the business activities of the petitioner. However, he has not examined any witness or produced any document of his business profit after shifting to the alternative premises as alleged by him. He has not filed any statement of account, statement of Income Tax Returns or any correspondence that any document of sale purchase or statement of bank account showing the transaction or payment of salary to the employed staf. He deposed that he has taken alternative premises at the monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- in the affidavit Ex. P1 but he has not averred in the petition. Therefore, it is an improvement. No agreement or rent receipt filed on record. There is no document filed on record showing that after acquisition, he has been carrying on business from the alleged alternative premises. Be that as it may, in the cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot tell the number of the premises taken on record and also admitted that he has not filed any rent receipt but he can produce. However, during whole trial, he failed to produce any rent receipt. Therefore, this plea is unbelievable and not established by the petitioner.
LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 21/23
39. The petitioner has not produced any documents for filing of Annual Returns with the Income Tax Department, which is mandatory, may be petitioner is exempted from Income Tax being Importer or Exporter.
40. It is pertinent to mention here that in the petition, it is specifically pleaded that Sh. Sanjeev Jain being the Managing Director of the petitioner company was empowered by the Board of Directors vide separate resolution to appear, file documents, depose and prosecute the present reference petition and engage Advocates. However, neither such resolution filed on record nor proved in evidence. Hence, the testimony of PW1 is sufered from legal lacuna. The contents of the petition and affidavit Ex. P1 filed by the petitioner and the documents, although observed not to be admissible as per law and proved by the petitioner.
41. Hence, on the basis of above observation and discussion, the petitioner miserably failed to prove and establish entitlement for compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards loss of goodwill, prestige and clientele; Rs.20,00,000/- towards damages of structure, installations, fittings and fixtures standing in the premises; Rs.5,00,000/- for relocation of office, shifting expenses, installation of office equipments and other incidental expenses; Rs.2,00,00,000/- per annum towards gross profit, loss of earnings due to suspension of business activities etc.; Rs.50,00,000/- towards actual damages sufered by the petitioner due to non publication of the notification before taking possession; exemplary costs of 20 times with 30% solatium.
LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 22/23
42. Therefore, there is not ground for enhancement of any compensation. Additional issues (a) and (b) are decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.
ISSUE NO.4 (RELIEF)
43. In view of my discussion on issue nos. 1 to 3 and additional issues no. (a) and (b), the petitioner is not entitled for enhancement of any compensation as prayed in the petition. The reference is answered accordingly.
44. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
45. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
46. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 23rd February, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 23.02.2016 LAC No. 25/10/06 New Delhi Scotch Company Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 23/23