Delhi District Court
Sh. Vijay Kumar Saxena ( Deceased ... vs Union Of India on 2 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. UMED SINGH GREWAL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
Corrected judgment in terms of order dt. 02.09.2021
LAC No. 05/13
New No. 66/16
Area: Property No. 69/6A, Patel Road, New
Delhi.
Award No.: 02/DC (W)/2006-07 dated 30.08.2006
M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Company
Through its Partners
Sh. Vijay Kumar Saxena ( deceased through LRs)
(a) Anita Saxena
Wife of Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Saxena,
1984-A, Rani Bagh
Delhi-110034
(b) Achin Saxena
Son of late Sh. Vijay Kumar Saxena
1984-A, Rani Bagh,
Delhi-110034
....Petitioners
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through LAC West,
Plot No. 3, Shivaji Place,
At Raja Garden,
New Delhi
2. North Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Centre, 4th floor, Minto Road,
Delhi-110002
.....Respondents
LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 1/19
Date of institution of the case : 15.01.2013
Date of reserving of judgment : 08.01.2021
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.02.2021
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 11785.82 sq. meter under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9174 dated 03.09.2003 also under Section 6 vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9375 dated 02.09.2004. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9376 dated 02.09.2004. The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of the Grade/Flyover at Najafgarh Road & Patel Road Intersection near Moti Nagar.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 02/DC (W)/2006-2007 dated 30.08.2006 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.20,900/- per square meter. The structure also valued as per valuation report submitted by MCD.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector petitioners were not shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
Name of Property Total Kind Detail of recorded owner No. Area in of soil Buildings & share Sqm. LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 2/19 69/6A at Patel 69/6A 2083.37 Nil As per award Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi (full share)
Note: The reference petitioners are not recorded owners as per the award and compensation sent to ADJ court u/s 30-31 of LA Act, 1894 being dispute.
Date of Possession is 25.10.2005.
4. The petitioner filed the application under Section 18 of the Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Land Acquisition Collector, West (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC (West)').
5. In brief, the facts stated by the petitioner is that the commercial/industrial property of the petitioner bearing No. 69/6A, Patel Road, New Delhi was acquired vide award in question. The petitioners have been manufacturing and trading in PVC Compound and allied products having 37.30 KVA Load of electricity connection for the last 31 years. The petitioners had to dismantle the machinery, transport the same and store it to another place because of the taking over possession of the land and structures. They suffered loss of earnings on account of acquisition of the land.
It is stated that the market value of the land and structures as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is very much on the lower side. The Land Acquisition Collector has failed to assess the compensation for loss of earnings, shifting charges and other damages as provided under Section 23 of the Act.
It is stated that the market value of the land has been assessed as the lower rate of Rs.20,900/- per sq. meter. The land was situated in the hub of industrial and commercial LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 3/19 activities. There were factories all around its factory. Raw material was also readily available in area. The factory was having all the amenities and the facilities like power connection, license to run the factory, SSI Registration, telephone connection, nearest to the branches of various banks, regular availability of transport and consumption of the products in the areas very close to the business of the petitioner.
6. It is stated that the land rate at Najafgarh Road, prior to the date of notification and near the date of notification, was shown by Wing of the respondent no.2, as Rs.75,000/- per sq. meter. That land could be used only for commercial purposes, whereas the land of the petitioner was fit not only for industrial purpose but for commercial purpose also. It was superior in situation, amenities and facilities as compared to the land sold by the Slum Wing of the respondent no.2.
The land in nearby situated colony was sold at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per sq. mtr. DDA sold residential plots in the year 1996 at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per sq. mtr. in Patel Nagar, which is much inferior to the Patel Road. The Collector, in the garb of modified valuation report, failed to assess any compensation for ground floor area of 7.10x2.00 mtrs. The assessed value of the structures is extremely on the lower side and does not represent the market value thereof as, on the date of notification under Section 4, up to 75% deduction was presumed without taking into account that the building was regularly repaired and was in very good condition.
LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 4/19
7. The value of the land in open market was, in any case, not less than Rs.1 lac per sq. mtr. The market value of the structures was not less than Rs.3,00,000/-.
