Delhi District Court
Shri Ranjeet Singh vs Union Of India on 5 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAMTA TAYAL, ADJ:
SOUTH WEST: NEW DELHI
LAC No. 34/10
Award No. : 1/2007-08
Village : Bamnoli
In the matter of :-
Shri Ranjeet Singh
S/o Shri Deep Chand
R/o Village & PO Bamnoli
New Delhi.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
South-West District, Kapashera
New Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice-Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. Market,
New Delhi. ... Respondents
Filed on : 08.09.2010
Reserved on : 25.02.2012
Decided on : 05.03.2012
JUDGMENT :-
1. This is a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Vide notifications under Section 4 of L. A. Act dated 04.11.2004 and Section 6 of LA Act dated 31.10.2005, 2100 bigha 06 Biswa of land was notified for acquisition for Planned Development of Delhi.
LAC No. 34/10 Page No. 1/10 DOD 5.03.2012
3. The Collector categorized the land in two blocks. In Block `A', the land was leveled/ low lying upto the depth of 1 meter. In Block B such land was included from which 'top soil' had been excavated beyond 1 meter. Block B comprised of only 50 bigha and 13 biswa of land.
4. For determining the market value of the land with reference to the date of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act which is dated 04.11.2004 the Collector relied upon the indicative price fixed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi @ Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre as conveyed by the Dy. Secretary ( L.A) Land Building Department vide letter No. F-9(2000)/L&B/LA/6704-12 dated 09.08.2001. Therefore, market value of the land under acquisition was determined @ Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre in Block A and market value of land in block B was fixed @ Rs. 14,13,000 per acre i.e less by 10% of value of land in block A.
5. Petitioner is the bhumidar of land mentioned in statement under Section 19 of L.A. Act i.e. 17//20/3(0-15), 20//21/2 (4-2), 24/2 (2-16), 24//7/2 (0-6), 29//11/2(0-7), 10/1 (0-7), 4(4-16), 5/1 (1-5), 1/2(4-1), 2(4-16) and 3 ( 4-16); total measuring 28 bigha and 7 biswa of land in village Bamnoli. This statement was admitted as correct by the counsel for the petitioner. Aggrieved by market value of his land as determined by the Collector to be Rs. 15121543.56/- in all, the petitioner has filed the present reference petition for LAC No. 34/10 Page No. 2/10 DOD 5.03.2012 enhancement of compensation.
6. Union of India and DDA filed their written statements opposing any enhancement of compensation.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 13.12.2010:-
i. Whether DLR Act is applicable to the land in question, if yes, its effect on market value of the land? OPD ii. What is the fair market value of the land in question? OPP iii. Relief.
8. Subsequently on an application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the petitioner for framing of additional issue in respect of his entitlement to compensation qua the structures in existence on his land at the time of acquisition, following additional issue was framed:
iv. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to, for kothi/farm house, tube-well and trees? OPP
9. Eleven witnesses in all were examined on behalf of petitioner to establish his claim. PW1 is Superintendent, L & DO who proved the schedule of market rates as Ex.PW1/A. PW2 is Planning Assistant, Director Planning, Dwarka. He proved the Dwarka subcity plan as Ex.PW2/A. Naib Tehsildar, L & DO, as PW3, proved the record of minimum price fixed by Delhi Administration for agricultural land in Delhi. Assistant, Institutional Branch, DDA, as LAC No. 34/10 Page No. 3/10 DOD 5.03.2012 PW4, proved the allotment letter in respect of allotment of land for 750 MW power plant as Ex.PW4/A. The next witness, Planning Assistant, Director Planning Dwarka proved the possession plan of the said power plant on record. PW6 produced the notification issued under Section 507 of DMC Act. The petitioner examined himself in support of his reference petition as PW7. He was cross examined at length. Patwari, office of SDM Vasant Vihar was summoned to prove Aksizra of village Bamnoli and village Bharthal as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively. PW9 is the registered valuer who proved the valuation report of structures purportedly in existence on the land of petitioner as Ex.PW7/2. PW10 Halka Patwari from office of SDM Vasant Vihar proved the Khasra Girdwari in respect of Khasra no. 29/2 ( 4-16) and 29/4 ( 4-16) as EX.PW10/A. The last witness of the petitioner is Junior Engineer from Building department, MCD, Najafgarh. He however could not produce the summoned record for the reasons as mentioned in Ex.PW11/A.
