Delhi District Court
Jagmal Singh Thr. Lrs vs . Uoi & Ors. on 17 November, 2015
Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District, Room No. 602,
Sixth Floor, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi
In the matter of :
LAC No. 237/2011
Unique No. 02403C0970922008
Jagmal Singh (deceased), through LRs :
1. Shri Santosh Kumar
2. Shri Gian Chand
3. Shri Anil Kumar
4. Shri Satender Kumar
All Sons of Shri Jagmal Singh
All R/o Village Aali, Badarpur, New Delhi.
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India, through LAC / ADM,
South District, M.B. Road, D.C. Office,
South District, New Delhi.
2. National Thermal Power Corporation,
through its General Manager,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
..... Respondents
Reference received from LAC on : 22.05.2008
Date of institution : 15.02.2011 (LAC 237/11)
22.05.2008 (LAC 120/08)
Decision reserved on : 17.11.2015 (Forenoon)
Date of decision : 17.11.2015
LAC No. 237/2011 Page 1 of 11
Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
AWARD
(by the Court u/s 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) 1.1 (Introduction) - The petitioner is seeking enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of land acquired, while dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Whereas, respondents stand by the Award that amount determined is correct and it represents fair market price.
For deciding the petitioner's reference petition u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894) read with statement u/s 19 of the Act sent by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below :
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act 31.10.1996 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act 31.10.1996 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act 26.02.1997
(iii) for Project Planned Development of Delhi construction of Ash Pond by BTPS (iv) Location/Name of Village Aali (va)Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC 4/9899 & date of award 23.02.1999 (vb) Area under acquisitionin question (629) (vc) date of possession 03.09.1997 (via) Date of reference petition to LAC 06.04.1999 (vib) Petition referred to Court on 22.05.2008 1.2 Pursuant to preliminary notification dated 31.10.1996 under LAC No. 237/2011 Page 2 of 11 Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894), followed by declarations by notification dated 31.10.1996 and 26.2.1997 respectively under sections 6 and 17 of the Act, 1894, the Government acquired chunk of lands of Village Aali Delhi by award for construction of Ash Pond. The lands of petitioner was also acquired as mentioned in para 1.1 above, {hereinafter referred as lands acquired} as per statement dated 22.05.2006 U/s 19 of the Act. All concerned were heard, inclusive of the interested persons applied before Land Acquisition Collector and considering the location of land, the Land Acquisition Collector determined market value of land @ Rs. 1,94,066/ per bigha. Whereas the petitioner claims that the Collector should have fixed compensation @ of Rs. 5000/ per square yard land, Rs.2000/ per bigha for standing crops (instead of Rs.1000/ per bigha awarded by Collector) besides other statutory benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894 against respondents no. 1 Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petition along with statement under section 19 of the Act, 1984 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector to decide the reference (by giving details of acquired area, date and amount of compensation paid). The respondent no.2/NTPC was also made party to petition.
LAC No. 237/2011 Page 3 of 11 Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
Petitioner's case 2.1 Petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the said Award, he filed a reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894 before Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petitioner seeks enhanced compensation. 2.2 The petitioner assails the impugned Award of LAC that the market value of the lands have not been correctly assessed and awarded, by enumerating grounds in paragraph no. 3 of the application that there is no land in Delhi having value less than Rs.5000/ per sq. yards; the Collector did not assess the fair market value, land acquired is situated in South Delhi and it is surrounded by posh colonies such Sarita Vihar, Badarpur Thermal Project, Mohan Group Housing Society and Jasola Vihar etc. but documents presented by the petitioner has been ignored by the Collector and market value could have been fixed on the basis of such documents. Moreover, the LAC fixed market value @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre in 1990 on the basis of policy of Government and gave appreciation @ 11.5% pa. Thus petitioner should have been given appreciation @ 15%pa from 1990 onward and then market value should have been fixed. The rate determined in award is bad in law. That is why the present petition.
