Delhi District Court
Smt. Veena Soin vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR-II,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
LAC No.17/2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Smt. Veena Soin,
W/o Late Sh. Chander Mohan
R/o 3, Ram Kishore Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.
2. Sh. Sameer Soin,
S/o Late Sh. Chander Mohan
R/o 3, Ram Kishore Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.
.........Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector (Shahdara),
K-Block, 1st Floor, D.C. Office Complex,
Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.
2. Public Works Department
Government of NCE of Delhi
Through Exe. Engineer-CR&D M-213,
Shastri Park, Delhi.
.........Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.10.2010
Date of judgment : 31.01.2023
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide the reference petition filed under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 1/17 KUMAR Date:
2023.01.31 16:38:02 +0530 (hereinafter referred to as 'L.A. Act, 1894') arising out of award bearing No.1/09-10, dated 15.06.2009 with respect to village Jhilmil, Tahirpur, Delhi.
2 For deciding the reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [In short LA 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 : 20.01.2009
ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act : 16.02.2009
iii) Date of award : 15.06.2009
iv) Area of the locality : Jhilmil Tahirpur
v) Project : Acquisition of land at Road No.62, GT Road for construction of flyover and underpass by PWD
vi) The land use of the area as per the award : Commercial
vii) Petition referred to court on : 26.10.2010
3 The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the notification dated 20.01.2009 under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 was issued by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") for acquisition of the acquired property situated in Khasra No.1103/283/2/1 ad-measuring 1 bigha 12 biswas equivalent to 1348.91 sq. mtrs. for the purpose construction of flyover and underpass in which the PWD was the beneficiary. The said notification which was followed by the Notification dated 16.02.2009 under Section 6 & 17(1) of L.A. Act, 1894. Keeping in view the use of the land under acquisition as commercial, the LAC assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 6393/- per sq. mtr. with respect to 1 Bigha 12 Biswa i.e. 1348.91 Sqr. mtr. of land which came to Rs.86,23,581.63 along Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 2/17 KUMAR Date:
2023.01.31 16:38:13 +0530 with statutory benefits which included solatium at the rate of 30% of market value alongwith the additional amount @ 12% of market value w.e.f. 20.01.2009 to 18.03.2009 apart from cost of structure appended to the said land and statutory interest under Section 34 of Act. Thus, an Award for total amount of Rs.1,17,06,496/- was passed by the LAC.
4 Being aggrieved from the lesser rate fiXed by LAC for the acquired land, the petitioner 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 and subsequently the present case was listed for trial and finally after adjudication of the evidence filed by all the parties, the predecessor of this court finally announced an award / judgment dated 09.12.2015 in which he relied upon the decision rendered in Chandra Pratap Singh Vs. UOI bearing LAC No.1/09 which was duly acquired vide award No.2/07-08 wherein the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act was 12.04.2006 and after giving due appreciation @ 12% p.a. from the date of notification in the said case i.e. 12.04.2006 to the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act in the present case i.e. 20.01.2009, the market value was enhanced from Rs.6,393/- to Rs.29,971/- per sq. mtrs. as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 20.01.2009. The earlier decision pronounced in the present case by my Ld. Predecessor is going a long way to help me in the assessment of the market value as well.
5 Subsequently, the judgment passed by the trial court dated 09.12.2015 in the present case was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble High Court Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH Date: Page no. 3/17 KUMAR 2023.01.31 16:38:19 +0530 of Delhi remanded back the case vide order dated 21.12.2017 for adducing of fresh evidence by all the parties resulting in adducing of additional evidence on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents.
6 In the present petition, the petitioners have raised various grounds inter-alia stating that the market value assessed by the LAC is not proper and is on a much lower side than the prevailing market value of the area. The petitioners further contended that admittedly the land use of the acquired property was the commercial and it was a freehold property and the petitioner was using the acquired property as a petrol pump much prior to the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act.
7 The petitioners filed reference U/s 18 of the LA Act in which they categorically contended that the land of the petitioner was freehold land which was much higher than the leasehold properties and that even the Govt. of India levied certain charges in the form of percentage while converting leasehold to freehold. It is submitted that LAC failed to appreciate that the land was commercial and all the amenities for running industrial/commercial sites were available much prior to the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act. The petitioner further stated that the market value of the land was not less than 75,000/- per sq. mtrs.
