Delhi District Court
M- _____/2016 vs Uoi & Anr. 1/19 on 6 August, 2016
M- _____/2016
in
LAC No. 73/10/07
06.08.2016
An application filed by petitioner under Section 152
read with Section 151 CPC for rectification of judgment and decree
dated 05.05.2016. It be checked and registered as Misc. Case.
Present: Sh. Amresh Anand, Counsel for the applicant/
petitioner.
Ld. Counsel submits that reference was filed by the
petitioner in the name and style of M/s. Structural Fabricators Pvt.
Ltd. However, during the pendency of petition, the petitioner
company was transferred to M/s. Anant Raj Projects Limited and
amalgamation was allowed by Hon'ble Company Court at Delhi
High Court. To this effect, an order was passed on 08.04.2010.
However, no amended memo of parties filed by petitioners due to
bonafide error. It is stated that M/s. Structural Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.
may be substituted with M/s. Anand Raj Projects and suitable
rectification may be carried out.
I have heard and perused the record. As per order
dated 08.04.2010, the petitioner was allowed to be substituted by
M/s. Anant Raj Projects Pvt. Ltd. But petitioner has not filed
amended memo of parties. I exercise powers under Section 152
and 151 CPC and rectify judgment to this effect. Only memo of
parties is corrected as per amended memo filed on record along
with the application. The corrected memo be typed in the judgment
and decree dated 05.05.2016. Corrected judgment be uploaded on
the Internet. Decree sheet also be amended/corrected suitably.
Application is decided accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sanjay Kumar)
ADJ-02,West/Delhi
06.08.2016
LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 1/19
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
(Corrected judgment in terms of order dated 06.08.2016)
LAC No.73/10/07
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0482862007
Area: DLF Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar,
Najafgarh Road, New Delhi
Award No.: 6/DC(W)04-05 dated 28.01.2005
M/s Anant Raj Projects Limited,
Regd. Office at ARA Centre,
E-2, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi ....Petitioners
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
To be served Through
Through Land Acquisition Collector (West),
Old Middle School Building,
Rampura, Lawrance Road, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
Through Chairman,
N.B.C.C. Place, Pragati Vihar,
Bhishma Pitamah Marg,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 24.04.2006
Date of reserving of judgment : 22.04.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.05.2016
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 3257 Sq. Meter under Section 4 of the Land LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 2/19 Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7(14) 2003/LA/ L & B /MRTS(W) /25040 dated 13.02.2004 also under Section 6 vide notification no. F.7(14) 2003/LA/ L & B /MRTS (W) /4011 dated 08.06.2004. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.7(14) 2003/LA/ L & B /MRTS (W) /4012 dated 08.06.2004. 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. 6/DC (W)/04- 05 dated 28.01.2005 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.19,660/- per square meter.
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
Sh. Pankaj Nakra (Director)
C/o M/s Structural Fabricators 1410 sq. mtrs Full Share
Pvt. Ltd.
67, Ind. Area Kirti Nagar
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 has been referred to the reference court.
LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 3/19
5. In brief the facts stated are that petitioner is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and Sh. Pankaj Nakra, one of the Directors has been authorized to sign, verify and file the present petition. It is stated that vide above award part of the property of the petitioner bearing No. 67, DLF Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, Najafgarh Road, Delhi has been acquired. The total area acquired out of property no. 67 is 1410 sqm. It is further stated that the petitioners were owners in possession of 1410 sq.mtrs. land forming part of property No. 67, DLF Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and even thereafter so the petitioners are the interested persons to file the present reference petition.
6. It is further stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector is too low, unjust, arbitrary, without any reasonable basis and the same is not acceptable to the petitioners, interalia, on the grounds as under:
7. It is stated that the property under acquisition is a part of big industrial plot situated on the main Patel Road. It is an admitted fact as per the award that the land under acquisition is an industrial property situated in Kirti Nagar and have residential, commercial activities in the vicinity. This fact alone makes it abundantly clear that the land in question had potential value as industrial as well as commercial site and all around in the vicinity the land is/was being used as industrial as well as for commercial purposes.
LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 4/19
8. It is stated that the Collector through has admitted the land to be the industrial property and having commercial potential has valued the same at the rate which was fixed by DDA for conversion charges. The conversion charges which have been application by DDA in the year 2003 can not be the actual price of the land. The conversion charges are charged by the authorities with regard to residential property or other properties are sought to be converted for the purposes of user. It is stated that conversion charges by no stretch of imagination could be the market value of the land. The market value of the land is where the land of an ordinary prudent person will be prepared to sell his property and a man of ordinary prudence is willing to purchase the same. The price which is falling between the two constitutes the market value. The market value of the land around the vicinity at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act was not less than Rs.2 lacs per sqm.
9. It is further stated that the property in question is situated on main Road having a great potential value as a perfect industrial site and was otherwise fit for any commercial activities. The land in question had a permitted use of industrial nature and has flatted factories. It is stated that the matter regarding user of the land which was earlier used for extensive industry came up from Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWP No. 467/1985 titled as 'M.C. Mehta vs. UOI' wherein it has been held that all plots which were earlier used to existing industries would be used only for light and service industry. As per the permissible use in Zone M (I) light and service industries the following are permissible; Hospitals, LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 5/19 Guest House, Boarding House, Lodging House, Storage House, Warehouse, Cold Storage, Ice Factory, Gas Godown, Cinema, Bus Depot and Workshop and Nursing Home, Auditorium, Nigh Shelter, Weekly market, Junk Yard, Motel Garage, Flattered group industry, railway freight godown, vocational training centre, R & D Centre, Museum, Exhibition Centre and Art Gallery. The DDA vide resolution dated 18.08.2001 as alleged, commercial usage of industrial plot on payment of certain charges. With this back ground the plot of the petitioners would be used for any of the purposes detailed herein above and all purposes are commercial in nature and could fetch a very decent income for the petitioners. Even otherwise the permissible user being absolutely commercial, will definitely fetch a better price.
10. It is stated that the land of the petitioner is well connected to various parts of Delhi, approachable by mettled roads from all sides, one side is Patel Road, the other side is Kirti Nagar Industrial area road, the third side is Rama Road and the other road is leading towards Moti Nagar Industrial Area. The land being situated in such a position has market potential and is of great commercial/industrial value. All sort of civic amenities such as electricity, water transport, telephone, bus service, sewerage, educational institutions etc. are easily available to the lands of the petitioners.
11. It is stated that the topography of the land which has been acquired is phenomenally exceptional within the close proximity of about 1 - ½/2 kms there are posh residential colonies like Patel nagar, Rajender Nagar, Rajendra Park, Rajendra Place, Karol Bagh, Pusha Road etc. on the LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 6/19 other side are the posh residential colonies of west Delhi like Rajouri Garden, Raja Garden, Kirti Nagar residential area, Bali Nagar etc. This being the topography, the land of the petitioner is of the highest value being on the perfect location and thus enjoys a great potential value.
12. It is further stated that the question regarding fixation of market rates of the property in the vicinity came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on various occasions and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in unambiguous terms held that 2-3 kms. Distance is of no consequence in relation to the properties situated in urban areas or in urban agglomeration as the properties are capable of fetching the same market value. Petitioner also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in LC Officers vs. Eluru & others Vs. Smt. Jasti Rohini & Others, 1995 Vol. I SCC 717.
13. It is further stated that the Collector has made no effort to find out the existing market rate in the vicinity. The award indicates only one sale deed which is no way can reflect the market value of the lands in the area. Petitioner also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Dev Nagri vs. P. Veera Bhadha Rappa & others 1984 Vol. 2 SCC 120.
14. It is further stated that considering all the facts and circumstances and other related matters relevant for affixation of the correct market value of the land, the value of the land of the petitioner at the relevant time was not less than Rs.2 lacs per sqm. and petitioner claims the same amount as compensation for its land.
LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 7/19
15. The petitioner prayed for enhanced compensation along with statutory solatium and interest.
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.
17. Respondent no.2/DMRC also filed written statement. Preliminary objection is taken to the effect that the petition is barred by limitation. On merits, the averments made in the reference petition are denied and it is stated that the Collector has considered conversion charge issued by the DDA, the schedule of rate for residential and commercial purposes circulated by the Department of Urban Development, ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment vide letter no. J-22011/4/95-LD dated 16.04.1999 and price paid within reasonable time frame in a bonafide transaction of LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 8/19 similar land possessing similar value. In addition to these, locational advantage of being situated on main road has been well borne in mind while assessing the market value to the tune of Rs.19660/- per sqm. It is stated that claimants did not supply and valid evidence regarding industrial land even on being asked by the Collector to provide supportive evidence to their claim. Even otherwise their evidences were not evaluated by credible government approved valuer.
18. It is further stated that the Collector has relied upon the best method of compensation assessment to achieve the market value of the property. The principle of evaluating similarly advantageous land in the proximity of time and place is the best one widely accepted in the judicial determination of the market value.
19. It is admitted that property under acquisition is situated on the main road and same has already been taken into account in the award passed by the Collector. The Collector has also taken into account the fact that there are residential as well as commercial activities in the vicinity. It is denied that the land is being used for industrial purposes. It is further stated that the conversion charge has been taken as only one dimension in the ascertainment of the true price as conversion charge is only Rs.17,870/- whereas the market price determined in the award is Rs.19,660/-. It is further stated that the structure were got valued by Govt. approved Valuers and duly vetted by PWD of GNCTD.
20. It is further stated that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is matter of record. It is submitted LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 9/19 that the Collector has taken into account the entire potential value but it is relevant to submit that the range of potential value cannot be extended to conjectural value. The immediate and proximate potentiality can be considered not the distant potentiality.
21. On the basis of pleadings, my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 21.02.2008 framed the following issues:
1. What was the market value of the land on the date of notification U/S 4 Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. What was the value of super structure raised by the petitioner? OPP
3. To what amount of enhancement in compensation the petitioners are entitled?
4. Relief.
22. In support of their case, petitioners examined PW1 Sh. Pankaj Nakra; PW2 Sh. Balkishan Chauhan and PW3 Sh. Anil Sarin. Thereafter, the petitioner evidence was closed vide court order dated 07.01.2016.
23. From the side of respondents, Sh. S.S. Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India tendered the copy of Award in question as Ex. R-1 and thereafter he closed the R/E. Sh. A.S. Rao, Law officer for respondent no. 2/DMRC filed the copy of judgment titled 'M/s. Sylvania & Laxman Ltd.
LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 10/19 vs. UOI & Anr.; decided by Sh. Ashwani Sarpal, Ld. ADJ, Delhi on 08.05.2009 as Ex. R-2. He further adopted the evidence led by respondent no.1/ Union of India and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.2/DMRC.
24. I have heard arguments on behalf of Sh. Rakesh Lakra, Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. S.S. Mittal, Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1 & 2:
25. Issue no. 1 & 2 are taken up simultaneously as both are interconnected. It is essential to scrutinize the evidence led by parties.
26. PW1 Sh. Pankaj Nakra, in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A, reiterated the facts stated in the petition and exhibited copy of Board Resolution dated 02.01.2005 as Ex. PW1/1.
27. In his cross-examination PW1 Sh. Pankaj Nakra admitted that their company has neither purchased or sold any piece of land at Kirti Nagar, Delhi. He did not remember whether the company has sent any letter to the LAC for participating in the proceedings of evaluating the property being initiated by approved valuer. He further deposed that he accompanied with the valuer when they have visited and initiated proceedings of valuation. On the spot a number of local property dealers have been called who had given the rate of the land to the valuer and one of the property dealer was Mr. Avinash and he is having his office in the same area.
LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 11/19
28. PW1 further deposed in his cross-examination that the distance between the Kirti Nagar and Moti Nagar Industrial Area is approximately 500 meter. The same is the distance between the Patel Road and Rama Road. He admitted that there is a residential area at the distance of ½ to 1 k.m. from the land in question. He further admitted that the word FAR is not mentioned in his reference petition. He further deposed that the company used to manufacture tanks on the land in question. The business was running for late more than 20 years. He cannot say whether the business was running in profit or loss. He has not put anything on record before LAC to show that industry have been relocated or any expenditure incurred on it. He did not remember when the construction on the aforesaid land was done where the industry was running. He did not remember whether he had submitted sale deed of similarly located property of that area before the LAC.
29. PW2 Sh. Balkishan Chauhan in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW2/A in deposed that he is a Building Supervisor/Estimator Valuer duly approved by Municipal Corporation of Delhi and he placed on record a copy of his License No. S-1098 as Ex. PW2/1. He further deposed that on the request of Mr. Pankaj Nakra, he personally went to inspect the property in question on 30.03.2003 to assess the market value of a portion of the property admeasuring 1410 sq. mtrs., which was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 13.02.2004. He further deposed that he accordingly assessed the prevailing rates of the said plot of land based on the information furnished/ document produced and on personal verification of the document and the inspection of LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 12/19 the site taking into consideration the factors that it was a free hold plot having a total area of 1410 sq. mtrs. Located on the main Patel Road; the area sought to be acquired by the Govt. of Delhi formed the front portion of the plot and was most valuable portion of the plot; the plot located on the Patel Road was situated opposite to Moti nagar market and is two sides open; the front portion of most of the Industrial Plots on Patel road & main Najafgarh Road were/are being used as commercial in that area and a number of show rooms were/are also located in the vicinity of the plot; the land rate fixed by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development vide their letter No. J22011/4/95-LD dated 16.04.1999 for commercial purposes for Patel Nagar was @ Rs.24,150/- per sq. mtrs. He further deposed that apart from taking into consideration above mentioned factor, I also made local enquiries regarding the prevailing market rates at the time of the Section 4 Notification from the local property dealers. He further deposed that after taking all the above factors into consideration, he assessed the value of the said plot of land @ Rs.2,25,000/- per sq. mtrs. as on the date of the said notification. His report is Ex. PW2/2.
30. In his cross-examination PW2 Sh. Balkishan Chauhan deposed that he had not given any notice to LAC to participate during inspection of the building for the purpose of valuation. He volunteered that manager of the petitioner company informed that he had already given such notice to LAC. He had not mentioned this fact in his report. He denied the suggestion that Manager had not informed him about sending the notice. He had seen the House Tax Receipt but no documents regarding purchase of building material was LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 13/19 shown to him. He had mentioned in his report the amount paid against House Tax but has not attached its copy with his report. He cannot tell what ratable value of the property was fixed by MCD. He assessed the market value of the property after seeing two sale deeds and making inquiries from some property dealers. He had referred those sale deeds in his report but the copy of the same is not attached. The copies of the sale deeds were already lying with him and was not supplied by the petitioner. He has not mentioned in his reports the copies of the sale deeds were lying with him. He admitted that sale deeds referred to in his report were neither executed nor registered in his presence nor the amount was given by the buyer to the seller in his presence. He has not checked the year of manufacturing of the bricks used for construction but assessed valuation on CPWD rates on the basis of plinth area. He not annexed the copy of CPWD rates along with his report. He has denied the suggestion that he had not gone at the spot or assessed the valuation and gave his report at the higher value at the instance of petitioner value. He had prepared draft notes at the time of inspection but the same are not attached with his report. He has denied all the suggestions put to him.
31. PW3 Sh. Anil Sarin in his affidavit of evidence Ex. P-3, reiterated the facts stated in the petition and exhibited copy of Board Resolution dated 04.05.2010 as Ex. PW3/1.
32. PW3 in his cross-examination deposed that he was authorized on behalf of the company to appear before Land Acquisition Officer during the proceedings of award in question. He volunteered that he was never asked to appear LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 14/19 before the LAC. He denied the suggestion that they were not the owner of the Structure Fabricator in the year 2004. He further deposed that on receipt of notice under Section 9 and 10 of the Act, he has not appeared before LAC but certain other Representatives of the petitioner company appeared before LAC. He denied the suggestion that since he has not appeared before LAC on receipt of notice under Section 9 & 10, hence he is not competent to disclose the then market value of the property in question. He can produce the authorization letter vide which he has been authorized by the petitioner company to appear before th LAC.
33. PW3 further deposed in his cross-examination that the representative of the plaintiff company has produced the report of the registered valuer qua the property in question before the LAC. No sale deed of the relevant period was produced before LAC. He has not produced any registered sale deed of year 2004 of any other property to show the market value of the property in the vicinity. He is relying upon valuation report Ex. PW3/3. He never worked for Johns Lank i.e. the valuer who has valued the property as per report Ex. PW3/3. But he has engaged them to value the property in this matter. He do not remember the exact date and month, however, he might have engaged them in the end of 2009. Ex. PW3/3 does not bear his signature. He has not placed on record any communication vide which the valuer M/s. Johns Lank were engaged by our company. He admitted that Ex. PW3/3 does not bear signature of valuer of its agent etc. Neither this report bears the seal or stamp of the valuer. He admitted that this report does not bear the signature of any person on behalf of the petitioner company.
LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 15/19 He volunteered that this is the practice of M/s. Johns Lank that they do not sign the valuation report. The Johns Lank Company does not disclose the name of the person who has exactly prepared the report. The report Ex. PW3/3 was duly forwarded by Managing Director of Strategic Consulting Group which is part of M/s Johns Lank. He does not have any documentary proof to show the Strategic Consulting group is part of M/s. Johns Lank. They have not issued any notice to LAC or other competent authority to inform them that the report Ex. PW3/3 is under preparation or has been prepared. The concerned officials of M/s. Johns Lank visited the spot in the last of year 2009. He does not know which of the officials of M/s. Johns Lank visited the spot. He admitted that the document Ex. PW3/4 is not legible. He visited the property qua sale deed Ex. PW3/2. He further admitted that the petitioner company has no concern with the property as mentioned in Ex. PW3/2 as neither it was buyer or seller. He has denied the suggestions put to him.
34. Let the testimonies of all three witnesses examined by the petitioner be examined. PW1 Sh. Pankaj Nakra is the Director of petitioner company and proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He only proved apart from affidavit the Board Resolution Ex. PW1/1. No document proved with regard to the deposition in the affidavit regarding the claimed market value by the PW1. In para 22 of the affidavit, conversion rates as notified by DDA were mentioned and also some conveyance deed of 'Gold Cause Construction Pvt. Ltd.' However, neither witness from DDA examined nor such registered conveyance deed filed on record. The testimony of PW1 has not supported with sufficient documentary evidence LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 16/19 that the market value is not less than Rs.2,25,000/-. The testimony of PW1 is silent on these important aspects.
35. Now coming to the testimony of PW2 Sh.Balkishan Chauhan, the Valuer examined by the petitioner. His testimony discussed herein above in detail. He is a civil Draftsman having Diploma of two years. He has no experience of construction of building and the knowledge of material used during the construction. He is simply a civil Draftsman, a Diploma Holder. He proved his report Ex. PW2/2, in which no specific date month or year has been mentioned when it was conducted and prepared. After going through the report, it is revealed that he had inspected the land in question on 30.03.2004. His report is based upon local inquiries and one sale deed of the year 2000 of Sh. Ashok Dang. However, neither copy nor original filed on record. There is no basis mentioned by him to arrive at the conclusion that the rate of the acquired land @ Rs.2,25,000/- per sq. meter. It is pertinent to mention here that the PW2 Sh. Balkishan Chauhan carried out the inspection ex-parte and no notice was given to any Government agency including LAC (West). This inspection has been conducted without joining the Opposite Party or without even informing it does not inspire any confidence and also liable to be rejected. The law is well settled in this regard in the case of Kalawati Devi vs. State of Haryana, 1996 (2) PLR 471. Moreover, the report Ex. PW2/2 is based upon the local inquiries and there is no basis proved on record, no expenditure information regarding construction cost and the value of the land. Therefore, the valuation report Ex. PW2/2 could not help in determining and arriving at the market value of the land or structure or other damages suffered.
LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 17/19
36. The petitioner further relied on testimony of PW3 Sh. Anil Sarin, who was authorized by the petitioner to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector. He proved his affidavit Ex. PW3/A, board resolution Ex. PW3/1, certified true copy of sale deed dated 17.06.2008 Ex. PW3/2, copy of valuation report Ex. PW3/3, documents pertaining to auction dated 30.07.2004 Ex. PW3/4. I have gone through the sale deed Ex. PW3/2. The sale deed pertains to year 2008. However, in the present reference petition the land in question acquired on 04.03.2003. Therefore, the sale deed of the year 2008 is not relevant to be looked into to determine the fair market value of the land in question. Neither of the parties produced and exhibited any sale deed of the same area of the adjoining area with regard to Section 4 notification dated 13.02.2004. Therefore, the fair market value cannot be determined on the basis of sale deed.
37. The valuation report Ex. PW3/3 prepared by Jhones Lang LaSalle Meghraj appointed by the petitioner himself. The valuation was carried out on 15.01.2010. The original report filed in the connected case. However, the complete report is not signed or seal put by alleged valuer company or valuer. It pertains to year 2010 after 6 years of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The report is also ex- parte report and at the time of inspection, no government agency or LAC was joined. Therefore, the report is liable to be rejected in view of the above discussion as per settled law in case of Kalawati Devi (Supra).
38. Now coming to the conveyance deed Ex. PW3/4. It is a Slum and JJ Department document regarding conversion.
LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 18/19 The original has not been proved. No witness examined from MCD. Although exhibit mark has been put on the document but it is not proved as per law. Therefore, it cannot be read and relied.
39. The parties have not proved any sale deed which indicate any market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 03.12.2004. However, Ex. R-2 is the judgment in the case of M/s. Sylvania & Laxman Ltd. vs. UOI & Another in LAC No. 127/09/06, decided on 08.05.2009 by Sh. A.K. Sarpal, Ld. ADJ, Delhi. The market value was fixed at Rs.26896.62 per sq. meter, thereby enhanced the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.7236.62 per sq. mtr. This judgment challenged before Hon'ble High Court. However, as per contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent, the same has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, in my considered opinion, as per well settled law in the case of Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India, 93 (2001) DLT 150, normally 12% appreciation per year is given by the courts keeping in viw the appreciation of the land value. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act notified on 13.02.2004. So there is a gap of around 12 months. In order to arrive at a fair market price, appreciation shall be given for 12 months @ 12% per annum. Hence, fair market value is Rs.30,124.21 per sq. meter. Petitioner is held entitled to the enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,464.21 per sq. meter only in respect of the acquired land. Accordingly, both the issues are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 19/19 ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
40. In view of my finding on issue no. 1 and 2 and additional issue, the petitioners are awarded compensation @ Rs.30,124.21 per sq. meter (Rupees thirty thousand one hundred twenty four and paisa twenty one only). The petitioners are thus entitled to enhancement to the tune of Rs.10,464.21 (Rupees ten thousand four hundred sixty four and paisa twenty one only) per sq. meter along with 30% solatium. Petitioners are also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification till the date of possession as per Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking over of possession of the land in question and 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the entire payment of compensation is made as per Section 28 of the Act.
41. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and deposit of balance amount immediately to avoid further burden upon the Government Exchequer.
41. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
43. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 5th May, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 05.05.2016 LAC No. 73/10/07 Anant Raj Projects Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 20/19