2.3 During the pending of the petition, petitioner expired 04.12.2004 LAC No. 237/2011 Page 4 of 11 Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
and his Lrs were brought on record by order dated 8.7.2008, they have been named in the array of parties.
UOI / respondent no. 1's case 3.1 The respondent no. 1 had filed its written statements and opposed the reference petition that the findings given by Collector in his Award is based on market value of the land, the compensation was just, adequate, sufficient and it was rightly assessed in accordance with the conditions prevailing at relevant time inclusive of location, surroundings, availability of civil amenities and other resources available, petitioners failed to bring on record any evidence to claim higher compensation. The petitioner failed to furnish any evidence of his claim and no documentary record of his ownership was produced vis a vis the land in question is not surrounded by developed or underdeveloped colonies and the land was for agricultural purposes, it is governed by the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954. There is no scope for enhancement of compensation, hence petition deserves dismissal. NTPC / respondent no. 2's case 3.2 The NTPC has also opposed the petition alike the respondent no.1 but with different expressions. It is stated that the Collector had considered all aspects and then award was given, the amount awarded is LAC No. 237/2011 Page 5 of 11 Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
adequate, sufficient, just and legal vis a vis it is based relevant sale deed transaction and potential value of land at the relevant time and LAC has fairly assessed the rate. It is agricultural land having no connections with lands of South Delhi or colonies named by the petitioner and the same cannot be compared to them as there is a lot of situation differences. There is no scope of enhancement of Rs.5000/ per square yards for land or Rs.2000/ per square yards for standing crops. In fact, the quantum of compensation has been determined by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Rs. 9,53,130/per acre in respect of Award no.4/9899 in LA AAP No. 173/2007 Bhule Ram Vs UOI, which was also challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of SLP No. 31679/2010, which was dismissed on 28.3.2014, by reaffirming the decision of High Court of Delhi, thus the rate determined attained finality. The petition is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed. Issues 4.1 On 21.8.2008, the following issues were framed for determination, in view of the pleading of the parties :
1. What was the market value of the acquired land in question at the time issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? Onus on Parties
2. Whether the petitioner through LRs is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, at what amount ? OPP LAC No. 237/2011 Page 6 of 11 Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
3. Relief.
Evidence 4.2 In order to establish the issues the petitioner was given opportunity to lead evidence. Firstly petitioner's counsel tendered certain judicial decision to establish the claim. Then petitioner's one of LR Satender Kumar/PW1 entered into witness box for all Lrs of petitioner, he also tendered copy of judgment (Ex PW1/1) in respect of Award no.4/9899 in LA AAP No.173/2007 Bhule Ram Vs UOI. He was cross examined thoroughly by the respondents.
4.3 The respondent no. 1 through counsel Shri S K Puri Advocate has tendered Award (now Ex. R1) and respondent no.2 NTPC through its counsel Ms Shaheen, Advocate tendered Award in evidence. Then evidence was closed by the respondents.
Final Hearing
5. At the juncture of final hearing, Shri Inder Singh, Counsel for LRs of petitioner, Shri S.K. Puri, Counsel for UOI / respondent no. 1, and Ms. Shaheen, Advocate for NTPC/respondent no. 2 advanced their respective submissions.
LAC No. 237/2011 Page 7 of 11 Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
FINDINGS 6.1 The contentions are assessed in the light of material on record, testimony of the petitioner's witness, submissions on behalf of petitioner and the counter submissions besides findings given in precedent SLP No. 31679/2010 Bhule Ram & others Vs Union of India of same area and award . Now the issues are taken.
