Delhi District Court
Shri Bhullan @ Bhule vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2008
-:1:- LAC No. 99/2005
IN THE COURT OF S.S.HANDA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI
LAC No. 99/2005 Award No.: 6/2004-05
Village : Ghevra
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Shri Bhullan @ Bhule
S/o Late Shri Ved Singh
2. Smt. Indira Devi
W/o Shri Ved Singh
Both R/o VPO Ghevra, Delhi
Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Department of Slum & JJ,
IP Estate New Delhi-2.
Respondents
Date of Institution : 21.05.2005
Date of Arguments : 28.08.2008
Date of Decision : 28.08.2008
Appearances : Shri Ravinder Dabas, Ld.counsel for petitioners.
Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for UOI.
Shri Neeraj Kumar, Ld. counsel for MCD,
Slum & J.J.Department.
-:2:- LAC No. 99/2005
AWARD
Vide notification no. F-11(81)/2000/ L&B/LA18032
dated 6.2.2003 under Section 4 and F.11(81)/2000/L&B/LA/1317
dated 30.4.2003 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
(herein after referred to as the Act), land measuring 943 bighas
and 18 biswas (including the land of the petitioner as detailed in
the statement under Section 19 of the Act), situated in the revenue
estate of village Ghevra, Delhi, was acquired by the Government
for public purposes namely for rehabilitation of J.J.Clusters. The
Land Acquisition Collector after completing all the requisite
formalities as provided under the Act, announced the Award
bearing No. 6 of 2004-05 of village Ghevra and awarded
compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for
the entire acquired land, in addition to proportionate solatium, etc.
2. The above mentioned petitioner was dissatisfied with
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
collector, and filed a petition under the provisions of Section 18
of the Act for proper determination of the market value which
was sent to this court for adjudication. In the reference petition,
the petitioner sought enhancement of compensation stating that
petitioner was co-owners/co-bhumidar in possession having
half share in the land bearing Khasra nos. 25/21(4-08), 25/16(4-
16) situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, New Delhi,
here in after referred to as the land in dispute. It was stated that
-:3:- LAC No. 99/2005
awarded compensation was too low, unreasonable, inadequate,
arbitrary and without considering the relevant evidence available
with the Ld. LAC. It was further stated that LAC did not take
into consideration all the documents filed by petitioners and
ignored the potentiality of the land and the fact that the land could
be used for Industrial, commercial and residential purposes and
the rate of the land was at Rs. 2000/- per square yard if sold in the
open market. He also adopted the incorrect formula in assessing
the market value of the land. It was also stated that all facilities,
like transportation, electricity, water, hospital, railway line,
school, colleges, and restaurants were available there. It was in
proximity of PVC market and National Highways. The land of
petitioners was leveled and required only little development. It
was near the Abhor-Fazilka via Rohtak Road. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. Depot and Tikri border were near to it. He was
deprived of right of his property as envisaged under Article 300A
of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for
enhancement of the market value of the land and compensation at
the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per sq. yard for the land; Rs.25,000/- per
acre for loss and damages sustained by the petitioners for standing
crops; besides solatium and interest with cost of petition and
other benefits as per Act.
3. In the statement under Section 19 of the Act dated
12.05.05, it was recorded that Shri Bhullan @ Bhulle and Smt.
-:4:- LAC No. 99/2005
Indra Devi were recorded owners to the extent of half share each
in the land comprised in Khasra No.25/21(4-08), 26/16(4-16)
situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, New Delhi. This
statement was admitted as correct.
4. The Union of India filed its written statement contending
that the Delhi Land Reforms Act was applicable to the land in
dispute. The land was not surrounded by any developed or
undeveloped colony and could only be used for agricultural.
There was no structure, trees, well or tubewell on the land in
question and that there was no ground to enhance the market
value as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The UOI
further pleaded that compensation was correctly assessed and
prayed for dismissal of the claim.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated
07.02.2007 following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the Delhi Land Reforms Act is
applicable to the land in dispute, if so to
what effect? OPD
(2) To what enhancement of compensation the
claimant is entitled to? OPP
(3) Relief.
6. In support of their case, petitioners examined Shri
Bhullan @ Bhulle, petitioner no.1 only. Ld counsel for the
-:5:- LAC No. 99/2005
petitioners further relied on the evidence led in case LAC
No.228/2005 titled Shri MP Gupta Vs UOI & Anr. and the
judgment passed therein.