8. Because of the acquisition and taking over possession, the petitioner had to dismantle the machinery as well as testing lab and transport the same for refixing at another place. The machinery had been installed with strong and heavy foundations. But no compensation was given for foundation nor for shifting, dismantling and re-fixing. During shifting, some of the machinery was permanently and partly damaged resulting in loss to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. Besides machinery, the petitioner had to shift its office, tables, chairs, almirahs and racks etc. They were not allotted alternative site for restarting manufacturing business and hence, it is suffering permanent loss of earning to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.
9. The petitioner is seeking market value of the land and structures, damages, loss etc. above besides 30% solatium, additional amount under Section 23 (1) (A) of the Act apart from the statutory solatium, additional amount under Section 23 (1) (a) of the Act and statutory interest on the amount that may be enhanced by the Court.
10. In preliminary objections, it is stated by respondent no. 1 that the compensation assessed by the Collector is sufficient and reasonable as it reflects the true market value prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner is claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land and structures. It is not LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 5/19 entitled to compensation in respect of any construction or structure as the same was raised without the sanction of law. The Collector rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated under Section 23 & 24 of the Act. The Collector assessed the fair market value of the land after considering the level of development, locality and situation of the area of the land in question.
On merit, the averments made in the petition have been stated as wrong and incorrect. It is stated that the categorization of the land was also done as per the due process of law and any objection thereto is also liable to be dismissed. No ground or reason has been shown by the petitioner for enhancement in market value of land or super structures.
11. Respondent no. 2 filed a detailed reply and took preliminary objections that the petition was not maintainable. It is stated that the Delhi Improvement Trust, now Delhi Development Authority, made and sanctioned a plan for development of Industrial Area on the Najafgarh Road, Delhi. Out of which plot no. 69 measuring 12.41 acres of land was sold to Rai Bahadur Gujjar Mal Modi vide agreement dated 17.08.1948. He sold the land to Shri Jiwan Lal Virmani vide sale deed dated 22.03.1950 who submitted a proposal in 1973 for sub division of the plot no. 69. It was put up before Standing Committee and same was approved vide Resolution No. 1294 dated 31.05.1973. Virmani family took full benefit of the said resolution and got the land sub-divided and sold the sub-divided plots to India Export House but did not fulfill the other conditions of the resolution which were in favour of the MCD or the general public. Thus the resolution lapsed.
LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 6/19 Between MCD and M/s. India Export Pvt. Ltd., there was huge correspondence, according to which the land required for road widening was to be given free of cost to the answering respondent.
12. Writ petition bearing no. 1289/95 was filed in the Hon'ble High Court by India Export Pvt. Ltd. in which conditions of resolution of 1973 were mentioned. So, the entire land measuring 12.41 acres be treated as one transaction and its sub division in favour of individuals is void as per Section 312, 313 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. It is further mentioned that the reference is barred by limitation. On merit, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to enhancement of compensation. Rather the compensation paid by MCD or LAC should be revoked in the light of resolutions of MCD passed in 1973 and 1996.
13. In rejoinder, the petitioner denied that its predecessor in interest ever gave any undertaking to respondent no.2. Resolution dated 31.05.1973 has been termed as a matter of record.
14. Following issues were framed on 12.07.2013:-
1. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 7/19
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation in respect of the structures on the acquired land? OPP
4. Relief.
15. Petitioner examined 12 witnesses to prove the case.
16. PW1 Achin Saxena, attorney of petitioner, tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW1/A. He got exhibited original GPA dated 24.09.2009 as Ex. PW1/1; copy of the Industrial License as Ex. PW1/2; copy of Registration Certificate dated 23.05.1975 as Ex. PW1/3; copy of Registration certificate dated 02.06.1981 as Ex. PW1/4; certified copy of award no. 17/DC (W) 04-05 as Ex. PW1/5; copy of valuation report dated 08.11.2004 as Mark -2A; certified copy of affidavit filed by the MCD before the Hon'ble High Court as Ex. PW1/7; copy of judgment dated 08.04.2009 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court in case bearing LAC No. 49/08 as Ex. PW1/8; copy of judgment dated 16.04.2008 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court in case bearing LAC No. 117/05; original electricity bills as Ex. PW1/10 (colly); copy of the registration certificate issued by the Directorate of Industries as Ex. PW1/11; original receipt dated 11.12.1996, 17.04.1997, 29.12.1997 and 15.04.1998 as Ex. PW1/12. Copies of valuation report submitted by the PWD as Mark-A and Mark-B. Copy of the sale deed dated 26.10.1999 registered on 14.12.1999 is Mark-C. LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 8/19
17. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-1 was again examined in chief and he tendered additional affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW-1/B and relied upon the certified copy of the Nazir's report showing the area of the petitioner as Ex. PW-1/13, Statement and order dated 05.08.2019 as Ex. PW- 1/14 (Colly). He further relied upon the certified copy of the Nazir report as Ex. PW-1/15 wherein an additional area of 14.19 Sq. Mts. has been stated to be lying unpaid which is the share under the ownership of the petitioner. Certified copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case titled as Virender Sood Vs UOI is Ex. PW-1/16 and the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court in the case titled as M/s Anant Raj Products Ltd. Vs Land & Building Department and Anr., which pertains to the same award and notification, is Ex. PW-1/17.