6.2 Issues No. 1 and 2
1. What was the market value of the acquired land in question at the time issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? Onus on Parties
2. Whether the petitioner through LRs is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, at what amount ? OPP The onus to prove the issue no. 1 lies on both parties and onus to prove issue no.2 lies on the petitioner, both the issues are taken together, since they are interlinked. On the one side the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount awarded in award Ex. R1 and on the other side respondents opposed the claim that Land Acquisition Collector has awarded the amount after considering, location, potentiality to use the land as well as other relevant factors while determining the market value land and other compensation. The petitioner claims compensation at the rate mentioned in the petitioner and respondents cross examined petitioner's witness that under LAC No. 237/2011 Page 8 of 11 Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
no circumstance the petitioner is entitled for such claim.
Although both the sides have their reservations, however, petitioner has also relied upon judgment Bhule Ram Vs UOI decided on 3.6.2010 (Ex PW1/1) tendered in evidence, to show that market value of land of Rs. 9,53,130/ per bigha has been determined in respect of land in question and the same is to be considered for petitioner's land also. In fact the findings therein given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi stand merged into the precedent Bhule Ram Vs UOI (SLP No. 31679/2010) and Civil Appeal no. 10387/2013 Horam Vs Union of India, decided on 3.4.2014. There is no contrary evidence by the respondents in this regard. Therefore, on 23.6.1989 the market value of land was Rs. 9,53,130/ per bigha, whereas the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was Rs. 1,94,088/ per bigha.
To say, petitioner has succeeded to establish issue no.1 in his favour that market value of land was Rs. 9,53,130/ per bigha on the date of preliminary notification and petitioner's Lrs also established issue no. 2 in their favour that they are entitled for compensation @ Rs. 9,53,130/ per bigha, consequently, amount of Rs. 7,59,042/ per bigha stand enhanced. Thus, the issues no. 1 and 2 are determined in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
LAC No. 237/2011 Page 9 of 11 Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
Issue No. 3 - Relief
7. In view of the findings given on issues no. 1 to 2 above, petitioner / LRs are held entitled for compensation @ Rs. 9,53,130/ lacs per bigha by enhancing the compensation from amount of Rs. 1,94,088/ per bigha, which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of petitioner's land acquired (as detailed in the statement filed under section 19 of the Act, 1894); the compensation @ Rs. 7,59,042/ per bigha stand enhanced; besides 30% solatium under section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land, interest @ 12% per annum under section 23(1A) from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC or date of taking of possession, whichever is earlier; 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court (from the date of dispossession of land to payment of excess amount in the court, for/ within one year) and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in court.
8. It is apparent from the record that date of award is 23.02.1999 the reference petition was filed on 06.04.1999 before Land Acquisition Collector but it was referred to court on 22.05.2008, to say it took more than 9 years to refer the case to the court. There is no explanation by Land LAC No. 237/2011 Page 10 of 11 Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
Acquisition Collector either in the statements U/s 19 of the Act, 1894 or otherwise . There is prescribed period of limitation U/s 18(2) of the Act, 1894 for interested person to file reference petition and on the same analogy, the Land Acquisition Collector is expected to refer the reference petition in reasonable time. The period of more than 9 years is much belated period, which cannot be termed reasonable period.
9. The reference petition stands answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance for remittance of amount immediately after 30 days period visavis to follow the aspect mentioned in para 8 of this award. File is consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today (Inder Jeet Singh) th Tuesday, 26 Kartika, Saka 1937 Addl. District Judge02 (South) Saket, New Delhi / 17.11.2015 LAC No. 237/2011 Page 11 of 11 Jagmal Singh thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
LAC No. 237/2011 17.11.2015 Present : Shri Inder Singh, Counsel for petitioners.
Shri S.K. Puri, Counsel for UOI / respondent no. 1. Ms. Shaheen, Counsel for NTPC / respondent no. 2. Final arguments are heard.
Vide separate judgment announced today, the reference petition stands answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance for remittance of amount immediately after 30 days period visavis to follow the aspect mentioned in para 8 of this award.
File is consigned to record room.
(Inder Jeet Singh)
Addl. District Judge02 (South), Saket
N New Delhi / 17.11.2015
LAC No. 237/2011 Page 12 of 11