Delhi District Court
Shanker Lal Gupta vs Union Of India on 18 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY SINGH SHEKHAWAT,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-04, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
LAC No. 18/2022
AWARD NO.11/LAC/N/2011-12
DATED:19.08.2011
AREA: KOTHI MEM,
RANI JHANSI ROAD, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh.Shankar Lal Gupta
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gupta
R/o F-7, Bhagwan Dass Nagar,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
District North, Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi.
...Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.07.2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 18.08.2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 18.08.2023
PETITION FOR REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF
THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE
OF LAND STRUCTURE LOSS OF EARNING, SHIFTING
ETC. MADE BY THE LAC VIDE HIS AWARD
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 1/40
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this award, I shall dispose of the instant reference u/sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 preferred by the petitioner against the respondents being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred as 'the LAC'), in lieu of the acquisition of the land/property of the petitioner.
2. Vide notification No. F10(36)/06/L&B/LA/872 dated 20.04.2010 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'LA Act'), declaration u/sec. 6 of the Act vide notification no. F10(36)/06/L&B/LA/5533 dated 28.06.2010 and notification under section 17 of the Act vide no. F10(36)/06/L&B/LA/5534 dated 28.06.2010, the land of the petitioner as specifically stated in the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act submitted by LAC, situated at Rani Jhansi Road has been acquired by the Government and possession of the same was not taken till date of Award i.e 19.08.2011. The LAC, after completing all the formalities as provided under the Act assessed the market value of the land of the petitioner @ Rs.55,200/- per sq. mtr.
3. Briefly stated averments made in the present reference are that the petitioner was 'owner' in respect of the property bearing No. 6585, Kothi Mem, Azad Market,Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') in the Azad Market, Delhi are corresponding to land ad-measuring total area having plinth area 18.42 sq. mtrs i.e shop/office in the commercial road of Delhi as LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 2/40 per Master Plan of Delhi 2021 (MPD-2021). Petitioner was using the suit property for commercial purpose. As per the petitioner's claim, the market value of the land and structure, loss of earnings etc. as assessed by the LAC is inadequate for the following reasons:
i. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred as 'LAC') has erred in law and facts on record while announcing the award and has arbitrarily passed the present award on his own whims and fancies;
ii. That the LAC has ignored the fact that all the facilities and amenities of life such as electricity, water, transportation, schools, hospitals, banks, colleges etc. were available to the acquired land much prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the LA Act. The University of Delhi is at a stone's throw distance away from the property of the claimant;
iii. That the LAC had deeply erred in absolutely ignoring the various sale transactions having taken place in and around the acquired area much prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the LA Act;
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 3/40 iv. That the LAC did not take into consideration the various auctions which had taken place proximate to the date of notification under section 4 of the LA Act;
v. That the LAC has ignored the extremely cogent and reliable evidence supplied by the petitioner to calculate the market value of the acquired property and has illegally valued the acquired property at extremely low rates;
vi. That the property in question is a commercial property of high potential. The said property is situated in one of the most prime commercial areas of Delhi located near prime commercial areas like Kashmere Gate, Daryaganj, Subzi Mand, Ashoka Market, Filimstan, Azad Market, Sadar Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Kingway camp, ISBT, Railway station, G.T. Road, hospitals etc. The commercial premises being situated on the main Rani Jhansi Road abetting the Pulbungash Metro Station which fact is also admitted in the award, the land price of the said commercial premises commands a high premium and can fetch a very high market rates in view of the most exceptional and special features, advantages and benefits attached to its the minimum market value of LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 4/40 the property of the petitioner is Rs.7,71,914/- per square meter for the land proposed to be acquired as on the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act i.e 20.04.2010;
vii. That the LAC has failed to take into consideration the sale of certain properties pertaining to civil lines area which is hardly at a distance of less than 2 KM from the acquired property in which the weighted average rate comes to not less than Rs. 6.5 Lakhs per sq. meter pertaining to commercial properties on the date of notification under section 4 of the LA Act;
viii. That the LAC did not take into consideration the leasehold documents in respect of the properties which were leased out at Pul Bangash Metro Station, Delhi which is having an F.A.R. of 400 and capitalized value of the lease hold properties comes to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) per sq. mtr. on the basis of capitalization method of 20 years; and ix. That the LAC also did not allow shifting charges which the petitioner had to incur on account of compulsory nature of acquisition LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 5/40 and petitioner is also entitled to damages on account of severance as such the petitioner has to start his commercial establishment from the beginning.
4. On the basis of above mentioned grounds, the petitioner has prayed for compensation for the land @ Rs.5 Lakhs per sq. meter and Rs. 50 Lakhs for the value of structure existing on the acquired land and Rs. 20 Lakhs as damages and loss of earning. Besides that, the petitioner has also claimed the statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.1 UOI/LAC, some preliminary objections were raised such as:
(i) that the present reference is barred by the law of limitation and therefore, it has to be dismissed at the very threshold u/sec. 18(2) of the LA Act;
(ii) that the fair, reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case and thus, the onus of claiming compensation is always on the claimant; and
(iii) that the petitioner has not brought any specific and cogent evidence on record to claim the higher compensation and as such, the order passed by the LAC is reasonable considering the market value as on the date of notification u/sec.4 of the LA Act.
