Delhi District Court
Sushil Chauhan vs Union Of India on 4 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
LAC No:- 01/22
Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr.
Sushil Chauhan
S/o Sh. Khadak Singh
R/o 3545/4, Mohalla Jatwara
Darya Ganj, New Delhi
...... Petitioner
versus
1. Union of India
Through LAC Delhi
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
2. The P.W.D.
Through its Secretary
...... Respondents
Date of institution of case : 23.04.2022
Date of Reserving order : 21.12.2022
Date of Order : 04.01.2023
Award
(By the Court under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
1. The present reference petition under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was filed by Sh. Sushil Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') in the year 1986 in the office of Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC'). The said reference had been forwarded to this Court by the LAC along with statement under Section 19 of the Act in the year 2022.
LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 1 of 17
2. The petitioner has sought enhancement of compensation in respect of the Award no. 247/1986-87 dated 22.10.1986 given by LAC. For deciding the reference petition under Section 18 of Act, the relevant dates, features and facts are mentioned as under:-
(i) Date of notification : 12.05.1986
under Section 4 of the Act
(ii-a) Date of notification : 12.05.1986
under Section 6 of the Act
(ii-b) Date of notification
under Section 17 of the Act : 13.05.1986
(iii) For project : Construction of Road No.
13-A connecting Mathura
Road to existing barrage
cum bridge over river
Yamuna, Near Okhla;
(iv) Location/Name of Village : Village Jasola
(v-a) Award Number under Section : 247/86-87 of Village
11 of Act Jasola, New Delhi dated
22.10.1986
(v-b) Area under acquisition : (as detailed in-question -
statement under Section 19
of the Act)
(v-c) Date of taking possession : 24.10.1986
(vi-a) Date of reference petition : 01.12.1986
to LAC
(vi-b) Petition referred to Court on : 18.04.2022
LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 2 of 17
3. The Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 12.05.1986 followed by declaration of notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 12.05.1986. Vide notification under Section 17 of the Act dated 13.05.1986, Government acquired a part of land of Village Jasola for the purpose of construction of Road no. 13-A, connecting Mathura Road to existing Barrage-cum-Bridge over River Yamuna, near Okhla. The land of petitioner acquired was part of khasra no. 442 min (1-00), 420 min (4-07), 426 min (1-09), 427 min (1-16) and 432 min (2-
15) as per statement under Section 19 of the Act forwarded alongwith the present reference. The LAC determined market value of land @ Rs. 29,000/- per bigha, whereas the petitioner had claimed compensation @ Rs. 5,000/- per Square Yards/ Rs.50,00,000/- per bigha alongwith other statutory benefits. Aggrieved with the compensation granted by LAC, petitioner herein preferred the present reference petition under Section 18 of the Act.
4. The copy of original petition filed by petitioner before LAC, alongwith the statement under Section 19 of the Act has been forwarded to this Court by the LAC to decide the reference by giving details of acquired area of the land, amount of compensation determined and share of petitioner.
Petitioner's Version
5. It is averred in the reference petition by the petitioner that the agricultural land bearing Khasra no. 442 min (1-00), 420 min (4-07), 426 min (1-09), 427 min (1-16) and 432 min (2-15), LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 3 of 17 situated at Village Jasola, New Delhi had been acquired by the Govt. vide Notification no. F.9.(2)/78-L&B(i) dated 12.05.1986. It is further averred that the petitioner/climant is co-sharer in the above said land being bhumidar of the said land and that he had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 29,000/- per bigha. It is averred that LAC had not awarded compensation according to market rate as the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was not less that Rs. 5,000/- per sq. yards/Rs. 50,00,000/- per bighas. It is averred that the LAC failed to take into consideration following facts:-
(a) That the acquired land is situated in urban area of MCD Act, 1986;
(b) That the acquired land is situated near well established regularized colonies namely, Okhla Industrial Estate, Sukhdev Vihar, Holy Family Hospital, Jamia Milia College, Teachers Training College, Norro Nagar Colony, Abdul Fazal Enclave, Sarita Vihar Colony, Madanpur Khadar Milk Dairy, New Okhla Bridge Bahapur etc.;
(c) That the LAC failed to take note of the fact that there is also New Okhla Barrage and picnic spot just near the acquired land which had enhanced its market value;
(d) That all sorts of facilities such as transport, electricity, water supply, schools, hospitals are available near the acquired land making it fit for both residential as well as commercial purposes;
(d) That petitioner was not present on the date when award was announced by the LAC and even the petitioner was not served notice under Section 12(2) of the Act.
LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 4 of 17
(e) That the acquired land is situated between Agra Canal Road and Barrage Road and the market value of the land at the time of notification was not less than Rs. 5,000/- per sq. yd. or Rs. 50,00,000/- per bigha.
