Delhi District Court
Smt. Parul Jain vs Union Of India on 29 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR-II,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
LAC No. 16/2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Smt. Parul Jain
W/o Sh. Ashok Jain
2. Smt. Ruchi Jain
W/o Sh. Alok Jain
Both R/o:
B-56, East Jyoti Nagar
Delhi. .........Petitioners
Versus
Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
District North-East, Bankar Bhawan,
Nand Nagri, Delhi-110095.
The Govt. of NCT of Delhi. .........Respondents
Date of Institution : 20.04.2011
Date of reserving judgment : 20.08.2022
Date of judgment : 29.08.2022
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment, I shall decide the reference petition filed under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'L.A. Act, 1894') against the findings and determination of the market value of the land, solatium, rate of Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 1/24 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:45:07 +0530 interest and apportionment of compensation, measurement etc. made by the Land Acquisition Collector, North East District, Banker Bhawan, Nand Nagri, Delhi-95.
2 For deciding the reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In short L.A. Act) r/w statement U/s 19 of the Act sent by the LAC Delhi, the relevant dates and facts which are necessary for adjudication in the present matter are being given herein under:-
i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act : 12.04.2006
ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act : 22.05.2006
iii) Date of award : 31.12.2007
iv) Area of the locality : Jhilmil Tahirpur
v) Project : MRTS project
vi) The land use of the area as per the award : Commercial/Industrial
vii) Petition referred to court on : 20.04.2011.
3 The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the notification dated 12.04.2006 under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 was issued by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") for acquisition of land/properties coming in the way of construction of Shahdara Dilshad Garden Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase II at G.T. Road Shahdara situated in Village Jhilmil Tahirpur, which was followed by the Notification dated 22.05.2006 under Section 6 & 17 (1) of L.A. Act, 1894. Possession of the acquired lands was taken by the LAC on 17.08.2006. Keeping in view the use of the land under acquisition as commercial/industrial, the LAC assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 6450/- per sq. mtr. with respect to 16 Bigha 16 Biswa i.e. 14068 Sqr. mtr. of land which came to Rs.9,07,38,600/-. Further, solatium at the rate of 30% of market value alongwith the additional amount @ Digitally signed by LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 2/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:45:13 +0530 12% of market value w.e.f. 12.04.2006 to 17.08.2006 was allowed apart from cost of structure appended to the said land and statutory interest under Section 34 of the Act. Thus, an Award for total amount of Rs.22,14,55,073/- was passed by the LAC.
4 Being aggrieved from the lesser rate fixed by the LAC for the acquired land, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 18 of L.A. Act, 1894 before the LAC. The LAC sent the present reference petition to this court for adjudication on 20.04.2011 and notices were issued to the respondent no.1 and 2 and subsequently the present case was listed for trial and finally after adjudication of the evidence filed by all the parties, Ld. predecessor of this court finally announced an award/ judgment dated 29.05.2014 in which he relied upon the circle rates notified under the provisions of Delhi Stamp [Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments] Rules 2007 and enhanced the market value from Rs.6,450/- to Rs.21,920/- per sq. mtrs. as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the L.A. Act i.e. 12.04.2006. 5 Subsequently, the judgment passed by the trial court dated 30.05.2014 in the present case was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgement dated 13.11.2017, passed in LA Appeal No. 365/14 has set aside the impugned judgment dated 30.05.2014 thereby remanding back the matter to the reference court for recording of the additional evidence of the parties and thereafter passing fresh orders. 6 In the present petition, the petitioners have contended that the petitioners are not satisfied with the findings given by the LAC in the said award with regard to the assessment of Digitally LAC No.16/2020 signed by Page no. 3/24 RAMESH RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:45:19 +0530 compensation, determination of the market value of the land, apportionment of compensation, measurement etc. and the petitioners have not accepted the award made by the LAC as the award is against the law and facts of the case on the grounds that the LAC has grossly erred in assessing the market value of the land of the petitioners at very low and inadequate rates which does not at all represent the true market value of the land as on the date of notification under section 4 of the LA Act but infact the land has the value at that time was Rs.65000/- per sq. yds. That it is judicially acknowledged fact that the prices of the land in Delhi have been rising by leaps and bounds almost every year, month, day to day hence while fixing the market value the LAC has failed to appreciate these facts of the area as nearby the area posh colonies like Preet Vihar and Surajmal Vihar etc. That the petitioners are entitled to the compensation for closure of their factory being run by petitioner no.2 and as such loss is not less than Rs.2 crores as he has been made jobless and has lost their livelihood.