In support of its case, counsel for the respondent/UOI
tendered in evidence copy of Award No. 6/2004-05 of village
Ghevra as Ex. R 1. Counsel for MCD, Slum & J.J. Department
did not lead any evidence and relied on the evidence led on behalf
of UOI.
7. After closing of evidence by the parties, I heard argu-
ments of counsels for the respondents and perused file.
Ld. counsel for the petitioners has further placed reli-
ance upon (i) Jasrath Vs. Union of India 130 (2006) DLT 700;
(ii) Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs.
Narasaiah 2001 II AD(S.C.) 502; (iii) Lakhimpur V. Bhuban
Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 SC 2015; (iv) K. S. Shivadevamma and
others, v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer
and another AIR 1996 SC 2886; and (v) Shri Mahinder Singh Vs
UOI & Ors., LAA No.866/2005 etc.
Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for the UOI has placed reli-
ance upon Section 23, 24 and 25 of the LA Act. He also relied
on Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Union on India, 77 (1999) DLT 1 etc.
8. After going through the pleadings of the parties;
examination of evidence on record; and considering the arguments
-:6:- LAC No. 99/2005
of the counsels for the respondents, my findings on the issues are
follows:
9. FINDINGS OF ISSUE NO.1
The burden to prove this issue was on the respondents
and they had to prove as to how applicability of the Act affected
the market value of the land in dispute.
But both the respondents have failed to adduce any
evidence on this issue.
However, as per statement under Section 19 of the
Act which is admitted by the petitioners; it is evident that the land
in question was agricultural land and subject to Delhi Land
Reforms Act. Irrespective of that it is not shown as to how it
basically affected the market value of the compensation to be
awarded.
The issue, thus is, answered to the effect that the land
was subject to Delhi Land Reforms Act but without prejudice to
the reasons to be taken up under issue no.2; it no way affects the
market value of the awarded land for the purposes of
compensation under the Land Acquisition act, 1894.
FINDINGS OF ISSUE NO. 2
10. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for respondent/UOI, Shri
-:7:- LAC No. 99/2005
S.K.Puri that as the award was assailed by the petitioners; the
burden to prove that they be awarded compensation at the
enhanced rate lay upon him.
11. To discharge the burden as recorded above, the
petitioners examined Shri Bhullan @ Bhulle and placed reliance
on the evidence led in case LAC No.228/2005 titled MP Gupta
Vs. UOI & Anr. In that case, petitioners examined Shri
S.K.Mudgil, Reader to SR Office, Punjabi Bagh as PW-1, Shri
Pradeep Suri, LDC, Sub Registrar, Janak Puri as PW-2, Shri
Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari, Village Ghevra as PW-3, Shri
S.C.Munjal, Office Kanungo, record room incharge, Kanjhawala
as PW-4.
Shri Bhullan @ Bhulle , petitioner no.1 in his evidence
led by way of affidavit and deposed that he and petitioner no.2
were co-owners having one half share each in possession of land
bearing khasra Nos. 25/21(4-08), 25/16(4-16) situated in the
revenue estate of village Ghevra Delhi and the same has been
acquired vide award No.6/2004-05 dated 26/06/2004 for public
purpose namely rehabilitation of J.J.Clusters. The impugned
award is not acceptable to the him and he received compensation
under protest. Hence, the petition u/s 18 of the Act. They further
deposed that LAC has not appreciated the evidence regarding
market value of the land in question. Land of the petitioners can
fetch more value than awarded by the LAC.
-:8:- LAC No. 99/2005
This witness was subject to cross examination in
substance with the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
Shri S.K.Mudgil, Reader to SR Office, Punjabi Bagh,
PW-1 examined in LAC No.228/2005 has deposed to the
following effect that :
"I have brought the summoned record dated 22.5.2007
executed by Shri Suresh Kumar in favour of Shri Shiv Mahima
Township Pvt. Ltd. In respect of the land measuring 7 bigha
and 1-1/3 situated at Zafarpur, Hirankudna for a
consideration of Rs.3 crore and the same is entered at 2746
additional Book No.1 Volume no. 691 and the same is mark K
already on record. The another sale deed dated 31.05.2007
executed by Shri Jagphool Singh in favour of Shiv Mahima
Township Pvt. Ltd. in respect of land measuring about 1 bigha
and 9.5 biswas of village Hirankudana for consideration of
Rs.5 crore and same is entered at 2940 in additional book
no.1, Volume No.700 and the copy of the same is Ex.PW2/B.