10. On behalf of respondent Union of India, patwari from office of LAC was tendered as RW1 who proved the Joint Survey Report of village Bamnoli as Ex. RW1/A. Shri Deepak Suri, a member of the said Joint Survey Team was summoned as RW2 to corroborate testimony of RW1 as to correctness of contents of Ex.RW1/A. RE was closed by UOI after tendering the award Ex.R1 and photocopies of two sale deeds Ex. R2 and R3 towards further LAC No. 34/10 Page No. 4/10 DOD 5.03.2012 respondent evidence. No evidence was adduced on behalf of DDA.
11. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties at length, perused the entire records and carefully considered the matter. So far as the market value of land in question is concerned, it is noted that the petitioner has himself relied upon the judgment of reference court delivered in another case bearing LAC No. 93/09/08 titled as "Jai Parkash Vs. Union of India" decided by Ld. Predecessor on 25.08.2012. Vide said judgment the market value of land of village Bamnoli, acquired by same award, was held to be Rs. 17,45,000 per acre. It is an undisputed fact that the said judgment was assailed before Hon'ble High Cour in LA appeal no. 115/11 by both the land owners as well as Union of India. The appeals emanating from judgment of reference court dated 25.08.2010 were decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 01.02.2012 whereby the compensation awarded by the reference court for Block `A' land as 17,45,000 per acre was upheld. In the light of these settled facts, my findings on above issues are as follows:-
12. ISSUE NO. 1: In view of judgment passed in case of 'Jai Prakash Vs. Union of India and another' by Ld. Predecessor and as affirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
13. ISSUE NO. 2: As noticed herein above, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Jai LAC No. 34/10 Page No. 5/10 DOD 5.03.2012 Prakash ( Supra). No evidence showing that the land of petitioner is better than the land involved in the case of Jai Prakash has been brought on record by the petitioner. Similarly no evidence showing that the land of petitioner is inferior in any aspect than the land referred to in case of Jai Prakash has been adduced by the respondents. Therefore, in the present reference market value of land in question shall be the same as was determined by Ld. Predecessor and as has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court for Block 'A' land as the land of petitioner in reference under Section 18 of LA Act has been reflected as " category A land".
14. ISSUE NO. 4 : Before deciding issue No. 3 in respect of relief, issue no. 4 is taken up for disposal which was added subsequently and pertains to determination of compensation, if any, in respect of Kothi/farm house, tube-well and trees on the land in question. Onus was on the petitioner to establish that there existed any kothi/farm house, tube well and trees on the acquired land of the petitioner. To prove that he had raised a duly approved kothi/ farm house on part of his land as acquired by the instant award, the petitioner has placed on record the site plan Ex.PW7/1, valuation report Ex.PW7/2, applications sent to ADM, Kapashera Ex.PW7/4 and Ex.PW7/5, property tax receipt Ex.PW7/6, electricity bill Ex.P7/7, copy of khasra Gidawari Ex.PW7/8 and sanction accorded by MCD for construction of a farm house as Ex.PW7/9. Admittedly the site plan LAC No. 34/10 Page No. 6/10 DOD 5.03.2012 Ex.PW7/1 is simply a plan prepared by an architect in respect of a proposed building. Admittedly by mere exhibition of site plan as Ex.PW7/1, without examining the concerned architect/draftsman, the document cannot be taken as proved. Even if for sake of arguments, if the document is read in evidence as such, still, I am of the considered view that it does not by any stretch of imagination establish that it pertains to kothi/farm house of the petitioner or that any such kothi/farm house was actually in existence on the land in question.