18. PW2 Vijay, Jr. Secretary Assistant, MCD, brought the original file of the Factory License issued by the MCD in favour of M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Company and the copy of the entire file is Ex. PW2/1 (OSR).
19. PW-3 Sh. Deepak Shokeen, Sr. Asistant, from the Department of Trade and Taxes, brought the original certificate issued by the Delhi Sales Tax department to petitioner valid w.e.f. 16.04.1986 as Ex.PW-1/3. He deposed that the registration was renewed from time to time and lastly, it was valid till 23.03.2016.
PW-4 Sh. Vijender Kumar, SO from Land and Estate department, proved the original letter dated 30.08.2006 as Ex. PW-4/1.
LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 9/19
20. PW-5 Sh. Tilak Raj, UDC from the office of Executive Engineer, CBMD, PWD, placed on life the original valuation record of built up structure on property No.69/6A, Patel Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi as Ex. PW-5/1.
PW-6 Sh. Abhishek Sharma, JJA from Delhi High Court proved the original record of LA Appeal No. 913/08 titled as Varinder Sood Vs UOI & Ors, as Ex. PW-1/9. He deposed that the said Appeal was decided by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 15.11.2017.
21. PW-7 Sh. Rajnish Kumar, J.A from High Court proved the record of short affidavit filed by the MCD in WPC No. 9060/2006 titled as Essvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs MCD & Ors. The CD of the same is Ex. PW-7/1 alongwith the copy of certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
PW-8 Sh. Vivek Yadav, Assistant from the office of Sub-Registrar-II, Basai Darapur filed certified copy of sale deed dated 14.12.1999 as Ex. PW-8/1.
PW-9 Sh. Narender Kumar, Kanoongo from the office of SDM, Patel Nagar proved the original of Shizra of the revenue estate of village Basai Darapur, as Ex. PW-9/1 ( OSR).
PW-10 Sh. Vivek Yadav, Record Keeper from the office of Sub-Registrar-II, Basai Darapur, New Delhi brought the original record of registration of the sale deed dated 14.12.2007 and copy of the same is Ex. PW10/1.
PW-11 Sh. Rashwani Kohli, from Land and Building department, proved the original record of notification U/s 4 of the L.A Act dated 04.03.2003 and 06.04.1968 as Ex. PW-11/1 & Ex. PW11/2 respectively.
LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 10/19
22. PW-12 Sh. Lokesh Kumar, JA from Record Room Sessions, proved the photostate record of the case titled as Sh. Virender Sood Vs UOI & Anr., bearing LAC No. 117/05 by comparing with the original, as:
1. Ex. PW12/1 : Certified Copy of the evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Virender Sood ( OSR).
2. Ex. PW12/2 : Certified copy of Award No. 6/DC(W)/200405.
3. Ex. PW12/3 : Certified copy of Award No. 14/DC(W)/200405
4. Ex. PW12/4 : Certified copy of the examination in chief of Sh.
Virender Sood alongwith his crossexamination and the evidence of PW2, PW3 & PW4 dated 06.11.2006 & 09.01.2007 respectively. ( OSR).
5. Ex. PW12/5 : Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 01.05.2000.
6. Ex. PW12/6 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 15.11.1996.
7. Ex. PW12/7 : Certified copy of the Auction rates dated (Colly) 10.08.2004 in respect of property No. 4, 5 & 6, Shivji Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi by Slum & J.J. Department. ( pages 1 to 3).