The photocopies of the above mentioned documents have been
seen and are same as per record brought by me."
PW-2, Shri Pradeep Suri, LDC, Sub Registrar, Janak
puri examined in LAC No.228/2005 has deposed to the following
effect that :
"I have brought the following summoned record i.e (i) sale
deed executed by Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri
D.D.Sharma in favour of L&T Ltd. registered at No.2732 in
additional book no.1, volume 7335 on pages 67-83 on dated
23.4.1993 (ii) sale deed executed by Shr Sandeep Kumar
Sharma, S/o Shri D.D.Sharma in favour of L&T Ltd. registered
at No.2733 in additional book no.1, volume 7335 on pages 84-
101 on dated 23.4.1993 (iii) sale deed executed by Ms. Bimla
Kumari, W/o Shri Rama Avtar in favour of L&T Ltd.
registered at No.2734 in additional book no.1, volume 7335 on
pages 102-112 on dated 23.4.1993 (iv) sale deed executed by
Shri Iqbal Singh S/o Chanan Das in favour of L&T Ltd.
-:9:- LAC No. 99/2005
registered at No.2735 in additional book no.1 volume 7335 on
pages 113-123 on dated 23.4.1993 (v) sale deed executed by
Shri Mool Chand S/o Shri Ratan Singh and Mir Singh S/o Shri
Yad Ram in favour of Ganga Bishan Gupta, S/o Shri Kale Ram
registered at No.9466 in additional book no.1, volume 9686 on
pages 131-153 on dated 21.9.2000. The photocopies of the
above mentioned five documents have been seen and mark A to
Mark E already on record respectively and are same as per
record brought by me."
PW-3, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari, Village
Ghevra, Tehsil Saraswati Vihar, Delhi examined in LAC
No.228/2005 has deposed to the following effect that :
"I am posting as patwari of village Ghevra for
last one and half years. The land bearing khasra no.82/4 and
68/24 of village Ghevra is situated at the distance of 18 acres
away from the acquired land. We maintain and prepare the
record of rights pertaining to Khasra no.82/4 and 68/24 as
khatoni prior to acquisition. Khasra no.82/4 and 68/24 are
vacant land. I can not tell the distance of National Highway
from the acquired land. The FCI godowns are located at a
distance of 12 acre from the acquired land whereas SPG Gas
Plan is located at a distance of 14 acres approximately. It is
the correct that there is railway station falling in the Revenue
Esate of village Ghevra. It is correct that land of village
Ghevra is by the side of Kanjhawala road and Rohtak Road
National Highway No.10 as well as Kanjhawala to Bawana
road and Sawda to Rasurpur road. I can not tell the PVC
market. Though it is correct that in the land of village Mundka
Metro station is being constructed. It is correct that
agricultural land get electricity supply and water supply from
concerned authorities. It is correct that to the village Ghevra,
hospital, school, bank facilities are situated. It is correct that
nearby to the village Ghevra i.e. approximately seven are away
Industrial units are running. However, it is not in my
knowledge as to whether the same has been approved by the
NCT Delhi or not. The original exsizra of village Ghevra and
Sawda is Ex.PW3/1 and PW3/2."
-:10:- LAC No. 99/2005
PW-4, Shri S.C.Munjal, Office Kanungo, Record
Room Incharge, Kanjhawala examined in LAC No.228/2005 has
deposed to the following effect that :
"I have brought the Khasra Girdawari of three
years of village Ghevra from the year 2000-2001, 2001-2002,
2002-2003 Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/3."
PW-5 Shri Ved Prakash, Naib Tehsildar, L & Building
Department, Nirman Bhawan examined in LAC No.228/2005 has
deposed to the following effect that :
"I have brought the attested copy of the govt. policy
fixing the minimum price of agricultural land in Delhi from the
year 1990 to 30.8.2005 and the same are Ex.PW6/1 to
Ex.PW6/7 only."
(i) The cross examination of PW-1 to 4 and
PW-5 examined in LAC No.228/2005
above mentioned; was of no substance
as they deposed from the record.