15. EX.PW7/2 is the valuation report which gives the address of farm house as Khasra no. 311 to 315, 318, 319, 326 and 327min. As pointed out by Ld. Counsel for Union of India, the description of land acquired by the present award is entirely different.
There is no evidence adduced by the petitioner on record to show that the khasra numbers mentioned in the valuation report are same, as are subject matter of the present award. Moreover the valuation report again does not prove that the structure if any on the land in question was legal and authorized building.
16. House tax receipt as well as electricity bill do not bear any Khasra number to show that they pertain to the building purportedly in existence on the land which is the subject matter of the present case. Likewise Khasra Girdawari pertains to khasra no. 311 to 315 which is again different from khasra numbers as mentioned in LAC No. 34/10 Page No. 7/10 DOD 5.03.2012 the award. Same is the case with the sanction letter Ex.PW7/9.
17. At this juncture it is argued, with much vehemence, by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the land of village Bamnoli was consolidated in the year 1998 whereafter new khasra numbers were assigned to the land of petitioner. He urged that khasra numbers 311 and 313 were renumbered as khasra nos. 29(1) and 29(4) in consolidation proceedings. Ld. Counsel, however, fairly conceded that no evidence has been brought on record to even remotely establish the said fact by the petitioner. Even if the statement made by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is taken as correct, still the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that the structure if any in existence was legal and authorised. The sanction letter of MCD merely proves that the petitioner had applied for and was accorded sanction to construct a farm house over the said land. As per the said sanction order Ex.PW7/9 before starting construction, the petitioner was required to intimate MCD in writing and no construction could be started till a certificate to that effect was issued by MCD ( refer clause 5 & 6 of Ex.PW7/9). Admittedly no such documents as referred in clause 5 and 6 of Ex.PW7/9 have been brought on record by the petitioner. No completion certificate along with documents of completion of construction has also been filed by the petitioner to show that the building was actually completed. As per survey report relied upon by Union of India and proved by member of LAC No. 34/10 Page No. 8/10 DOD 5.03.2012 survey team as Ex.RW1/A, only two rooms were found to be in existence on a part of land of petitioner. There being no evidence to show that the said construction was with due permission of authorities concerned, no compensation in respect of the said unauthorized structure can be claimed by the petitioner. The second claim of the petitioner is that there were numerous trees in existence on his land as recorded in khasra girdawri Ex.PW7/8. The said plea is also bound to fail for the same reason that the said khasra girdawri refers to land situated in khasra nos. 311 and 313 and not khasra no. 29 which is the subject matter of the present award.
18. Union of India has also disputed existence of any tube-well on any part of land of the petitioner. However, PW10 Halka Patwari from office of SDM, Vasant Vihar proved the khasra girdawri in respect of khasra no. 29(2) and Khasra no. 29 (4) as Ex.PW10/A. This is the revenue record maintained by the revenue department of Government itself. As per Ex.PW10/A one tube well with room was in existence in khasra no. 29/2 belonging to petitioner Ranjit Singh. The land in question being agricultural land, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the tube well, existing over there.
19. ISSUE NO. 3 : Relief -
In view of foregoing discussion, petitioner is held entitled to following reliefs:-
i. Petitioner is entitled to receive compensation @ LAC No. 34/10 Page No. 9/10 DOD 5.03.2012 Rs. 17,45,000/- per acre i.e. an increase of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre.
ii. Petitioner is entitled to receive additional amount @ 12% under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
iii. Petitioner is entitled to receive solatium @ 30% per annum on the enhanced compensation.
iv. Petitioner is entitled to receive interest @ 9% per annum for first year from possession and @ 15% per annum for subsequent period till payment.
v. Petitioner is entitled to benefit of Sunder vs. Union of India: 93 (2001) DLT 153.
vi. The petitioner is entitled to Rs. one lac as compensation for his tube-well.
20. The reference is answered accordingly. Let a copy of the same be sent to the LAC(SW) for information and necessary action. Decree be prepared in terms of reference and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court
on 5th March, 2012 (MAMTA TAYAL)
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
LAC No. 34/10 Page No. 10/10 DOD 5.03.2012