7 Both the respondents have filed their respective reply. The respondent no.1 i.e. Union of India stated in its reply that rates of compensation have been arrived at based on prevailing market rates of the land in the area. That the land in question has been acquired for public purpose by the answering respondent after due notifications and following the procedure prescribed under law and the petitioners are left with no right whatsoever over the aforesaid land. That the compensation of the land has been awarded by the respondent as per the fair market price of the land at the relevant time of its notification. That the LAC has fixed the value of the land as per the fair market value of the LAC No.16/2020 Digitally signed Page no. 4/24 by RAMESH KUMAR RAMESH Date:
KUMAR 2022.08.29
16:45:27
+0530
land at that time and keeping in total of the judicial decisions in the matter. On merits, all the grounds and averments of claim petition are denied word by word and ultimately it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed with costs. 8 The respondent no.2 took various preliminary objections in its reply that the DMRC is a joint venture of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the Govt. of India for the purposes of construction and implementation of the MRTS project in the National Capital Region. It is further stated that the said project being of immense public importance, the Govt. was under an obligation to provide land for the implementation of the project. It is further stated that the land in question was acquired for construction of the Shahdara Dilshad Garden Corridor of Phase- II of the Project by the Land & Building Department. It is further stated that the LAC after affording opportunity to the claimants and the authorities to adduce evidence in support of their contentions passed the award in accordance with law, taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances. It is further stated that the present petition is an attempt on the part of the petitioners to cover up his lacunae while adducing evidence before the LAC to derive an undue advantage to which he is not entitled. On merits, it is denied that the LAC had incorrectly assessed the market value on the basis of lowest rates. However, it is stated that the LAC treated the lands in question as commercial/industrial and not as residential as alleged by the petitioners. All other averments of claim petition are denied word by word and ultimately it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed with costs in favour of the answering respondent and against the petitioners.
Digitally
signed by
LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 5/24
RAMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29
16:45:34
+0530
9 After completion of pleadings, following issues were
framed vide order dated 21.07.2012:-
1 What was the market value of the land acquired as on the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP 2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to any enhancement in compensation? If so, at what rate? OPP 3 Relief?
10 In earlier proceedings ld. counsel for petitioners, Ms. Dimple Dhamija tendered in evidence copy of the award passed in LAC No. 1/2009 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh Vs UOI and Anr. as Ex.PW1/A and deposed that the date of notification in the present case matter as well as in the above noted case is the same and the properties which are the subject matter of both the reference petition have been acquired by the same award and are identical in all respects including location, potentialities and market value.
11 On the other hand, Sh. A.C. Tiwari, ld. counsel for the UOI also tendered the copy of the award no. 2/2007-08 (North-
East) of the LAC which Ex.R1 and he also adopted the evidence which was tendered by UOI in LAC No. 01/2009 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh Vs UOI.
12 Sh. Arvind Saraswat, Ld. counsel for DMRC also adopted the evidence which was tendered by UOI in LAC No. 01/2009 titled as Chander Pratap Singh Vs UOI.
13 In additional evidence, the petitioners chose not to lead any other evidence, however it is pertinent to mention that the land of the petitioners was acquired vide the same notification and same award i.e. award No.2/07-08.
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 6/24
KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29
16:45:40
+0530
14 The respondent no.1 duly admitted the location and
potentiality of the acquired properties to be commercial in nature which would go in a long way for determining the actual market value of the acquired properties as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act. The respondent no.1 also did not lead any additional evidence after the present reference was remanded to this court for adducing additional evidence and relied upon the earlier evidence which was the award Ex.R-1. 15 The respondent no.2, in the earlier proceedings, adopted the evidence led by the Union of India i.e. respondent no.1, however when the present matter was remanded back, the respondent no.2 has examined Sh. B.M. Gupta, Office Superintendent, Land Department, DMRC, Delhi. He has tendered the copy of registered sale deeds Ex.R2W1/A to Ex.R2W1/E. The details of said sale deeds as produced are as follows:-
Sale Nature of Sale deed Amount Area (as Area in sq. Considerable deed sale date per mtrs. value as per Regn. document) document No. 1075 Commercial 27.02.2006 100000 441 sq. yds. 368.73 2712.01/- sq. mtr.
1081 Commercial 27.02.2006 900000 300 sq. yds. 250.83 sq. 3588.08/- sq.
mtr. mtr.
5275 Commercial 06.12.2006 490000 150 sq. yds. 125.41 sq. 3907.18/- sq.
mtr. mtr.
2860 Industrial 06.07.2007 490000 150 sq. yds. 125.41 sq. 3907.18/- sq.
mtr. mtr.
16 After conclusion of additional evidence of both the parties
matter was fixed for final arguments.
17 Ld. counsel for petitioner and Section Officer (Legal) on behalf of respondent no.2 filed their respective written arguments Digitally signed by LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 7/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:45:47 +0530 and they reiterated their same arguments as mentioned in written arguments. Ld. counsel for respondent no.1 did not file written arguments despite opportunity and he submitted that his written statement be treated as his written arguments and he reiterated the same.
18 I have perused the written arguments as filed by the parties and also perused the record. On perusal of record, my issue-wise finding is as follows:-ISSUE NO.1 & 2
19 Both these issue are taken up together being inter-
connected. The onus to prove both these issues was upon the petitioners.
20 First and foremost, for the ascertainment of the actual market value, it is necessary to consider the admissions made by all the parties in the pleadings as well as in their evidence led in support of their contentions. The relevant portion of the award announced by the LAC is reproduced herein under:-
"The market value of the land under acquisition is to be determined with reference to the date of notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Ac, 1894 i.e. 12.04.2006. To arrive a fair market value of the land under acquisition, the locality of the site, its current land use, the salutation of the area, the quality, the potentiality of future land use of the land are to be taken into consideration under the LA Act. The properties under acquisition are situated adjacent to Shahdara Flyover and have commercial as well as Industries in the vicinity. To ascertain the land use of the land under present acquisition, the report of the joint survey conducted by the officials of the Land Acquisition Collector, Land & Building Department and Delhi Metro Rail Digitally signed by LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 8/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:45:57 +0530 Corporation were kept in mind. Papers submitted by the claimants shows that it is a commercial/ industrial site. The evaluation report as submitted by the DMRC and vetted by the PWD regarding the properties also confirms the above land use."
21 The LAC, while assessing the market value of the land has observed that the acquired properties were commercial in nature and for this very reason, the commercial L&DO rates/schedule of market rates in Delhi issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Department of Urban Development were made the basis for the ascertainment of market value w.e.f. 01.04.1998.
22 Accordingly an escalation of 10% was allowed w.e.f. 01.04.1999 and the amount of Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. was assessed by the LAC for the properties acquired vide the present award. The respondent no.2 admitted the said award to be correct thereby admitting the basis of ascertainment of the market value to be correct as well.
23 As per section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the market value of the acquired properties is liable to be ascertained/ determined as on the date of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the L.A. Act which in this particular case is 12.04.2006. The petitioners has duly stated that the rate of Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. as assessed by the LAC is extremely meagre for the prime commercial property of the petitioners.
24 As already stated above, the LAC while assessing the market value of land has observed that properties under acquisition are situated adjacent to Shahdara flyover and have Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 9/24 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:46:04 +0530 commercial as well as industrial activity in the vicinity. He has considered the joint survey report conducted by the officials of Land Acquisition Collector (Land & Building Department) and DMRC to ascertain the use of the land under acquisition. To assess the market rate of land, the LAC had considered the schedule of rates circulated by Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Department of Urban Development (land Division) vide No. J-22011/4/95-LD dated 16.04.1999 for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 which was Rs. 2805/- per sq. meter for residential land and Rs. 5865/- per sq. meter for commercial land in Jheel Khuranja; Rs. 2805/- per sq. meter for residential land and Rs. 5865 per sq. meter for commercial land in Geeta Colony; Rs. 1980/- per sq. meter for residential land and Rs. 4140/- per sq. meter for commercial land in Narela and other outlying colonies. The LAC has applied the rate of Rs. 5865/- per sq. meter for commercial land in Jheel Khurenja and Geeta Colony by stating that area of Jheel Khuranja and Geeta Colony though not in immediate proximity of the land under acquisition, but are nearest in terms of distance and gave 10% escalation over the rate effective from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 and held that rate of Rs. 5865/- per sq. meter after escalation of 10% comes to Rs. 6451.50/- which was rounded off to Rs. 6450/-.