8. Ex. PW12/8 : Certified Copy of the registered sale deed dated 11.04.2005.
9. Ex. PW12/9 : Certified copy of the conversion rates applicable in various localities of Delhi.
10.Ex. PW12/10 : Certified copy of the reference petition under Section 18 of the L.A. Act filed by Sh. Virender Sood. (OSR).
LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 11/19
23. R2W1 Sh. Brahmanand Perai appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R2W-1/A and relied upon documents marked as Mark-1 to Mark-12 except Mark-8.
24. It is pertinent to mention that in the Section 19 Statement, it is mentioned that the reference petitioners were not recorded owners as per the award and hence compensation was sent to ADJ court u/s 30-31 of LA Act, 1894 being dispute. The reference petition under Section 30-31 of the LA Act bearing LAC No. 10A/10/07 (New number LAC-3/16) titled 'Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Others' was decided by this court on 14.12.2017. In the said judgment, the petitioner herein was held to be entitled as under:
Sl. IP number Area of Amount in % Remarks No. and Name respective IP in the property No.69/6A, Patel Road/ Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi
1. IP No. 3 (i) 70.25 sq. meter (i)60% of 20% Vide M/s. Esvee on ground floor and and Mediation Polymers Agreement
(ii) 40.47sq. Meter (ii) 40% of dated Manufacturing on first floor 20% of total 26.09.2014, Company compensation it is agreed along with that claim of IP 3 and proportionate compromise interest along agreement with of IP 3 is for compensation a total area pertaining to of 106.90 sqr. Mtrs. IP structures No. 3 will which has not claim been any amount assessed in over and above the the name of stated ratio IP No.3. and application qua 70.25 sq. meter in LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 12/19 the ground floor. IP No. 1, 2 & 46 will have no objection to the alternative plot as per the area ad-
measuring 106.90 sq. meter.
As per order dated 14.10.2017 the application of IP No.3 for claiming compensation of ground floor area of 36.395 sq. mtrs. of M/s.
Gargson Auto
Plast/IP No.17
as per
compromise
dated
20.04.2010
was allowed.
Partners of
IP No. 45
Sh.Ravi Raj
Sabharwal
vide
statement
dated
15.12.2016
and
Sh.Ashok
Kumar
Sabharwal
vide
statement
dated
26.12.2016
relinquished
the value of
structure
i.e.
Rs.26,475/-
and
Rs.25,433/-
in favour of
IP No.3
25. I have heard Ms. Dimple Dhamija, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. S.K. Puri, Ld. Counsel for the respondent LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 13/19 no.1 and Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2/MCD and perused the record. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NOS. 1 & 226. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client was held entitled to be the owner of total area measuring 82.83 as reflected in the Nazir's report prepared on the basis of judgment dated 14.12.19 titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani & Ors.
He next argued that as per the above judgment and Nazir's report, IP No. 21 was M/s Ramesh Automobiles and after taking compensation from LAC it made statement Ex. PW-1/14 dated 05.08.2019 that further compensation be given to the petitioner. In this way, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for total area of 88.05 sq. meters ( 82.83 + 5.22). The petitioner relied on judgment of M/s. India Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI, bearing LAC No. 49/08, wherein the court has determined the fair market value of the land involved and acquired vide Award No. 02/DC(W)/2006-07, part of the same award as of the present petition. The petitioner has also relied on judgment passed by this court in the same award i.e. Award No. 02/DC (W)/2006-07 dated 30.08.2006 in case bearing LAC No. 106/11 titled 'Smt. Rajinder Kaur vs. Union of India & Anr.' dated 05.01.2016 and judgment as Ex. PW-1/17.
27. MCD examined one witness who deposed about a dispute pending in the Hon'ble High Court with M/s. India Export Pvt. Ltd. MCD has challenged the award. In that LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 14/19 appeal, the Hon'ble High Court has stayed the impugned award but subject to deposit of 50% decretal amount. The evidence led by MCD is silent on the aspect of enhancement of market value as claimed by the petitioner. This Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of that award as now claimed by respondent no.2, when the matter is already subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court.
28. In order to prove that the land around the acquired land of the petitioner was commercial one, it has placed on record a registration certificate as Ex. PW-1/11 which was issued to it by the Directorate of Industries. Qua that certificate, the PWD had submitted valuation reports Mark A and B admitting that land used in acquired properties situated in 69/6A was commercial in nature. R2W1 also admitted that as per valuation report Ex. PW-5/1, all the properties were described as commercial.
