Delhi District Court
Dr. Kavita Seth vs Union Of India on 23 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS.NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WAKF TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Suit Number : 32/08.
Unique ID Number : 02403C0958542007.
Reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
Dr. Kavita Seth,
Daughter of late Mr. M.L.Chawla,
Resident of Flat No.212-358,
Inderparkash Building,
21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
...................................................................................................Petitioner.
Versus
1. Union of India
2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
3. Land and Development Office.
..............................................................................................Respondents.
Award Number : 1/2004-2005.
Award announced on : 30.06.2004.
Purpose of acquisition : For station facility of MRTS
project on Connaught Place
-Dwarka Corridor of DMRC Ltd.
Name of Village/Locality : Barakhamba Road, Connaught
Place, New Delhi.
Date of institution of reference petition : 10.07.2007.
Date of conclusion of arguments : 23.11.2011.
Date of judgment : 23.11.2011.
Appearances: Mr. Shyam Dutt, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.L.Singh, counsel for UOI/Respondent number 1.
Mr. S.K.Jha, counsel for DMRC/Respondent number 2.
Mr. Rajan Lall and Mr.Niraj Kumar, counsel for
L&DO/Respondent number 3.
Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 1 of 12 ::-
JUDGMENT
1. This is a reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by Dr.Kavita Seth, the petitioner, against Union of India, the respondent number 1 (hereinafter referred to as the UOI), Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, the respondent number 2, (hereinafter referred to as the DMRC) and Land and Development Office (hereinafter referred to as the L & DO), the respondent number 3. Petitioner, claiming to be the owner of flat number 212, a part of property/land bearing number 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, got her petition under section 18 of the Act referred to the Court for enhancement of compensation awarded in respect of the acquired land.
2. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Indraprakash Apartment Occupants Association (Regd.) had filed a letter/application/ reference dated 14.07.2004 to the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as the LAC) who declined vide order dated 24.04.2006 to make a reference for enhancement of compensation under section 18 of the Act. The said order had been challenged and vide order dated 16.01.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the letter dated 14.07.2004 was ordered to be treated as a request for a reference under section 18 of the Act and for referring the same to the Court. A letter/application, which is undated was also submitted by the petitioner to the LAC for enhancement of compensation.
PETITION
3. It is averred by the petitioner that lease hold vacant land measuring 541 square meters out of property/land bearing number 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, the front portion, owned by the petitioner Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 2 of 12 ::-
besides others on proportionate basis as per the flats under their ownership, had been acquired vide award bearing number 1/2004 dated 30.06.2004 vide issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act dated 28.03.2003 and notification under section 6 of the Act dated 17.04.2003 for the purpose of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation for the construction of Metro Rail Station. Possession of this land was taken on 22-7-2003. The LAC has assessed the compensation @ Rs.57,960/- per square meter on proportionate basis which is too low, arbitrary, without any reasonable basis and the same is not acceptable to the petitioner. LAC treated this land as being used for commercial purposes vide his award dated 30.06.2004 and assessed the amount of compensation at Rs.57,960/- per square meter (or Rs. 5,385.115 sq. feet). The property in question which is known as Indraprakash Building, 21 Barakhamba Road is of commercial nature and also had besides its other fixtures and amenities, pump house, electrical fire pumps, two electric fire pump etc., fire fighting system, drinking water system, boundary walls, underground water tanks which had to be reconstructed due to the acquiring of the land for the respondent number 2, DMRC regarding which the petitioner had to bear expenses and unnecessary expenses. Petitioner has claimed the compensation amount as inadequate and unjustified on several grounds. As the property in question was a lease hold property, so a separate reference under section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act was also forwarded due to dispute of apportionment of the compensation amount between the petitioner (lessee) and L&DO (Lessor). Request for enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land is made. In the present reference, the petitioner has claimed enhanced compensation of proportionate land as well as some other losses occurred to her due to acquisition proceedings.
Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 3 of 12 ::-
SERVICE AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS
4. All the respondents i.e. UOI, DMRC and L & DO were served with the notice of the reference petition and pursuant there to, they had appeared and filed their respective written statements contesting the case wherein they have controverted and rebutted all the averments made in the petition submitting that the compensation award is justified ,correct and reasonable. It is also submitted that the compensation has been awarded on the higher side as MNCs etc. have shifted from Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place to the satellite towns of Gurgaon and Noida and market value of the property has diminished. It is also submitted that the L & DO has already re-entered into the property prior to its acquisition and the petitioner is nor entitled to any compensation. Prayer for the dismissal of the reference petition is made.
ISSUES
5. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 05.02.2009 of the learned predecessor of this Court, the following issues were framed:
1. What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP.
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove its case, the petitioner, Dr. Kavita Seth, has examined, herself as PW1. The witness relied upon the documents which have been proved in connected case bearing LAC number 53/08. Mr.Shyam Dutt, counsel for the petitioner, also made a statement on 09.03.2011 and 18.05.2011 that he adopts the evidence which has been Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 4 of 12 ::-
led in LAC bearing No.55/08 with the title Vipin Jain v. Union Of India. The petitioner's evidence had been closed on 09.03.2011 and thereafter the petitioner had been examined subsequently after an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 151 of the CPC for leading additional evidence had been allowed vide order dated 14.11.2011.
7. On behalf of the respondents, the copy of award, Ex.R1/1, tendered in evidence.
ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard the arguments at length and have given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provision of law and the precedents on the point.
9. After due consideration, the issues are decided as follows:
ISSUE NUMBERS 1 AND 2
10. Issue number 1 is........What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act? OPP.
11. Issue number 2 is.........Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP.
12. Before deciding these issues, let us examine whether the reference petition has been filed by the petitioners within the limitation period. The award in question was announced on 30.06.2004 and the Indraprakash Apartment Occupants Association (Regd.) had filed a Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 5 of 12 ::-
letter/application/ reference dated 14.07.2004 to the LAC who declined vide order dated 24.04.2006. Vide order dated 16.01.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the letter dated 14.07.2004 was ordered to be treated as a request for a reference under section 18 of the Act and for referring the same to the Court.
13. In this context, a reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Bharat Chand Dilwali v. UOI 1988, RLR 224 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that bare knowledge of the award is not enough. Parties must have knowledge of the contents of the award. Further in Rajjan Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors v. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Panam Project, Godhra and Ors., AIR 1995 Gujrat 170, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that Collector has not merely to intimate parties about passing of award but he has to communicate essential contents of award, if not copy of award. The counsel for the respondents have not led any evidence on record that the essential contents of the award were communicated and the petitioners had constructive or actual knowledge of the award at the time of announcement of the award by the LAC and the reference petition is barred by limitation. Therefore, as there is nothing on record which shows that petition is barred by limitation, I hold that the reference petition has been filed within the period of limitation.
14. The crucial and relevant date to find out and assess the quantum of compensation is the date of notification under section 4 of the Act i.e. 28.03.2003. The evidence relied upon or led by parties has already been discussed and considered in detail in another case titled as S.Tej Pratap Singh v. Union of India and another, Suit LAC Number Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 6 of 12 ::-
53/08/06; Unique ID Number 02403C0974282008, decided on 06.07.2011 by this Court under the same Award. There is no additional ground or evidence on record in this case which gave any other special concession to the petitioners or to make their land superior to other's land acquired under the same notification and award. Infact, this case cannot be distinguished in any manner from another Suit LAC Number 53/08/06;
Unique ID Number 02403C0974282008 already decided by this Court.
15. It has been held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which is sought to be acquired by the government, situation, nature, potential/ user and neighbouring land, etc, is to be considered. In this context, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :
The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes.
16. In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam v. Smt. A. Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 7 of 12 ::-
Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.
17. In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 152, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when on record there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself, then it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalfof the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.
18. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have held in catena of Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 8 of 12 ::-
judgments that same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimants for similarly situated land, same date of notification and same purpose of acquisition of the land.
19. In Krapa Rangiah v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (1982) 2 SCC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the selfsame notification for Housing Scheme it seems to us proper that the same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimant herein as was awarded by the High Court in Appeal No.50 of 1970. The Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted to the claimant by Rs. 2 per sq. yard. with consequential increase in solatium and interest.
20. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Nand Ram v. State of Haryana, JT 1988 (4) SC 260 has held that if a compensation amount is already fixed for a land then the same amount of compensation has to be given to other land owners whose similarly placed and situated adjacent is acquired under the same notification. 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.
21. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as given in S.Tej Pratap Singh v. Union of India and another, Suit LAC Number 53/08/06; Unique ID Number 02403C0974282008, decided on 06.07.2011 by this Court under the same Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 9 of 12 ::-
Award, wherein the reference was disposed off by holding that compensation awarded to the petitioner at Rs.57,960/- per square meter by the LAC was inadequate and unreasonable. The petitioner was required to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.81,429/- per square meter. Paragraphs 42, 43 and 63 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:
42. Hence, after giving yearly compounded appreciation at the rate of 12% per year on the Government approved rates, the market value of the acquired land in question is assessed as follows:
Ist year appreciation = Rs.57,960/- x 12% = Rs.6,955.20 (01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001) (Base market price as on 31.03.2001 = Rs.57,960/- + Rs.6,955.20 =Rs. 64,915.20 paisa 2nd year appreciation = Rs.64,915.20 x 12% = Rs.7789.824 (01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002) (Base market price as on 31.03.2002 = Rs.64,915.20+ Rs.7789.824 =Rs. 72,705.024 paisa 3rd year appreciation = Rs.72,705.024 x 12% =Rs.8724.60 (01.04.2002 to 28.03.2003) (Market price as on 28.03.2003 = Rs.72,705.024 + Rs.8724.60 =Rs.81,429.62 paisa
43. Since three days are taken extra, so the round figure of compensation according to the market value of the acquired land in question should have been assessed at Rs.81,429/- per square meter.
The compensation awarded to petitioner by LAC at the rate of Rs. 57,960/- per square meter is inadequate and unreasonable. The petitioner is, accordingly, entitled to enhancement at Rs.23,469/- (Rs.81,429 - Rs.57,960) per square meter in respect of his acquired land.
63. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,469/- per square meter along with 30% solatium. He is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification till the date of possession i.e. 28.03.2003 to 22.07.2003 as per provisions of section 23 (1-A) of the Act. The petitioner shall be entitled to the Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 10 of 12 ::-
interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per section 28 of the Act. The claims of the petitioner regarding the other different type of losses are rejected.
22. The petitioner, in the present matter is, in terms of S.Tej Pratap Singh's case, therefore, entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,469/- per square meter (Rs.81,429/- minus Rs.57,960/-
totals to Rs.23,469/-) along with 30% solatium. She is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification till the date of possession i.e. 28.03.2003 to 22.07.2003 as per provisions of section 23 (1-A) of the Act. The petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per section 28 of the Act.
23. The claims of the petitioner regarding the other different types of losses are rejected due to lack of evidence.
24. Accordingly, these two issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Petitioner is required to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.81,429/- per square meter only as allowed in S.Tej Pratap Singh's case in respect of land.
ISSUE NUMBER 3
25. Issue number 3 is the relief.
26. In view of above discussions, reference is disposed off by holding that compensation awarded to petitioner at the rate of Rs.57,960/-
Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 11 of 12 ::-
per square meter by LAC was inadequate and unreasonable. Petitioner was required to be paid compensation for her proportionate share at the rate of Rs.81,429/- per square meter for land. Petitioner is, thus, entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,469/- per square meter along with 30% solatium. As possession of the acquired land was not taken till the date of award so petitioner is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification till the date of award i.e. 28.03.2003 to 22.07.2003 as per provisions of section 23 (1-A) of the Act. Petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per section 28 of the Act.
27. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation to which the petitioner, as per her proportionate share, is entitled, shall be released to her subject to the outcome in the petition for apportionment under sections 30 and 31 of the Act.
28. Copy of this order be sent to LAC for information and deposit of balance amount immediately to avoid further burden upon the Government exchequer.
29. After the completion of all formalities, the file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 23rd day of November, 2011. ADJ-02, Wakf Tribunal, New Delhi.
Suit Number LAC 32/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958542007.
Dr. Kavita Seth v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 12 of 12 ::-