25 Section 23 of L.A. Act, 1894 provides that in order to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act.
Digitally
signed by
LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 10/24
RAMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29
16:46:11
+0530
26 In Kapil Mehra Vs. UOI (MANU/SC/0947/2014), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase, and where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighborhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4 (1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidence have to be considered. It has been further observed that for the purpose of fiXation of fair and reasonable market value of any type of land, abnormally high value or abnormally low value sales should be carefully discarded".
The factors have also been mentioned in para 10, which are required to considered in determining the market value of the land as:-
a. existing geographical situation of the land;
b. existing use of the land;
c. Already available advantages, like
proXimity to national or state highway or road and/or developed area and;
d. Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the acquired land.
27 In Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board
& Ors. Vs. K.S. Gangadharappa & Anr.
(MANU/SC/0598/2009), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as:-
Digitally signed by RAMESH RAMESH KUMAR LAC No.16/2020 KUMAR Date:2022.08.29 Page no. 11/24
16:46:19 +0530 "11. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fiXation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made as:-
i. when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4 (1);
ii. it should be a bona fide transaction;
iii. it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and iv. it should possess similar advantages."
28 In written arguments, it is contended by respondent no.2 that the petitioner has not led any additional evidence, after remand back of the case to the reference court, to prove her case and this court vide order dated 01.06.2019 closed the additional evidence of the petitioner, hence in absence of any evidence, the reference petition does not warrant any enhancement in the market value fixed by Ld. LAC, therefore the reference petition may be dismissed. On the other hand, ld. counsel for petitioner in written arguments has categorically stated that the L&DO rates dated 02.05.2017 exhibited by the petitioner as Ex.PW2/A & other documents Ex.PW3 are already on record and all the evidence relied and filed by the petitioner in the case bearing LAC Nos. 7/16, 8/16, 6/16 and 9/16 is also part of the present case and that nevertheless, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clarified this proposition also and has held the properties acquired vide same notification and same award have to be given the same market value and cannot be differentiated on any pretext whatsoever.
Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No.16/2020 Page no. 12/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:46:34 +0530 On this point, ld. counsel for petitioner has place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Krapa Rangiah Vs. Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition reported in [1982] 2 SCC 374, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that where similar lands are acquired under the same notification, the same rate of compensation should be awarded for other lands acquired under the same notification.
Further, in the case of Bhag Singh & Ors. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in [1992] 4 SCC 692, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that judgment of a court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired land even though not inter parties could be admitted in evidence as an instance from which the market value could be inferred. It was further observed that there would be no difficulty in accepting such judgment as one furnishing the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land if the opposite parties do not genuinely dispute the position that the judgment relied upon could be accepted as the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land.
Further, in the case of Goa Housing Board versus Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar reported in [2011] 10 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to reiterate that similarly situated land in the same area having the same advantages and acquired under the same notification should be awarded in same compensation.
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
RAMESH KUMAR
LAC No.16/2020 Page no. 13/24
KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29
16:46:40
+0530
29 In the present matter, the LAC itself in his award has
found that the acquired lands are commercial as well as industrial in nature. The lands under the present reference petition has been acquired vide the same award and same notification with respect to properties in which this court has already pronounced judgments and has already fixed the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as on the date of notification under section 4 of the LA Act i.e. 12.04.2006. Even the respondents have not given any contrary evidence to the fact that the location and potentiality of the property which is subject matter of the present reference petition is inferior or that it is dissimilar in any manner. Rather the respondents have given the same evidence in the present case as well as they have given in all other cases which proves that the petitioners herein would also be entitled to the same compensation as assessed in cases bearing LAC Nos.7/20, 14/20 & 15/20 which have already been decided by this court. Therefore, the contention of respondent no.2 that in absence of any additional evidence the present petition may be dismissed, is having no force.
30 Going by the admissions of all the parties, the land use of the acquired property is commercial and therefore, it is not a matter of doubt that commercial land rates are required to be assessed for the properties acquired vide award No.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi.
31 Ld. counsel for petitioners has also relied upon various judgments in support of her contentions and specifically relied upon a judgment passed by this court itself as Monika Gupta Vs. Digitally signed by LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 14/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:46:47 +0530 Union of India & Anr., LAC No.07/2020 which is in respect of the properties acquired vide the same notification and same award i.e. award No.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi announced on 31.12.2007.
32 As already discussed earlier, the property under the present reference has been acquired under the same notification and it is the admitted case of the parties that all the properties acquired vide the above award are identical in terms of potentiality, location and use as in the properties of LAC No. 07/2020.
33 Ld. counsel for petitioners has also relied upon a judgment titled Nandram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana cited in Judgments Today 1988 [4] SC 260 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that "The State cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date. "
34 Ld. counsel for petitioner has also relied upon another judgment titled Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. Vs. State of J&K reported in AIR 2017 SC 1518 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons."
In view of the said judgments, the petitioners claim the same amount of compensation as assessed in case titled as Monika Gupta Vs. Union of India & Anr. [supra].
Digitally signed LAC No.16/2020 by RAMESH Page no. 15/24 KUMAR RAMESH Date: KUMAR 2022.08.29 16:46:53 +0530 35 R2W1 Sh. B.M. Gupta exhibited as many as 04 sale deeds
in his testimony pertaining to the area of Jhilmil Tahirpur, which is Ex.R2W1/A to Ex.R2W1/E. 36 In the written arguments, the contention raised by the respondent no.2 is that the several regular sale transactions tendered by respondent no.2 in evidence are from the similar situated land in the same area i.e. Jhilmil Tahirpur Industrial Area which established the average rate of value of sale about Rs.3528.61/- per sq mtr. at the time of notification which is less than the market value fixed by the LAC @ Rs.6450/- per sq. mtr. based on facts, circumstances and prevailing market rates at the time of acquisition, hence it does not warrant any enhancement in the market value fixed by the LAC and therefore, the reference petition may be dismissed.
37 I have perused the said sale deeds. The said sale deeds pertain to the year 2006 and 2007. Two out of the four sale deeds relied upon by the respondent no.2 pertain to the subsequent dates i.e. 06.12.2006 and 06.07.2007 and only two sale deeds are prior to the date of notification U/s 4 i.e. 12.04.2006. It is surprising that both the sale deeds were registered on the same very date i.e. 27.02.2006 and the market value in both the said sale deeds are very different from each other. The sale deed registered vide Regn. No.1075 reflects the market value of the property to be Rs.2712.01/- per sq. mtrs. whereas the property sold vide sale deed registered vide Regn. No.1081 reflects the market value to be Rs.3588.08/- per sq. mtrs. which is a lot higher than the earlier sale deed executed on the same very date. This glaring difference in the market value Digitally signed by LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 16/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:47:00 +0530 of the two properties sold on the same very day creates a grave suspicion and doubt with respect to the prevailing market value and can in no manner be relied for the determination of the actual market value. Even otherwise, the value of the sale deeds relied upon by the respondent no.2 are almost 1/3rd in value as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and it is improbable that the commercial properties in the prime areas of Jhilmil Tahirpur were being sold only at a nominal rates of two to three thousand rupees per square meter only.
Also, by relying upon the sale deeds of the commercial land use, the respondent no.2 has itself admitted the land use of the area to be commercial. So the stand taken by the respondent no.2 is controverted by their own evidence.
38 Reference is made to judgment cited as AIR 2018 Supreme Court 645 titled as Maya Devi Vs. State of Haryana in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically upheld that "Post notification instances cannot be taken into consideration for determining the compensation of the acquired land."
Following the above dictum, the sale instances exhibited by the respondent no.2 cannot be taken into consideration for assessment of the market value of the acquired properties".
39 As already stated above, a careful perusal of the sale deeds exhibited by the respondent no.2 as Ex.R2W1/A to Ex.R2W1/E shows that since there was a great variation in the market value reflected in the sale deeds Ex.R2W1/A to Ex.R2W1/E and the amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondent no.2 ought to have proved the sale deeds by examining either the vendor or the vendee in order to show that Digitally signed by LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 17/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:47:07 +0530 the same were executed between a willing purchaser and a willing seller which is the ground rule for relying on the same. For this very reason, even the judgment cited and relied upon by the respondent no.2 in its written arguments reported as Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Purya & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6986/2003) is of no relevance since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only broadly enumerated the reason for accepting certified copies of sale deeds U/s 51-A, however in the present case since there is extreme discrepancy in the market value of the sale deeds exhibited by the respondent no.2, the same cannot be considered and appreciated without proper evidence and examination of the respective vendor and vendee.
40 The sale deeds relied upon by the respondent no.2 does not specify the detail regarding the nature and proximity of the said industrial properties to the commercial properties in question.
41 It is also not out of place to mention here that the LAC himself has not relied upon the sale deeds exhibited as Ex.R2W1/A to Ex.R2W1/E in order to arrive at the market value of the property in question due to the fact that there was a great suspicion with respect to the authenticity and validity of the sale deeds and in fact, the said sale deeds provide lower rates than awarded by the LAC.
42 The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Lal Chand Vs. UOI (supra) that "the distance between the two properties, the nature and situation of the property, proximity to the village or a road and several other factors may all be relevant in determining the market value. Mere production of some exemplar deeds without Digitally signed by LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 18/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:47:16 +0530 'connecting' the subject matter of the instrument, to the acquired lands will be of little assistance in determining the market value".
The aforesaid judgment has also been relied upon by the respondent no.2 itself and the said judgment has to be construed as a whole and cannot be read in piecemeal.
43 The respondent no.2 has not disputed the award of the LAC in which the commercial L&DO rates have been made the basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired properties and in view thereof, the said sale deeds fall out of zone of consideration in view of the reasons and findings stated above for the purpose of assessing market value of the land in question.
44 In Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State Of Goa & Anr, 2010 (2010) 13 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"13. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons."
45 It is again relevant to note herein that the LAC has also not relied upon the sales deeds Ex.R2W1/A to Ex.R2W1/E. The LAC has passed the award on the basis of schedule of rates circulated by Ministry of Urban Development (Land Digitally LAC No.16/2020 signed by Page no. 19/24 RAMESH RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:47:23 +0530 Division) vide Circular dated 16.04.1999 for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000, though the relevant date for the said purpose was 12.04.2006 i.e. date of notification under section 4 of L.A. Act, 1894. The LAC had given 10% escalation on the rate of Rs 5,865/-, which was the rate notified for Jheel Khuranja and Geeta Colony having considered the fact that notification under section 4 (1) of L.A. Act, 1894 was issued on 12.04.2006. Since the Schedule of commercial land rates by L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development had already come into operation w.e.f 01.04.2000, which provides rate as Rs.
30,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 for Jheel Khuranja and Geeta Colony, therefore, the rate assessed by LAC is apparently on lower side. In view thereof, this referral court will be well within its jurisdiction to take note of the same in considering the prayer of the petitioners in seeking the enhancement even though the said rates are only for 100 FAR and not for 300 to 350 FAR which is the FAR of the area Jhilmil Tahirpur.
46 The petitioners having relied upon the judgments passed in case titled as Monika Gupta Vs. Union of India bearing LAC No.07/20, Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs UOI & Anr. bearing LAC No.14/20, and Sushil Kumar Jain Vs UOI & Anr. bearing LAC No.15/20 which pertains to the same notification and same award i.e. Award No.2/2007-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi which have been decided by this court on 26.07.2022, in which the market value of the acquired properties acquired vide same notification and same award have been enhanced from Digitally signed by RAMESH RAMESH KUMAR LAC No.16/2020 KUMAR Date: Page no. 20/24 2022.08.29 16:47:29 +0530 Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. to Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as on 12.04.2006 are entitled to the same amount of compensation.
47 The respondent no.2 in written arguments vehemently contended that the earlier judgments relied upon by the petitioners and other property holders titled as Ashwani Arora Vs. UOI & Anr., Kanta Kumari Arora Vs. UOI & Anr., Amit Arora Vs. UOI & Anr. which also pertained to the same notification and same award have been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appeal Nos. 196/2022, 197/2022 & 198/2022 vide order dated 03.08.2022.
48 I have carefully gone through the said order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has only stayed the operation of the impugned judgments on the score that the decretal amount with respect to the said judgments and decree has already been deposited by the respondents with the reference court and only for this reason, the orders impugned in the said appeals have been stayed. No finding or reasoning has been given in the said order with respect to the arriving of the market value of the said properties and has not debarred the courts below in any manner.
49 The petitioners have also relied upon the judgment passed in case titled Narain Dass Aggarwal Vs. UOI and Anr. bearing LAC No.27/17 which pertains to properties acquired vide award No.12/LAC/N/2012-13 in which the court of Ld. Addl. District Judge has also granted the same enhancement which was granted by its predecessor court even though the said judgment has been impugned by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the petitioners has tried to Digitally signed by LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 21/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:47:36 +0530 show that any appeal filed with respect to the properties acquired vide same notification and same award shall not debar the courts to determine the market value on the basis of the evidence led by the petitioners. I have gone through the said judgment and am in total agreement with the petitioners on this score. Since the same evidence has been led by all the petitioners whose properties have been acquired by the same award, I am inclined to give the same amount of compensation which has been given to the other petitioners on the basis of the said evidence. I am not inclined to deviate from the enhancement granted to the other petitioners whose properties have been acquired vide the same notification and same award.
50 The respondent no.1 and 2 has repeatedly contended that the judgment passed in case titled as Ashwini Arora & Ors. Vs. Union of India (Supra) as well as the judgments passed by this court are not binding upon me, however I do not agree with the said contention in terms of the judgments passed by the higher courts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard. Also as per the judgments titled Nandram vs. State of Haryana & Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. vs. State of J&K (Supra), I hold that the same amount of market value as assessed in cases titled as Monika Gupta & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr., Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr. and Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. UOI & Anr. should be awarded to the petitioners in this case as well.
51 The written arguments filed by the respondent no.2 has failed to satisfy this court with respect to the discrepancies in the rates of sale deeds exhibited as Ex.R2W1/A to Ex.R2W1/E. Digitally signed by LAC No.16/2020 RAMESH Page no. 22/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:47:43 +0530 For the reasons mentioned above, I find no reason to rely on the sale deeds exhibited as Ex.R2W1/A to Ex.R2W1/E since two of the said sale deeds are post notification sale deeds and had not been relied upon by the collector himself for assessment of the market value. Furthermore, the said sale deeds are pertaining to the commercial properties executed on the same very date i.e. 27.02.2006 also do not reflect the actual market value since admittedly the value arrived at in the said sale deeds are also extremely different from each other and neither the buyer nor the seller have been examined in order to determine the genuineness of the said transactions. The extreme difference in the rates of the sale deeds persuade me to neglect the sale deeds Ex.R2W1/A to Ex.R2W1/E and rely upon schedule of market rates as the most authentic basis for determination of the market value. Hence for the foregoing reasons recorded above, this court deems it fit to award Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as the actual market rate with respect to the acquired properties duly acquired vide award No.2/2007-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi.
52 The LAC has awarded an amount of Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. A perusal of the file also reveals that the petitioners have already received the enhancement of compensation @ Rs.21920/- per sq. mtrs. Accordingly the petitioners is entitled to a further enhancement of Rs.26080/- per sq. mtrs. over and above Rs.21920/- per sq. mtrs. [Rs.21920 + Rs.26080 = Rs.48000/- per sq. mtrs.].
RELIEF:
53 In view of the findings of issue No.1 & 2, the petitioners are entitled to the market value @ Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as Digitally LAC No.16/2020 signed by Page no. 23/24 RAMESH RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.29 16:47:50 +0530 on 12.04.2006. In addition, the petitioners would also be entitled to all statutory benefits i.e. 30 solatium on the market value in view of the compulsory nature of acquisition U/s 23 (2) of the LA Act and an additional amount of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act till date of possession or award whichever is earlier as per section 23 (1A) of the LA Act. Besides the petitioners would also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of dispossession till expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of the balance amount. It is made clear that the statutory benefits shall be available to the petitioners on the balance amount of Rs.26080/- per sq. mtrs. since in the present case, the petitioners have received the enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs.21920/- per sq. mtrs. along with statutory benefits.
54 Reference is answered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 55 A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned LAC for information and necessary compliance within three months of its receipt. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed by RAMESH(Typed to the dictation directly corrected KUMAR RAMESH and pronounced in open court on 29.08.2022). Date:
KUMAR 2022.08.29
16:47:59
+0530
(RAMESH KUMAR-II)
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHADARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
LAC No.16/2020 Page no. 24/24