Respondents' Version
6. Upon receipt of reference petition in the Court, notices were issued to the respondents and pursuant thereto, Ld. Counsel for Union of India (hereinafter referred as to 'UOI') and Ld. Counsel for PWD appeared and filed their respective Written Statements / replies to the petition. It is averred by UOI that reference in question is barred by law of limitation and that designated Land Acquisition Court derives its power under this Act only and hence obligated to confine its jurisdiction only to the issue of assessing market value and issue of apportionment, if any. It is averred that no other relief can be claimed thereunder. It is further averred that fair, reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities, arising in each case and that the petitioner has not brought any specific and cogent evidence on record to claim higher compensation. It is further averred by UOI that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is a reasoned one considering the market value as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
7. Vide separate written statement, respondent no. 2 averred that the acquired land was handed over to the respondent for execution of project and the compensation had already been LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 5 of 17 deposited with Land Acquisition Officer for disbursement in terms of pronounced Award towards acquired land. It is stated that the answering department has no administrative or substantive say in the determination of compensation in land acquisition matters. It is claimed that Award had been passed by LAC after due deliberation and needs no intervention. It is stated that due process was followed for the acquisition of the land vide notifications under Section 4, 6 and 17 of LA Act, 1894.
8. It is averred by respondent no.2 that petitioner is claiming as co-sharer in the land involved in the present acquisition, however, the original Award neither reflects his name nor of his father Sh. Khadak Singh. Moreover, no corrigendum to this effect has been filed with this Reference. It is further averred that the petitioner has not provided any documents to claim enhancement of compensation justifying the alleged market value of Rs. 50,00,000/- per bigha or Rs. 5,000/- per sq. yds for agricultural land and that mere assertions cannot make a substantive claim for determination. It is stated that the notion that electricity, water, schools and hospitals are available within limits of any city is obvious and forms no basis for enhancement of claim.
9. It is further averred that the acquired land was for the project of construction of Road no. 13-A, Connecting Mathura road to existing Barrage-cum-Bridge over River Yamuna, near Okhla(PWD), which was duly executed by the answering respondent. It is asserted that the contention of acquired land LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 6 of 17 being capable to be put to residential or commercial use is inaccurate and inapplicable. It is therefore, prayed that the enhancement of compensation sought in the present case cannot be granted on mere assertions of the claimants and that due process has been followed during the acquisition process and thus, the present petition is without merit and ought to be dismissed.
Issues
10. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor Court on 13.09.2022 as under:
(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for market value of land as prayed for? If so, at what rate? OPP.
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for statutory benefits as prayed for? OPP.
(iii) Whether the reference has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation? OPR
(iv) Relief.
Petitioner' Evidence
11. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined his GPA holder i.e. PW-1 Sh. Jeet Singh Chauhan. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon following documents as under:
(i) Ex. PW 1/P-1 : Original General Power of
Attorney dated 29.04.2022;
(ii) Mark-A : Copy of notification dated
28.05.1966;
LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 7 of 17
(iii) Ex. PW 1/P-3 : Certified copy of the judgments
bearing LAC No. 102/11 titled as
Hari Ram & Ors. v. UOI & Ors;
(iv) Ex. PW 1/P-4 : Certified copy of judgment
bearing LAC No. 90/11 titled as
Raghubir Singh & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors.;
(v) Ex. PW 1/P-5 : Certified copy of the judgment
bearing RFA No. 416/1986 titled
as Ram Chander v. Union of India;
(vi) Ex. PW 1/P-6 : Certified copy of the judgment
bearing Civil Appeal No. 2926/22
titled as Ram Chander v. Union
of India;
(vii) Ex. PW 1/P-7 : Certified copy of the judgment
bearing LA Appeal No. 109/13 titled
as Bhola Nath Sharma v. Union of
India.
12. PW-1 had been cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for UOI/Respondent no.1 wherein he stated that petitioner used to grow vegetables and other crops on the said land. However, petitioner had not maintained any record of expenditure incurred and the profits thereupon. PW-1 further stated that LAC had taken possession of land in question when the crops were standing on the land. He denied the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for UOI that land in Jasola is not surrounded by developed colonies and that the acquired land was lying vacant.
13. PW-1 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for PWD/Respondent no. 2 wherein he stated that he had not filed any documents as evidence to showcase the land value of village LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 8 of 17 Jasola except the judgments relied upon by him. PW-1 admitted that name of petitioner is not mentioned in the Award no. 247/86- 87 dated 22.10.1986. He however stated that petitioner took the compensation from the office of LAC on behalf of Sh. Zile Singh S/o Sh. Ballu who is the recorded owner in Award as well as in Naksha Muntzim.