8 Separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. The respondent no.1 i.e. Union of India in its written statement took various preliminary objections stating therein that the compensation assessed by the LAC is sufficient and reasonable and it reflects the true Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH Date:
Page no. 4/17 KUMAR 2023.01.31
16:38:24
+0530
market value prevailing at the time of the notification under section 4 of the LA Act. It is further stated that the LAC in order to assess the fair market value of the land considered the Schedule of Market Rates" of lands in various locality in Delhi issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Govt. of India intimated/circulated vide its notification No. J-22011/4/95, dated 16.04.1999. It is further stated that the LAC rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated under section 23 & 24 of the LA Act. It is further stated that the LAC assessed the fair market value of the land after considering its current use, potentially for the future land use, proximity of land to the nearby area. It is further stated that the structures appurtenant to the land under acquisition were got evaluated by the PWD of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and conducted the evaluation and submitted the evaluation reports to the LAC which were accepted after due consideration. It is further stated that the value of the structure i.e. petrol tank was assessed at Rs.77,253/- as the petrol tank was handed over to the owner after its removal at the time of taking over possession. It is further stated that the land owners/interested person are claiming exorbitant value of the land structures, which was correctly assessed by the LAC, hence the reference under reply is liable to be dismissed and the petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement over and above the value assessed by the LAC. On merits, all the averments of claim petition are denied word by word and ultimately it is prayed that the present petition is devoid of any merits and be dismissed.
Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 5/17 Date: KUMAR 2023.01.31 16:38:29 +0530 9 The respondent no.2 i.e. PWD also took various
preliminary objections in its written statement stating therein that the land of the petitioner was acquired for the public purpose of construction of fly over and under pass by PWD under the planned development of Delhi, consequently, LAC pronounced the award under LA Act in sole conformity with the provisions laid down and there is no ambiguity/misappropriation in evaluation of the prevalent market rates of the acquired suit land and structure cost as awarded by the LAC. It is further stated that nothing extra/no compensation is payable on this account to the petitioner and no relief and remedy on the acquired suit land is available and deemed to be provided in favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the appeal of the appellant/petitioner with heavy cost in favour of respondent no.2 against the petitioner.
10 After completion of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 21.07.2012:-
1. What was the market value of the land acquired as on the date of notification u/s 4 of LA Act, 1894?
OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any enhancement in compensation? OPP
3. Relief?
11 In order to prove the case, the petitioners have examined as many as eight witnesses in additional evidence. Sh. Sanjeet Kumar Patwari from the office of LAC, District West as PW-2; Sh. Sunil Kumar, Sr. Secretariat Assistant was examined as PW-3;
Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH Date: Page no. 6/17 KUMAR 2023.01.31 16:38:35 +0530
Smt. Rajni Saini Senior Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank was examined as PW-4; Ms. Jaswinder Kaur, Asstt. Director [Planning] DDA as PW-5; Ms. Avanti Kitey, Asstt. Director [Planning], Zone-E, DDA as PW-6; Devender Kumar, Judicial Asstt, Record Room, Delhi High Court as PW-7 and lastly Kamleshwari, Kanoongo from the office of DD Lands, DDA as PW-8.
12 Sh. Sanjeet Kumar Patwari came and proved the copy of award No.4/DC(W)/2010-11 with respect to Ashok Park locality, Village Basai Darapur in which the petitioner proved that all the statutory benefits awarded under the LA Act were also liable to be awarded to the amount of structures which in the present case has not been awarded by the LAC. The said award was exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. During cross examination he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the records.
13 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Sr. Secretariat Assistant was examined as PW3 who proved the L&DO rates issued by the Land & Development office dated 02.05.2017 as Ex.PW3/A. He was also examined and cross examined and during cross examination he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the records.
14 Smt. Rajni, Sr. Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank was examined as PW-4 who came and proved the auction of Abhimanyu Hospital, Mansarovar Park Shahdara Delhi as Ex.PW4/A (colly. 11 pages). During cross examination she also deposed that she has no personal knowledge of the records.
15 Ms. Jasvinder Kumar i.e. PW-5 proved the Master plan of the year 1962, 2001 & 2021 for the entire Delhi as Ex.PW-5/A to PW5/C respectively. During cross examination she also deposed Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 17/2020 KUMAR Page no. 7/17 RAMESH Date:
KUMAR 2023.01.31
16:38:41
+0530
that she has no personal knowledge of the records.
16 Ms. Awanti Kitey i.e. PW-6 proved the Zonal development plan of Zone-E pertaining to the year 2001 and 2021 as Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B. During cross examination she also deposed that she has no personal knowledge of the records.
17 Sh. Devender Kumar, Judicial Assistant proved the CD of the case file of WP(C) No.7265/2000 titled as Samir Soin & Ors. vs. DDA & Ors. as Ex.PW7/A & Ex.PW7/B respectively and lastly the petitioners examined Sh. Kamleshwari Kanoongo from the office of DDA who proved the Aks Shajra of the Revenue Estate of village Jhilmil Tahirpur as Ex.PW-8/A which showed that the acquired property was situated on the main GT Road and was commercial. The said map was exhibited as PW-8/A. The said witness was also cross examined and discharged.
18 On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 had tendered in evidence the copy of award No.1/09-10 as Ex.R-1 passed by the LAC in which the market value of the acquired property was fixed at Rs.6,393/- per sq. mtrs. He also adopted the evidence led by respondent no.1 in Chandra Pratap Singh Vs Union of India, LAC No.1/2010.
19 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. Both the respondent no.1 did not lead additional evidence after the present reference was remanded to this court for adducing additional evidence and ultimately respondents' evidence was closed vide order dated 22.04.2022 and thereafter, Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH Date:
Page no. 8/17 KUMAR 2023.01.31
16:38:47
+0530
matter was listed for final arguments.
20 Ld. counsel for petitioner filed written arguments in
support of petitioner's case and she submitted that she does not want to submit anything else beyond written arguments. Respondent no.1 & 2 did not address their arguments despite ample opportunities.
21 I have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record. On perusal of record, my issue- wise finding is as follows:-
ISSUE NOS.1 & 222 The issues no.1 & 2 are connected and therefore both these issues shall be decided collectively. 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 rate of the land prevalent in East Delhi under commercial category was decided to be 5865/- per sq. mtrs. as per L&DO Rates notified by Min. of Urban Affairs and Employment, Deptt. of Urban Development [Land Division] No.J-22011/4/95-LD dated 16.04.1999".
23 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.
24 Accordingly an escalation of 9% in totality for a period of Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 9/17 KUMAR Date: 2023.01.31 16:38:53 +0530
nine years was calculated over the base value of Rs.5,865/- per sq. mtrs. of 1999 and the amount of Rs.6393/- per sq. mtrs. was assessed by the LAC for the acquired property vide the present award. The respondent no.2 admitted the award to be correct thereby admitting the basis of ascertainment of the market value to be correct as well.
25 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 under section 4 of the LA Act which in this particular case is 20.01.2009. The petitioners have duly stated that the rate of Rs.6,393/- per sq. mtrs. as assessed by the LAC is extremely meager for the prime commercial property of the petitioner. For the assessment of the correct market value, the petitioner has relied upon the schedule of market rates issued by the Ministry of Land & Development Office published in the year 2017 i.e. 02.05.2017 as Ex.PW-3/A. The illegality in passing the present award is also evident from the fact that the award relied upon by the petitioners bearing No.2/07-08 was passed in the year 2007 in which the date of notification was almost 3 years prior to the date of notification in the present case i.e. 12.04.2006, however the collector had granted the awarded amount of compensation to the said petitioners @ Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. Though the present award has been passed almost three years subsequent to the present award, yet the market value assessed by the LAC is only Rs.6393/- per sq. mtrs. which is even lesser than the market value assessed vide award No.2/07-08.
26 Section 23 of L.A. Act, 1894 provides that in order to Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR RAMESH Date: LAC No. 17/2020 Page no. 10/17 KUMAR 2023.01.31 16:39:00 +0530
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).
27 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 fi Xation 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.
28 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 KUMARLAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH Date:
Page no. 11/17
KUMAR 2023.01.31
16:39:06
+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:-
a. when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4 (1);
b. it should be a bona fide transaction;
c. it should be of the land acquired or of the land
adjacent to the land acquired; and
d. it should possess similar advantages."
29 The respondent no.2 on the other hand has also admitted
that the award announced by the LAC is true and correct and reflects the actual market value of the property of the petitioner. 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 property acquired vide the present award. 31 The contention raised by the respondents are that the market value assessed by the LAC is absolutely correct and that no enhancement is liable to be given to the property acquired vide present award. I am not inclined to agree with the contentions raised by the respondents to this effect. 32 During the proceedings pending before this Court, the market value with respect to the properties acquired vide award no.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur had already been enhanced by this Court from Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. to Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. in which the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act was 12.04.2006. 33 The petitioners have proved the said judgment and has also relied upon all the evidence led in the above stated award since the acquired property as well as the properties acquired vide award Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH Date: Page no. 12/17 KUMAR 2023.01.31 16:39:11 +0530 No.2/07-08 were admittedly similar in potentiality and market value as per the awards itself.
34 Even my ld. Predecessor, vide judgment dated 09.12.2015 relied upon the market value assessed with respect to the properties acquired vide award No.2/07-08 and accordingly gave an appreciation @ 12% per annum for two years from 12.04.2006 to 20.01.2009.
35 Ld. counsel for the petitioners has filed and relied upon various judgments in support of his contentions and specifically relied upon a judgment passed by this court itself titled as Monika Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr. LAC No.7/2020 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.
36 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 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."
37 Ld. counsel for petitioners has also relied upon another judgment titled Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. Vs. State of J&K reported in AIR 2017 SC 1518 in which the Supreme Court has been 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 petitioner claims the Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 13/17 KUMAR Date:
2023.01.31 16:39:17 +0530 same amount of compensation as assessed in case titled Monika Gupta Vs. Union of India & Anr., Sushil Kumar Jain vs. UOI & Anr. & Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr. already decided by this Court vide judgments dated 26.07.2022. 38 The respondent no.2 has not disputed the award of the Land Acquisition collector 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 for assessing market value of the land in question.
39 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 e X emplars, 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."
40 Ld. counsel for petitioners reiterated the contentions raised by her in the petition under Section 18 of the LA Act. Along with the written arguments, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in case titled Monika Gupta Vs. Union of India, LAC No.7/2020, Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr. LAC No.14/2020 and Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. UOI & Anr. LAC No.15/2020, which pertain to the same notification and same Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 17/2020 RAMESH Date: Page no. 14/17 KUMAR 2023.01.31 16:39:23 +0530 award i.e. Award No.2/2007-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi and which have been decided by this court vide judgments dated 26.07.2022 in which the market value of the acquired properties acquired vide the same notification and same award have been enhanced from Rs.6,450 per sq. mtrs. to Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as on
12.04.2006.
41 Even otherwise, I am inclined to agree with the basis taken for the arrival of the market value of the acquired property by my ld. Predecessor. This court, in assessment of market value of the properties acquired vide award No.2/07-08, has relied upon the schedule of market rates exhibit PW3/A which was notified w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and the rates for the relevant period are Rs.30,000/- per sq. mtrs. for the leasehold properties of the various localities of Delhi. The revised rates for conversion of commercial properties from leasehold to freehold for the financial year 2006- 2007 for East Delhi is Rs.18,000/- per sq. mtrs and adding up the said rates to the value of Rs.30,000/-, the said court has fixed the market value of the acquired property with respect to the same award at Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. In the present case also, the petitioners have categorically contended that the acquired property was freehold which has not been denied or controverted by the respondents in any manner. The schedule of market rates has been taken to be the admitted basis for arrival of the market value by all the parties and I find no reason to rebut the said reliance in any manner. Accordingly I am of the view that the market value of the acquired land can easily be determined by taking into consideration the market value fixed as on 12.04.2006 i.e. with respect to award No.2/07-08 @ Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. and by Digitally signed by RAMESH RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 17/2020 KUMAR Date:
2023.01.31 Page no. 15/17 16:39:29 +0530 giving an increase of 10% per annum for two years, I assessed the market value for the present acquired property to Rs.57,600/- per sq. mtrs. [Rs.48,000 + 4,800 + 4,800]. The total would come to Rs.57,600/- per sq. mtrs. for the acquired property which was acquired vide notification U/s 4 dated 20.01.2009.
42 The petitioners have also contended that they are liable to receive Rs.10 lakhs towards market value of the structures, however the petitioners have not led any evidence in support of the claim mentioned in the reference petition and is therefore, denied.
43 The LAC has awarded an amount of Rs.6,393/- per sq. mtrs. A perusal of the file also reveals that the petitioners have not received any enhanced amount of compensation till date and the earlier amount enhanced vide judgment dated 09.12.2015 is still lying deposited being unpaid to the petitioners. Accordingly the petitioners are entitled to an enhancement of Rs.51,207/- per sq. mtrs. over and above Rs.6,393/- per sq. mtrs.
44 I further hold that the original documents submitted by the petitioners as surety in compliance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India be also returned to the petitioner with immediate effect since the market value of the acquired property is now fixed at Rs.57,600/- per sq. mtrs. as against Rs.29,971/- per sq. mtrs.
RELIEF 45 In view of the findings of issue No.1 & 2, the petitioners are entitled to the market value @ Rs.57,600/- per sq. mtrs. as on 20.01.2009. In addition, the petitioners would also be entitled to Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR RAMESH Date:
LAC No. 17/2020 Page no. 16/17 KUMAR 2023.01.31
16:39:35
+0530
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 this 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.
46 The original documents submitted as surety by the petitioners be returned to them on filing of appropriate application.
47 Reference is answered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 48 A copy of this judgement 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.
(Typed to the dictation, directly corrected and Digitally
signed by
pronounced in open court on 31.01.2023) RAMESH
RAMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2023.01.31
16:39:41
+0530
(RAMESH KUMAR-II)
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHADARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
LAC No. 17/2020 Page no. 17/17