(ii) No question was put on policy matter of
enhancement of compensation.
12. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners summarised his
contentions in two propositions. It is submitted that either of his
propositions be accepted.
(1) The first proposition propounded by him was
that relying upon the sale deeds Ex.PW1/F to
-:11:- LAC No. 99/2005
Ex.PW1/O (In LAC No.228/2005) the
petitioners be given enhancement.
(ii) Secondly, his proposition is that petitioners be
awarded the higher compensation i.e. @ 12% flat or
11.5% compounded.
13. On the other hand, Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for the
Union of India has argued that no reliance can be placed on sale
deeds Ex.PW1/F to O (in LAC No.228/2005) because these are
either much prior to date of acquisition or much later from the
date of acquisition Secondly, these are for small pieces of land
and thirdly, these lands were purchased for commercial purposes.
14. Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for the UOI has placed
referred to Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act and submitted that
propositions for enhancement raised by Ld. counsel for petitioners
do not hold good. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act being
relevant is reproduced as under :
"Matters to be considered in determining compensation - (1)
in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for
land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into
consideration -
First, the market value of the land at
the time of publication of the
[notification under Section 4,
sub-section(1)];
secondly, the damage sustained by the person
interested, by reason of the taking
of any standing crops or trees
-:12:- LAC No. 99/2005
which may be on the land at the
time of the Collector's taking
possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by
the person interested, at the time of
the Collector's taking possession of
the land, by reason of severing such
land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the
person interested, at the time of the
Collector's taking possession of the
land by reason of the acquisition
injuriously affecting his other
property, movable or immovable, in
any other manner, or his earning;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition
of the land by the Collector, the
person interested is compelled to
change his residence or place of
business, the reasonable expenses
(if any) incidental to such change;
and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide
resulting from diminution of the
profits of the land between the time
of the publication of the declaration
under section 6 and the time of the
Collector's taking possession of the
land."
Shri S.K.Puri emphasised that the compensation
awarded by LAC vide Ex.R-1 was legal and justified being based
upon legal provisions and as per settled principles. He did not
dispute the ratio and applicability of Mahinder Singh Vs UOI &
Ors (Supra) herein.
15. In the award Ld. LAC while ascertaining the market
value of the land has held that :
-:13:- LAC No. 99/2005
"In a policy announcement which came into effect
from the financial year 2001-2002, Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi fixed the indicative prices of
agricultural land @ Rs.15,70,000.00 per acre for the acquisition
of agricultural land vide their order
No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 dated 9.8.2001 which are
applicable with effect from 1.4.2001.
In view of the absence of any documentary
evidences produced by the interested persons, the copy of sale
deed in possession of this office as referred to above, and in the
light of the above discussion, I find Rs.15,70,000.00 per acre to
be the most reasonable price for the agricultural land as on
6.2.2003. The notification under Section 4 was issued on
6.2.2003 and the price of the land is to be determined as on the
date of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act
itself. Hence, in view of the above facts I find Rs. 15,70,000.00
per acre to be the most reasonable price for the land as on
6.2.2003. I, accordingly, determine the market value of the land
@ Rs.15,70,00.00 per acre."
16. The market value admittedly has to be fixed on the date
of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In this case
notification under Section 4 was issued on 6.2.2003. And as per
Sec.25 of the Act it can not be less than the amount awarded by
the LAC under Section 11 of the Act.
17. Counsel for respondent has relied upon case
Rameshwar Dayal, Supra; wherein it was held in that case that
fixing compensation on basis of instances available within same
village were always preferable. But the sale deeds (in LAC
No.228/2005) Ex.PW1/H & 1/I belongs to village Tikri Kalan;
Ex.PW1/J to 1/N belong to village Hiran Kudna and Ex.PW1/O
belongs to village Savda. Hence, these sale deeds can not be
-:14:- LAC No. 99/2005
taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the
market value of the land of the petitioners.
Although certified copies of sale deeds are admissible
in evidence as held in cases Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal
Revenue Officer Vs. Narasaiah and State of Haryana Vs. Ram
Singh, Supra, yet these will not provide any benefit to petitioners
for the reasons firstly, that Ex. PW1/F to 1/O (in LAC
No.228/2005) are not for the relevant period.