Respondents' Evidence
14. Ld. Counsel for UOI, relied upon Award passed by LAC bearing Award no. 247/86-87 of Village Jasola and tendered the same in evidence as Ex.R-1. Ld. counsel for PWD submitted at Bar that she is adopting the respondent's evidence as led by Ld. Counsel for UOI/respondent no.1. No other evidence was adduced by the respondents and the respondent's evidence was closed vide separate statements on 19.10.2022.
Final arguments
15. At this stage, Sh. N. S. Chechi, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. S. K. Puri, Ld. Counsel for Respondent no.1/UOI and Ms. Srishti Govil, Ld. Counsel for Respondent no.2/PWD advanced their respective submissions.
16. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgments passed by other Ld. Reference Courts with respect to the same Award i.e. Award no. 247/86-87 dated 22.10.1986 praying that market rate of the land in question has already been fixed in the present award. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that in the case titled as Ram Chander & Ors v. Union of India, RFA LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 9 of 17 No.416/1986, along with RFA No. 408, 452 and 453/1986 Hon'ble Delhi High Court had been pleased to fix fair market value of the land situated in village Jasola as Rs.2240/- per sq. yard as on 15.06.1979. It is further argued that the said judgment had been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2926-2927/2022 titled as Ram Chander (dead) Through LRs v. UOI on 20.04.2022. It is further argued that market value of land in question should be assessed by taking the base rate of 2240/- as on 15.06.1979 by giving appreciation @ 15 % per annum by compounding method.
17. Ld. Counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 15 SCC 200, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that the cumulative rate method will lead to consistency and more realistic results with a further view that it would be logical, practical and appropriate method to apply / increase cumulative appreciation and not at the flat rate. Ld. Counsel for petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arun Kumar & ors. v. Union of India, (2018) 13 SCC 222, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court preferred 15% annual escalation cumulatively.
18. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the relevant date to determine the market rate of land in present Reference which was acquired vide Award No.247/86-87 of village Jasola is 12.05.1986 i.e. the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is prayed that the rate of Rs.2,240/- fixed by Hon'ble LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 10 of 17 Supreme Court in village Jasola as on 15.06.1979 may be taken as base rate to give escalation @ 15% annual increase on compounded basis, which as per calculation comes to Rs. 5958/- per sq yards.
19. Ld. Counsel for respondents on the other hand argued that in the case of Nain Singh (dead thorough LRs.) v. Union of India, RFA No. 667/1998 dated 18.11.2004, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had opined that the fair market value of land situated in village Jasola in the year 1986 comes to Rs.3808/- per sq. yard. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for respondents that Ld. Predecessor Courts in LAC No. 102/2011 in Hari Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. dated 02.08.2011 and in LAC No. 90/11 in Raghubir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, dated 02.08.2011 and further in Hari Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India in LAC 05/2019 dated 30.03.2022, which pertain to same award i.e. Award No.247/86-87 of village Jasola, had determined compensation @ Rs. 3,808/- per sq. yards with respect to similarly situated lands as on 12.05.1986 along with other statutory benefits, which judgments had not been challenged by any of the petitioners and had attained finality. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for respondents that judgment relied upon by the petitioners Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and Arun Kumar v. Union of India (supra) pertain to different lands and the criteria of cumulative calculation @ 15% per annum can not be applied mechanically in all the awards passed by the reference courts as market value of land has to be assessed in lieu of attendant circumstances in each case independently.
LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 11 of 17 Decision and Legal Reasoning
20. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and perused the record carefully. My issue wise findings are as under :-
21. Issue no. 3 Whether the reference has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation? OPR The onus to prove this issue is upon respondents. This issue is taken up first as it is related to the maintainability of present petition. The respondent no. 1 in its written statement has taken an objection that the present reference is barred by limitation and has to be dismissed at the very threshold. The proviso to Section 18 of the Act provides for period of limitation during which an application for reference to the Court can be made to the Collector. The same reads as under:-
Section 18. Reference to Court:-
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made,
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
22. Thus, it is clear that an application for reference can LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 12 of 17 be filed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of Award, if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time of passing of Award. In other cases, the application for reference can be filed within 6 weeks of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) or within 6 months from the date of Award passed by the Collector, whichever period shall first expire.
23. In the present case, nothing substantial is brought on record on behalf of respondents to show how the present reference is barred by limitation. The impugned Award had been admittedly passed by the Collector on 22.10.1986, while the reference petition had been filed by the petitioner before Collector on 01.12.1986. Thus, the same is within statutory period of limitation. This issue is thus decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
24. Issue no. 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled for market value of land as prayed for? If so, at what rate? OPP.
and, Issue no. 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled for statutory benefits as prayed for? OPP.
