Delhi District Court
North East District vs . on 30 September, 2015
1
In the court of Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, Additional District Judge-1
North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Shri Gurvinder Singh
vs.
Union of India & Ors.
(LAC no. 60-A/11)
Award No.-------4/2004-05 (NE)
Village:----------Jhilmil Tahirpur
Date of institution--01-08-2011
Date of decision----30-09-2015
(Reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
************************************************
JUDGMENT:-
For the purpose of construction of grade separator cum road over bridge at G.T. Road, Shahdara, total land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Biswas in village Jhilmil Tahirpur was acquired on the basis of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act dated 17-01-2003. Land Acquisition Collector announced a formal award on 31-05-2004 and fixed the value of the land at Rs. 1,642/- per sq. meter. Separate compensation was awarded for structures as per PWD report. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 03.02.2004 before the date of passing of the award.
Petitioner was the owner in respect of 184 sq. meters of acquired land along with structures situated in Khasra no. 1080/389 (part). Petitioner being not satisfied with the compensation amount got his petition under section 18 of the Act referred to the court for enhancement of the same on various grounds. He described the 2 compensation amount as inadequate & unjustified and demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per sq. meter for land, Rs. 10,00,000/- for damages to the property and Rs. 5,00,000/- for loss of the earnings. Petitioner also stated that he was running a manufacturing unit from the acquired property.
In this matter, MCD was initially the party to the reference but when it was found that ultimate beneficiary was the PWD because MCD after acquisition handed over the acquired property to PWD, then PWD was impleaded later on and MCD was deleted. Respondents Union of India and Public Works Department contested the matter and described the awarded compensation amount as justified, correct and reasonable. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, my ld. Predecessor framed following issues vide order dated 15-03-2014;
1) What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any enhancement in the compensation as assessed by the LAC ? OPP
3) Relief.
In order to prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1 whereas on behalf of UOI, copy of award Ex. R-1 is relied upon. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. During arguments, it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that this case be decided in terms of the previous judgment of Chandra Pratap Singh vs Union of India and petitioner does not want anything else. It is 3 important to mention here that petitioner tendered in evidence the entire evidence and judgment of Chandra Pratap Singh's case on record to base his claim. My decision on above mentioned issues is as under;
Issues no. 1 and 2:-
Both these issues are required to be dealt with together. It is important to mention here that in the same village for metro railway project, land measuring 16 Bigha 16 Biswa was acquired vide notification dated 12-4-2006 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award bearing no. 2/2007-08 was passed and LAC assessed the compensation for land at Rs. 6,450/- per sq. meter. Owners of the acquired properties got their references forwarded to this court and vide order dated 24-5-2014, those references were decided by my ld. Predecessor. The main lead case was bearing LAC no. 1/2009 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh vs. UOI. This court enhanced the compensation amount for land from Rs. 6,450/- to Rs. 21,920/- per sq. meter. The owners of the acquired properties as well as UOI both challenged this decision in the Hon'ble High Court but appeals of both the parties were dismissed. It is informed that now SLP of UOI is pending in the Supreme Court but there is no stay. Petitioner in fact also relied upon the judgment of Chandra Pratap Singh's case to determine compensation in his matter by stating that he be granted compensation in accordance with the rates assessed in Chandra Pratap Singh's case because there is a gap of almost 39 months between the notifications u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of that matter and in this matter.
The relevant date to assess the market value of the acquired land in question is always taken as the day when the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued. The 4 notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present acquisition in question was issued on 17.01.2003 whereas such notification in case of Chandra Pratap Singh's matter was issued just after about 39 months on 12-4-2006.
If the case laws Bedi Ram vs. Union of India 93 (2001) DLT 150 and Rameshwar Solanki vs. Union Of India 57 (1995) DLT 410 are taken into consideration then normally 12% appreciation per year is given by the courts on proved sale deeds or established market rates etc. Hence, it can be said that when the market rate of the land as on 12-4-2006 in the same village is ascertained and finalized even by Hon'ble High Court due to decision in Chandra Pratap Singh's case, then by giving backward appreciation, market value of the land in the present case can be determined also for thirty nine months back as on 17-01-2003 when notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. This proposition was not strongly opposed by the counsel for the respondents and infact could not be rebutted.
I am of the view that market value of the acquired land in question can be easily determined by taking into consideration the market value of the land as fixed on 12-4-2006 even as per decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Chandra Pratap Singh's case and then by reducing this value by 39% due to gap of thirty nine months in the period of notifications. Accordingly, if 39% offloading/backward appreciation in respect of 39 months period is done upon Rs. 21,920/- (which is already determined market value of the land as on 12-4- 2006), then the market value on 09-02-2005 would come to Rs.
13,371.20 (21,920 - 8548.80) per sq. meter. Hence, the compensation amount in the present case for land can be enhanced to Rs. 13,372/- in round figure from the value of Rs. 1,642/- as determined by the 5 LAC in the award. Certainly, the market value assessed by the LAC in the award in question was wrong and highly undervalued.
In the reference petition, petitioner has claimed some other compensations also towards loss of business etc, but no sufficient evidence is led on the same and even otherwise the same is not pressed during submissions made. Hence, petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of the acquired land in question only.
Accordingly, these two issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Petitioner is held entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,372/- per sq. meter only in respect of land.
Issue no. 3 (Relief):-
In view of above discussions, reference is disposed off by holding that compensation awarded at Rs. 1,642/- per sq. meter by LAC for acquired land was inadequate and unreasonable. Petitioner was required to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,372/- per sq. meters for land along with 30% solatium. He is also entitled to additional amount @ 12% from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of possession or award which ever is earlier besides interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per section 28 of the Act. Decree be prepared and file be consigned to record room.
(Ashwani Kumar Sarpal) Dt. 30-09-2015. Additional District Judge-1