Second reason for discarding these sale deeds are that
market value of large track of land comprising of 943 bighas 18
biswas of land in the present case can not be decided on the basis
of sale deeds only for a small pieces of land i.e., for one to two
and half bighas of land.
My decision finds support by a decision of Apex
Court in case of Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra
Dutta wherein it was held that:
"In determining compensation, the value fetched for small
plot of land cannot be applied to lands covering a very large
extent. The large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at
the same rate at which small plots are sold."
This principle was again reiterated by the Supreme
Court in cases of Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector,
Gadwal, Supra wherein it set aside the order of High Court that
had relied on sale deed relating to small piece of land and
determined compensation per sq. yard and K. S. Shivadevamma
-:15:- LAC No. 99/2005
and others, Supra, wherein it was held that a Sale deed of small
piece of land relied on by petitioners cannot form basis for
determining compensation for large extent of land.
Third reason for discarding valuation on the basis of
Ex. PW/F to 1/O (in LAC No.228/2005) is that situation of
particular land plays an important role in fetching the value of it.
For example, if the land is situated just near the metal led road on
a developed place it may fetch more value than the land which is
situated far away from the metal led road and near the less
developed area. In the present case no evidence has been
adduced to prove existence of favorable factors to fetch more
value of the land in dispute.
The arguments of counsel for the Union of India is
convincing that purchaser paid higher side of price of land as
lands were purchased for commercial purposes. The counsel for
the petitioners further failed to prove on record that there was
similarity of situation, position and advantages attached to the
land purchased by purchaser and land in dispute and acquired in
the present case.
18. I have examined the evidence and material
produced on record from different angles in order to find out
whether after applying the principles as discussed in cases Smt.
Tribeni Devi and others v. The Collector; Ranchi Adusumilli
Gopalkrishna, v. Spl. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition); and
-:16:- LAC No. 99/2005
Suresh Kumar, v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, etc., some
enhancement of compensation could be made? And I have come
to the conclusion that petitioners could not establish on record
that either potentiality or market value or the advantages attached
to the land subject matter of this case could fetch more value than
the land acquisition collector awarded for the land in dispute and
referred to in the award. In other words, it could not be
established that market value as on the date of notification for
acquisition of land was more than what the Land Acquisition
Collector assessed in his award. Therefore, it is held that the
petitioner are entitled for enhancement of compensation on the
basis of the sale deeds Ex.PW1/F to Ex.PW1/O (in LAC
No.228/2005) .
19. From the analysis of PW1 to 4 and PW-5 examined in LAC
No.228/2005 and the documents above referred proved by them, it
emerges as below :
(i) The land falling in village Ghevra is surrounded
by Kanjawala, Hirankudna, Tikra, Mundaka,
Rasulpur, Sawda and Tikri Kalan and is
connected by road and civic amenities.
(ii) The awarded land was fertile agricultural land.
(iii) That there was considerable jump in the
minimum compensation fixed by the
Government of NCT, Delhi each time.
(iv) There has been continuous and consistent
increase in agricultural land prices in the NCT,
-:17:- LAC No. 99/2005
Delhi.
The above factors, thus, support the claim of the
petitioners for higher compensation than what was awarded by
Ld. LAC at the minimum acquisition rate as there was gap of 22
months when the minimum acquisition rate of the agricultural and
was notified. The land rates steadily increased as emerges from
the letters of Dy Secretary (LA) to the Secretary (Revenue)
Divisional Commissioner (filed in LAC No.228/2005) which
being relevant is reproduced as under:
"No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 Dated 9.8.2001
The Secretary(Revenue)/ Divisional Commissioner,
Govt of NCT of Delhi
Tis Hazari,
Delhi.
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land
situated in river bed between forward bunds.
Sir,
In supersession of this office letter
NO.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/12358 dt. 21.11.2000, the Government
has approved the following rates to be the minimum rates in
the National Capital Territory of Delhi effective from 1.4.2001
for the purpose of acquisition of land under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894:-
1. Rs.15,70,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs seventy thousand
only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands
situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
****
****"
"F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA 6720 Dated: 30.8.2005 -:18:- LAC No. 99/2005 The Secretary(Revenue)/ Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land situated in river bed between forward bunds.