Both the aforesaid issues are taken up together as they are inter-connected and require common discussion. The onus to prove both the aforesaid issues is upon the petitioner. With respect to the contention of respondent no. 2 that petitioner is not entitled to move the present reference petition as original Award neither reflects the name of petitioner nor his father, it is pertinent to note LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 13 of 17 that the said objection was raised by respondent no. 2 vide separate application, which objection was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.10.2022 while observing that name of the petitioner clearly finds mention in statement under Section 19 of the Act furnished on behalf of LAC itself. The petitioner has relied upon and tendered in evidence certified copy of judgment bearing RFA No. 416/1986 titled as Ram Chander (dead through Lrs) v. Union of India Ex. PW 1/P-5, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court had already considered the issue of enhancement of compensation qua similarly placed lands falling in the same village Jasola and held that as on 15.06.1979, the fair market value of all categories of land situated in village Jasola was Rs. 2,240/- per sq. yards. The said order was later on upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Chander (dead through Lrs) v. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 2926/22 Ex. PW 1/P-6 and attained finality. Certified copy of this order is also placed on record on behalf of petitioner.
25. Now, the basic contention raised by Ld. Counsel for petitioner is that land in question in the present matter should be assessed by taking the base rate of Rs. 2,240/- as on 15.06.1979 by giving appreciation @ 15% per annum while following cumulative rate method as promulgated in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and Arun Kumar v. Union of India (supra).
26. It is pertinent to note that petitioner himself has relied upon certified copies of judgments passed by Ld. Predecessor Courts in LAC No. 102/11, titled as Hari Ram & Ors. v. UOI & LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 14 of 17 Ors. as Ex. PW 1/P-3 and LAC No. 90/11 titled as Raghubir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. as Ex. PW 1/P-4. In both the said judgments, Ld. Predecessor Court considered the issue of enhancement of compensation of similarly placed lands situated in the same village vide same Award i.e. Award No. 247/1986-87. In both the aforesaid judgments, Ld. Predecessor Court relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court Nain Singh (dead thorough LRs.) (supra), wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to fix fair market rate of lands situated in village Jasola in the year 1986 i.e. the date of present Award as Rs. 3,808/- per sq. yards. The petitioner has not placed on record any citations to show that land of petitioner is different from land for which rate already stands assessed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. There is no reason as to why the aforesaid rate could not be followed in the present case.
27. As regards contention of Ld. Counsel for petitioner regarding assessment of land of the petitioner by giving appreciation @ 15% per annum while following compounding method as expounded in the judgments of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and Arun Kumar v. Union of India (supra), it is well settled that market value of a land has to be assessed in lieu of facts and circumstances of each case independently and in the light of evidence led by the petitioner. The aforesaid judgments were passed with respect to different lands and it is not held in any of these judgments that in all the cases, a petitioner is entitled to escalation @ 15% per annum cumulatively from the date of the last Award. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has prayed for grant of compensation @ Rs.5,958/- per sq. yards but failed to adduce any LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 15 of 17 evidence to show that their land could fetch such a price on the date of notification under Section 4 in the present case. The issue of market rate of land in the year 1986 had been long settled by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment of Nain Singh (dead thorough LRs.) (supra). Moreover, admittedly the said judgment had not been set-aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the fair market value of acquired land in question at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 12.05.1986 is Rs. 3,808/-per sq. yards.
Relief
28. Keeping in view the totality of facts, circumstances and observations as above, it is held that petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs. 3,808/- per square yards in respect of the land, so acquired (as detailed in the statement filed under Section 19 of the Act, 1984). The petitioner is also awarded 30% solatium on the enhanced market value under Section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land. The petitioner is also held entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act @ 12% per annum on market value from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award of Collector or the date of taking possession of land, whichever is earlier. The petitioner is further held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on excess amount awarded by the Court from the date of dispossession of land for a period upto one year and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period till amount is deposited in the Court under Section 28 of the Act. The petitioner is also held entitled to other benefits allowed in the Award by LAC. The compensation is to be disbursed to the LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 16 of 17 petitioner as per his share in the land as detailed in Section 19 of the Act. The respondent no. 2 is the beneficiary of acquisition proceedings and therefore, both the respondents are held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.
29. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, South- East District, Delhi, for information and necessary compliance.
30. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (AKASH JAIN)
ON 04.01.2023 ADJ-01, SOUTH-EAST
SAKET, NEW DELHI
This judgment contains 17 pages and each paper is signed by me.
(AKASH JAIN) ADJ-01, SOUTH-EAST SAKET, NEW DELHI LAC No:- 01/22 Sushil Chauhan v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 17 of 17