But it is the case of the petitioner in petition itself that its land was situated in the hub of industrial area, there were factories around that land and raw material was easily available there. It has, on its own placed on record industrial licence as Ex. PW-1/2 suggesting that the suit land was being used for industry and not for commercial purpose.
29. In order to prove the market value, the petitioner has relied upon two sale deeds as Ex. PW-8/1 and Ex. PW10/1. The Sale Deed Ex. PW10/1 is dated 14.12.2007 and for residential plot and hence, that deed is, in no way, connected with the suit property. The sale deed Ex. PW-8/1 is dated 14.12.1999 and hence, it is much prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. As LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 15/19 per that deed, the market price Rs. 28,000/- per sq. meters. But the petitioner did not lead any evidence about the comparative location of that property with the suit property.
30. Needless to emphasize that the compensation payable to the petitioner would be as per share percentage adjudicated in Reference Petition pertaining to sec 30-31 of said Act. In this context, it would be pertinent to mention the judgment in case bearing no. LAC No 10A/10/07 titled Union of India Vs Harish Virmani & Ors. passed by ld Predecessor Judge. As per above judgment, IP No. 3 M/s Esvee Polyers Manufacturing Company (petitioner herein) was held entitled to area of 8.43 sq. meters ( i.e. 60% of 20% of 70.25 sq. meters.) and 3.2376 sq. meters (i.e. 40% of 20% of 40.47 sq. meters).
31. Apart from the above, it is mentioned in the remarks coloum of above judgment against the name of IP No. 3 i.e. petitioner, that it was entitled to area of 36.395 Sq. meters of M/s Garg Son Auto Plast/IP No. 17 due to compromise dated 20.4.2010 and order dated 14.10.2017. Further it is mentioned in para no. 200 of above judgment that IP No. 36, vide statement dated 29.11.2017, had relinquished his right in favour of IP No. 3. In that case, statement of Smt. Sunita Goel ( stated to be partner of M/s Mec Engineering Corporation ) dated 29.11.2017 is to the effect that the land measuring area 34.78 Sq. meters had been surrendered in favour of IP No. 3 i.e. petitioner herein.
32. In above case, there is statement of one Poonam, one of the legal heir of late Ramesh Kumar ( IP No. 21) to the LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 16/19 effect that she alongwith her mother and brother had filed an application under section 151 CPC for release of full enhancement of the compensation in favour of IP No. 3, petitioner herein. It is mentioned in the column against the name of IP No. 21 M/s Ramesh Automobile that it was entitled to 75 % of total area of 6.96 Sq. meters. The area comes out to 5.22 Sq. meters.
33. In this way, the total area comes out to 8.43 + 3.2376 + 36.395 + 34.78 + 5.22=88.06 sq. meters.
34. In these circumstances, the law is well settled that the market value already determined vide judgment in case bearing LAC No. 106/11 titled 'Smt. Rajinder Kaur vs. Union of India & Anr.' dated 05.01.2016, is applicable in the present case as well. Reliance is also placed on 'Nand Ram & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana', JT 1988 (4) SC 260.
35. Hence, in view of the above observation and discussion, the petitioner is entitled to fair market value of the compensation to be paid to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.28,438.53 per square meter. Petitioner is thus entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,538.53 along with 30% solatium. Petitioner 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. 03.09.2003 to 27.12.2004 as per provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition 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.
LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 17/19
36. Accordingly, issue nos. 2 & 3 are decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 337. Onus to prove issue no.3 is on the petitioner. However, petitioner has failed to lead any evidence with respect to his claim of structure. Therefore, the issue no. 3 is decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondents. ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF)
38. In view of the above observations and discussion, the reference is disposed of by holding that the compensation awarded to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.20,900/- per sq. meter by LAC was inadequate and unreasonable. Petitioner was required to be paid compensation to be paid to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.28,438.53 (Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred thirty eight and paisa fifty three only) per square meter. Petitioner is thus entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,538.53 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred thirty eight and paisa fifty three only) along with 30% solatium. Petitioner 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. 03.09.2003 to 25.10.2005 as per provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition 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.
LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 18/19
39. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
40. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
41. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 1st February,2021 (Umed Singh Grewal) ADJ-02,West/Delhi LAC No. 05/13 (New No.66/16) M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. vs. UOI & Anr. 19/19