Sir, In supersession of this office letter NO.F.9(20)/80/L&BLA6696 dated 9.8.2001, the Government has approved the following rates to be the minimum rates in the National Capital Territory of Delhi effective from 30.8.2005 for the purpose of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:-
1. Rs.17,58,400/- (Rupees seventeen fifty eight thousand four hundred only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
**** ****"
"No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/15065 Dated : 24.01.2008 The Secretary(Revenue)/Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land situated in river bed between forward bunds.
Sir, In supersession of this office letter NO.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/12358 dated 30.8.2005, the Govt. has approved the following rates to be the minimum rates in the National Capital Territory of Delhi effective from 18.12.2007 i.e. the date of decision of the cabinet, for the purpose of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:-
1. Rs.53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty three lacs only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
**** -:19:- LAC No. 99/2005 **** It is also emphasized that the above rates are the minimum rates for compensation. The actual rates for compensation will be determined by the Land Acquisition collector in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the prevalent case law"
In all the above letters, it was emphasized that the rates notified as minimum rates and accordingly rates can not be lowered and rather implied to be higher in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the prevalent case law.
20. In case of Shri Mahinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors., Supra of the Hon'ble Division Bench of His lordship Hon'ble Mr Justice Swantanter Kumar and Mr. Justice S.L.Bhayana dated 11th May, 2006 held that :
"the Court while granting very limited enhancement again because of non-availability of proper and cogent evidence, it specifically granted the relief of interest on solatium and the benefit for a period of 7 to 8 months in computation of market value of the land on the basis of the Government Policy. It again may not be necessary for this Court to reiterate the entire discussion on this aspect of the case. In fact the learned counsel appearing for the respondents did fairly state that these two reliefs, the petitioners would be entitled to and more particularly in view of the judgment of this court in Gajraj Singh case.
It was for the claimants to produce on record the relevant and cogent evidence by sale instances, judicial pronouncements, which would considerably support their case for enhancement of compensation. The claimants have failed to completely discharge their onus on this issue and -:20:- LAC No. 99/2005 claim on the basis of agricultural produce having been given up, there is hardly any basis for the claimants to claim enhancement in compensation for acquisition of their land, on their own strength. The policy of the Government in relation to grant of minimum price payable for acquisition of agricultural land would continue to be relevant factor on the basis of which, the Court would have to determine the compensation payable to the claimants."
It was further held by their lordships :
"We hold that the claimants are entitled to the following rel"We hold that the claimants are entitled to the following reliefs:-
(a) The order maintaining the categorisation of the acquired land into grounds A and B is set aside.
All claimants, whose lands have been acquired vide notification dated 15th November, 1996 in the revenue estate of Village Bawana would be entitled to uniform rate of compensation.
(b) The claimants would be entitled to increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November 1996 (the date of notification under Section 4 under the Act) @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the reference Court/Collector that would roughly given them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68p. per Bigha."
(ii) This proposition was reaffirmed and followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of their lordships Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Ms. Justice Veena Birbal in the latest judgment in case RFA No.48/95 titled Shri Sher Singh & Ors. Vs UOI -:21:- LAC No. 99/2005 dated 17.9.2007. These were latest judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble High Court and have to be followed.
(iii) Having dealt with all the plausible propositions; in the light of relevant provisions; in my considered opinion the latest case law above referred lays the best possible proposition to be applied to the case in hand for ascertaining the market value of awarded land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, enhancement on Govt. policy of minimum acquisition rate is applied herein. I am, therefore, of the view that petitioners are entitled for appreciation of 22 months over and above the value fixed by LAC. On calculation the amount of interest for 22 months @ 11.5% compounded annually on 96,875/- comes to Rs. 1,18,367.122 i.e. Rs. 1,18,367/-.
RELIEF
21. As settled in Mahender Singh's case, petitioners are entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,18,367/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand three hundred sixty seven only) per bigha to the extent of half share each in the land comprised in Khasra nos. 25/21(4-08) and 26/16(4-16) situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, New Delhi as mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of LA Act dated Nil. The petitioners shall also be entitled to the solatium of 30% on market value and 12% additional amount from the date of publication of -:22:- LAC No. 99/2005 notification under Section 4 till the date of Award/taking of possession under section 23(1A) whichever is earlier. The petitioners would also be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking of possession and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter till the enhanced compensation is paid.
23. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector for his information The parties are left to bear their own costs.
A copy of award be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector for his information.
Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON ( S.S.HANDA ) THIS 28th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI