Delhi District Court
Sumangal Singh vs Union Of India on 10 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. UMED SINGH GREWAL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
WEST DISTRICT, DELHI.
LAC No. 96/12
New No. LAC - 13/16
CNR No. DLWT01-00010302012
1. Sumangal Singh
2. Niraj Kumar
Both S/o Late Sh. Randhir Singh
R/o H.No. 156, Village & Post Office-
Mundka, Delhi-110041
3. Ms Padmavati
D/o late Sh. Randhir Singh
R/o Permanent Address:304,
Nagin Lake Apartment,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110087
Present Address: D-49, first floor,
Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024
...Petitioners
versus
1. Union of India,
Through Land Acquisition Collector
(District West) Office at D.C. Office,
Rampura, Delhi-110035.
2. Delhi Jal Board
306, Varunalaya Building,
Jhandewalan II, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi.
.....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 19.10.2012
Date of reserving of judgment : 10.03.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10.03.2022
LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 1/12
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
Award No.: 04/DC(W)/2006-07 dated 04.12.2006
Area: Mundka
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi had acquired total land measuring 20 Bigha and 02 Biswa u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') vide notification no.F-10(35)/04/L&B/LA/786 dated 27.04.2006 and vide declaration made u/s 6 vide notification no. F.10 (35)/2004/L&B/LA/11519 dated 23.10.2006. The purpose and objective of acquisition was setting up Underground Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station at Village Mundka.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector') passed Award no. 04/DC(W)/2006-07 dated 04.12.2006 under Section 11 of said Act while determining the market value of the agriculture land under acquisition @ Rs. 17,58,400/- per acre for 'A' Category and @ Rs.14,31,670/- for 'B' Category land.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector, the petitioners are shown as recorded owners of the acquired land.
Item Name of recorded Khasra Total Details of
No. of owner & share No. Area in trees/
NM Bigha- Buildings/
Biswa Crops
3. Surender Singh S/o 108/10/ 3-13 As per Award
Randhir Singh (1/4th 11/1
share) 2-6
LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 2/12
4. Sumangal Singh S/o 109/6/1 1-14
Randhir Singh (1/4th 15/2 1-3
share) 9-16
5. Neeraj Kumar S/o
Randhir Singh (1/4th
share)
Note: Date of Possession is 04.03.2009
4. The petitioners have filed the reference under Section 18 of the said Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Collector.
5. In brief, the facts stated in the petition are that the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No.108//10 (3-13), 108//11/1 (2-6), 109//6/1(1-14) and 109//15/2(2-3) having 1/3rd share each and total area measuring 9 Bigha 16 Biswas situated at Village Mundka was acquired vide notification in question. They were not present at the time of announcement of Award and they did not receive any notice under Section 12 (2) of the said Act and, therefore, the present petition is within limitation as per law.
6. The petitioners have challenged the Award, inter alia, on the ground that the market value of the acquired land should have been assessed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. The collector failed to consider that the acquired land was situated adjoining to the main Rohtak Road, NH-10, Railway Station Mundka, Metro Station Mundka and such area had been declared by Government of Delhi as Industrial area. The collector failed to consider the factual facts, rulings, authorities, principles and did not apply proper method for determination of market value.
LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 3/12 The collector failed to consider that various amenities and facilities such as banks, namely, SBI, Co-operative Bank, Punjab National Bank and Corporation Bank etc. were situated in the vicinity of the acquired land. There were Farm Houses and Vatikas such as Abhinandan Vatika, Silver Oak Motel, Indraprastha Motel and many other approved farm houses near the acquired land which fact has also been overlooked.
7. The collector did not even consider that MTNL Exchange, biggest Timber Market, DMRC Corridor, educational facilities, government and private hospitals and Sport complex were situated near the acquired land. DDA was planning to set up a new urban township, namely, Lok Nayak Puram near village Bakkarwala and there was a District Sports School at Ghevra, Bottling Plant of Indian Oil Corporation and Azad Hind Gram had already been developed as tourist complex and all such aspects were never considered by the LAC.
The collector failed to take note of various sale transactions of the land in vicinity i.e. sale deed of Rs. 4,75,000/- executed by Balbir Singh s/o Sh. Sher Singh in favour of M/s. Nirmal Overseas Ltd. through its Directors Sh. Nirmala Aggarwal dated 05.08.1996 measuring 1 Bigha and 3 Biswas; sale deed of Rs. 4,80,000/- executed by Dharampal S/o Late Sh. Shodan in favour of Smt. Nirmal Aggarwal dated 12.11.1999 measuring 1 Bigha 4 Biswas and sale deed of Rs.10 lacs executed by Smt. Anita Dhingra w/o Sh. Ravinder Dhingra in favour of Sh. Amarjeet Singh Sawhney and Sh. Surender Singh dated 05.10.2004 in respect of land measuring 1 bigha and 17 Biwas.
They have also claimed that collector has wrongly shown their land in "B" category.
LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 4/12 They have sought the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.20,000/- per square yards and also that the land be treated as "A" category of land.
8. The respondent no.1 stated in preliminary objections of written statement that petition was not maintainable as it was based on false and fictitious grounds. It has been claimed that the Collector assessed the correct market value of the land in question at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the act. The correctness of Khasra numbers, their area and the extent of the share of the petitioners have been admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in the statement under Section 19 of the Act furnished by the revenue authorities. It is further stated that petition was not maintainable as the land in question was not surrounded by any developed colonies and was rather, it was used for agricultural purpose. It is also claimed that there was no standing tree, boundary, well etc. on the day of notification under Section 4 of the Act and that the LAC had correctly assessed the market value and, therefore, petition was liable to be dismissed.
9. Initially, the reference was filed impleading DDA as beneficiary party. However, during the proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by DDA disclosing that Delhi Jal Board was the beneficiary party. DDA was eventually deleted from the array of the parties and Delhi Jal Board was impleaded as respondent no.2 vide order dated 01.08.2013.
LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 5/12
10. Respondent no. 2/Delhi Jal Board filed written statement and claimed that the Collector, while making the Award, had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of sale deed of the adjoining land of the area as well as other documents which were made available/produced before him. The area of the land and other amenities/facilities were also taken into consideration and, therefore, reference was not justified and not maintainable. It has been asserted that awarded amount was adequate, sufficient, just and legal and the same was based on cogent and reliable evidence. It has also been claimed that reference petition was barred by limitation. According to DJB, the land in question is agricultural and is not surrounded by any developed colonies and the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and proper. On merits, all the averments made in the reference petition have been denied and it has been reiterated that the Collector had correctly assessed the market and thus petition be dismissed with costs.
11. The petitioners have not filed any replication to the written statements of the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2.
12. The following issues were framed by the court on 11.04.2014:-:
1. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
3. Relief.
LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 6/12
13. Sh. P.C. Tiwari, LDC from Land and Building Department, appeared as PW-1 and brought the record pertaining to fixation of minimum price of agricultural land in the union territory of Delhi, dated 30.08.2005 and 25.07.1997 as Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex.
PW-1/2 respectively.
Petitioner no. 2 Sh. Neeraj Kumar examined himself as PW2 and relied on judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi in LA Appeal No. 784/05 titled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Others' decided on 08.07.2011 as Ex. PW2/1 and photocopy of order dated 21.02.2012 in Contempt Petition No. 4115 of 2009 in case titled as Jayant Juneja Vs UOI as Mark D. Sh. Gaurav, LDC from the office of Sub-Registrar, Basai Darapur, appeared as PW-3 and brought the record pertaining to the sale deed executed by Smt. Anita Dhingra and Ors. in favour of Sh. Jagdish Singh pertaining to agricultural land comprising In Khasra No. 111/7 vide registration no. 24160, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 12057, pages 146 to 151 dated 20.10.2004 as Ex. PW- 3/1 (OSR).
14. Respondent no.1 tendered in evidence copy of the Award as Ex. R-1 and copies of three sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to R-4. The Counsel for UOI submitted that the certified copies of the said sale deeds were already filed in LAC 54/11 titled as Om Prakash Gupta Vs UOI on 11.07.2014.
15. On behalf of respondent no.2 Sh. R.K. Dahiya, Counsel for the respondents no.2 adopted the evidence tendered by Union of India.
LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 7/12 Findings on issues are as under:
ISSUES NO. 1 & 21. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
16. Both these issues are inter-connected and hence, are being taken up together.
17. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the fair market value of the land in question has already been determined by this Court in LAC No. 74/11 (New No. 186/16) titled as 'Randhir Singh vs. Union of India & Anr.' decided on 12.12.2018 pertaining to the same notification and same Award as in the present case. He has further referred the judgment of Apex Court titled 'Nand Ram vs. State of Haryana' 1988 (4) JT 260 and 'Goa Housing Board vs. Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar & Anr.' AIR 2012 SC 193. It is further submitted that the Apex Court has laid down the principle that for the land acquired under the same notification, same compensation shall be awarded to the land owners who are similarly situated under the same notification. Applying the same principle, he has argued that the petitioners are also entitled to the same fair market value of the acquired land i.e. Rs.25,99,110/- per acre for under Category 'A' and Rs.21,16,118/- for category B land.
LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 8/12
18. This court has considered the respective contentions of both the parties and gone through the afore-referred judgments of Apex Court. It is very evident and manifest that the present case is covered by the same award qua which a reference was received by this court and which was decided by this court on 12.12. 2018 in LAC No. 74/11 (New No. 186/16) titled as 'Randhir Singh vs. Union of India & Anr.' Therefore, applying the principles laid down in Nand Ram (Supra), the petitioners are entitled to the same compensation.
19. As regards aspect related to limitation, it has been claimed by the respondents that petition is not liable to be entertained as it was not filed within the required period. No issue in this regard was framed by the Court and it seems that therefore, the petitioners did not take this issue seriously. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the date of knowledge happens to be the date of dispossession and, therefore, present petition is within the time.
20. Period of limitation has been provided under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. In case any such petitioner was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, reference petition under Section 18 of said Act can be filed within six weeks from the date of the award. In other cases, such application can be made within six weeks of receipt of notice under Section 12 (2) of said Act or within six months from the date of the award, whichever period shall first expire. In the present case, there is nothing brought on record from the side of respondents to indicate that the petitioners were present or represented at the time when award was made. There is also nothing on record which may show that any notice under Section LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 9/12 12 (2) of said Act was sent by the Office of LAC (West) or for that matter received by the petitioners. Period of six months would also commence from the date of knowledge. In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, Apex Court has held that the expression "the date of the award"
used in proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act must be understood to mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. It was further held that it will be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of the Collector's award" used in the proviso to Section 18 in a literal or mechanical way. The petition was filed on 12.05..2009 before LAC, as per endorsement made on first page of the petition by the office of LAC. The award in question is dated 04.12.2006. Statement of u/s 19 of said act would clearly indicate that the possession of the land in question was taken on 04.03.2009 and the compensation amount was paid on 10.09.2010. Since date of possession was 04.03.2009, date of constructive knowledge is assumed to be 04.03.209 and, therefore, the present petition is within time.
It is nowhere mentioned in the body of the petition that the land of the petitioners was treated as 'B' Category land. It is mentioned only in the prayer that the land was considered as of 'B' Category wrongly. But PW-2 did not depose to that effect in his affidavit in evidence. Moreover, bare perusal of the award shows that only the land falling in Khasra No. 108//11/2 (2-06), 108//20/2(4-08) was treated as 'B' Category land as the same was not levelled one. The counsel for petitioners also submitted that the land was treated by the LAC in the award as 'A' Category land.
LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 10/12 ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
21. In view of findings on Issue nos. 1 and 2, the fair market value of the land under Category 'A' is determined @ Rs. 25,99,110/- (Rupees twenty five lacs ninety nine thousand one hundred ten only) per acre after enhancement @ Rs. 8,40,710/- (Rupees eight lacs forty thousands seven hundred ten only) per acre. Besides this the petitioners are also entitled to 30 % solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
22. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of said Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment. The petition was received on 19.10.2012 and now we are in the year 2022.
So, the petitioners will not be entitled to the interest for the period for which they are responsible for causing any delay. This be deciphered from the various proceedings/ order-sheets of this case and accordingly the calculation regarding the interest would be made by the Nazir after deducting the period for which the petitioner is found accountable for causing delay in the proceedings.
23. The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 11/12
24. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
25. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Petitioners have also prayed for further damages on several counts but has not been able to substantiate the same and, therefore, his such request stands declined, being not proved.
26. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) and Delhi Jal Board for information and necessary action.
27. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court UMED Digitally signed by UMED SINGH on this 10th day of March, 2022 SINGH Date: 2022.03.10 16:23:22 +0530 (UMED SINGH GREWAL) Addl. District Judge-02 West Distt: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi LAC No. 96/12 (New No.13/16) Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 12/12