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 6/40
6. In reply on merits, all the grounds taken by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation have been contested by respondent no.1. Thus, the respondent no.1 prayed for dismissal of the present reference.
7. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 2/MCD, some preliminary objections were raised such as:
(i) that the petitioner has no locus standi to approach this court by way of the reference, and thus, the present petition u/sec. 18 of the LA Act, 1894 is not maintainable in the eyes of law and
(ii) that the impugned award is based on the sound reasons and the evidence/documents produced during proceedings of the award, which have been rightly assessed by respondent no.1/LAC in respect of the compensation amount vis-a-vis the land and the structure thereon. It is further stated that LAC has also notified vide supplementary Award no. 12/LAC/C/17-
18 in respect of structures acquired for construction and in continuation of earlier Award no.
12/LAC/N/2012-13 dated 31.05.2012 wherein only the land cost was paid .
8. In reply on merits, the respondent no.2/MCD denied that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question and the market value of the land and structure, loss of earnings etc. as assessed by LAC is on the lower side as alleged. Further, it has LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 7/40 been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the enhanced compensation as alleged market rate towards the cost of land and the structure is not based on any documentary evidence and that the averments as stated in the petition are based on figment of imaginations of the petitioner and the same has got no relation to the reality. With these submissions, the respondent no.2/MCD, also prayed for dismissal of the present petition with costs.
ISSUES
9. Vide order dated 08.12.2022, following issues were framed:-
1.Whether the petitioner is entitled to market value of acquired land @ Rs.5 lacs per sq. meter? OPP
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to Rs.50 lakhs for value of structures and Rs.20 lakh for damages & loss of earning ? OPP
3.Whether the present reference petition is barred by limitation? OPD- R2
4. Relief.
10. In order to substantiate the claim, the petitioner got examined Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gupta as PW-1 in the matter. He tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He has stated in the affidavit that property bearing no. 6585, Model Basti, Delhi ad-measuring 18.32 sq. mtr has been acquired vide Award no. 11/LAC/N/2011- 12 and relied upon the following documents:
i. Copy of the master plan alongwith list of commercial streets in Delhi as Ex. PW1/1(OSR);
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 8/40 ii. Copy of Eicher map of Delhi as Ex. PW1/B; iii. Copy of Judgment of case National Cold Storage VS UOI dated 30.04.2013 bearing LAC No.5/1/11 was exhibited as Ex. PW1/2; iv. Copy of entire evidence led in caste titled as Pankaj Bhardwaj VS UOI bearing LAC no. 16/12 was exhibited as Ex. PW1/3; and v. Original GPA dated 16.01.2023 executed by the petitioner in his favour as Ex. PW1/C.
11. The said witness was thereafter duly cross-examined by UOI. During such cross-examination, he has stated that he was running a tyre shop on the acquired property under the name and style of Gupta Tyres and the said firm was registered with Sales Tax Authority. He has produced the original sale deed dated 10.07.1991 with respect to the suit property and proved the copy of the sale deed as Ex.PW1/R-1 (OSR). He further stated that the property in question was two storeyed building. He has proved the electricity bill of the ground floor of the said property dated 11.01.2018 as Ex.PW1/R-2. It is further admitted that the electricity bill Ex.PW1/R-2 pertains to residential property and not commercial. He declined the suggestion that the property in question was being used for residential and it was also residential from the beginning and that the property in question was never used for commercial purpose and that LAC has assessed the property in question correctly according to its location, its situation and its potential value.
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 9/40 The said witness was also duly cross-examined by respondent no.2/MCD and adopted the cross-examination carried out on behalf of Union of India.
Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ms. Dimple Dhamija Ld Counsel for the petitioner recorded on 18.05.2023, petitioner closed his evidence in affirmative.
12. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 i.e. Union of India got examined Ms. Binisa Mohanty as RW1 for R1. She tendered the copy of award bearing no. 11/LAC/N/2011-12 dated 19.08.2011 as Ex. R-1.
No cross-examination was carried out on behalf of petitioner as well as respondent no. 2/MCD despite opportunity being given for the same.
13. Thereafter upon statement made on 18.08.2023 evidence was closed on behalf of respondent no.1/UOI.
14. Respondent no. 2 i.e. MCD got examined Sh.Dhananjoy Kumar Prabhat as RW-1 for R2. He tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex. R2W1/A. He has relied upon document exhibited as Ex. R2W1/1 i.e Award no. 12/LAC/N/2012-13 dated 31.05.2012, copy of supplementary Award no. 12/LAC/2017-18 as Ex.RW2W1/2 and Copy of schedule of rates notified as Ex. R2W1/3.
The said witness was also duly cross-examined by Ms Dimple Dhamija Ld Counsel for the petitioner. During cross-examination he has stated that the present Award no. 12/LAC/N/2012-13 was announced in the year 2012-13 and as LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 10/40 per the record, the effected persons had been paid the awarded amount of compensation. He further stated that he has gone through the list of claimants mentioned in the Award but he did not know if all the payment of the awarded amount was released before 01.01.2014 He has admitted that it is the duty of Land Acquisition Collector to verify the eligibility of the persons who are entitled to the awarded amount of compensation and that the entire awarded amount of compensation is deposited by the North DMC before the Land Acquisition Collector for its disbursement. He has further stated that North DMC has no role to play for disbursement of the awarded amount of compensation. He has further stated that whatever award the LAC has announced same is absolutely correct.
15. The respondent evidence was closed on behalf of MCD/R2 vide separate statement recorded on 03.08.2023 Thereafter, matter was adjourned for final arguments.
16. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, in order to highlight and fortify the mode and manner of computing the compensation, relied upon the following citations:
1. P. Ram Reddy & Ors. Appellants v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyder reported as 1995 (2) SCC 305
2. Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. & Ors. Reported as (1994) 4 SCC 595 LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 11/40
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangre v.
P. Veerabhadarappa & Ors. Reported as (1984) 2 Supra Court Cases 120
17. It was further submitted on behalf of petitioner that application of circle rates for calculation of market value is not as per prescribed law. Following citations were relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioner in support of the said contention:
1. U.P. Jal Nigam Lucknow through its Chairman and another v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and others reported as (1996) 3 SCC 124
2. P. Ram Reddy etc. v. Land Acquisition Collector, Hyderabad
3. Land Acquisition Collector Eluru and others v.
Jasti Rohini (Smt) and others reported as (1995) 1 SCC 717
4. Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer
18. I have heard the final arguments as advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties and have also carefully and meticulously perused the complete case record including all the documents.
My findings on the above issues are as follows:
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 12/40 ISSUE NO. 1 & ISSUE NO. 2 "1.Whether the petitioner is entitled to market value of acquired land @ Rs.5 lacs per sq. meter? OPP
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to Rs.50 lakhs for value of structures and Rs.20 lakh for damages & loss of earning ? OPP "
19. Both these above issues are taken up together, issue no.1 is with regard to enhancement of compensation and issue no.2 is in respect of value of structure and damages and loss of earning. As apparent, the onus to prove these issues lies on the petitioner. The petitioner having been aggrieved, by the compensation awarded by the LAC, sought enhancement through the reference made and have put forth a number of grounds on which he claims to be entitled to the enhanced compensation. Here, I may mention that even a slight disturbance or variation in routine unsettles a person and that too depends upon the degree of impact and vulnerability of the individual, the actual impact, thus, may even be devastating. In these circumstances, unsettling someone alongwith the entire family with habitat and hearth lock, stock and barrel can very well be imagined especially when establishment is stable and running for quite sometime. The proximity not only breeds contempt but also develops into fascination, bondings and different types of relations between the individual, and at times encompasses in itself, the relationship between the humans, animals and even the stones and structures. One may, more often than not, feel pain of leaving particular abode, locality, city or country.
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 13/40
20. Against this backdrop, unsettling someone from his abode is, without doubt, disturbing if not devastating but then it has to be coped by depending upon the circumstances especially when it is supported by the legislation (though the new Act has been passed by the parliament and it has also come into force) and when there is no escape or no way out and has limited rather no option to exercise but to toe the line or so to say that no option whatsoever except the one thrust upon by the circumstances.
21. In the instant matter, the requirement to broaden the road and to create/construct a grade separator at Rani Jhansi Road was the need of the hour and the creation of the same armed and empowered with the will of government to remove all possible obstacles with all the might of the state in order to have smooth passage/path/road in place at the earliest in the city of Delhi resulted into acquisition of land even in thickly populated urban landscape under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and persons whose land/houses were the subject matter of the notification under section of 4 of Land Acquisition Act for this purpose were not even given an option to file any objections as contemplated under Section 17 (3A) of Land Acquisition Act thereby leaving them practically with no option but to concede to the directives of government. In such scenario those who were displaced could have only consoled themselves that they got suitable compensation, which may, compensate them to the extent possible though at times there cannot be a compensation for such situations. To fulfill the same, the government, acquired the land adjoining various roads including Pul Bangash and in the process, some individuals were forced to surrender their LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 14/40 houses/ shops/factory and land (commercial as well as industrial) which, of course, was not to their liking or pleasure.
22. It was compulsory acquisition so much so that land was required on urgent basis and therefore, the formalities with regard to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act which under normal circumstances, are routinely followed were dispensed with resorting to Section 17 of LA Act.
23. After processing the matter, the compensation was fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of Rs.55,200/- per Sq. Mtr. which was not acceptable to the claimant and therefore, the reference was made under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby the claimant has sought enhancement in the amount of compensation based upon various facts such as, (i) that the LAC has ignored the prevailing market rate of the acquired area as he has passed an award without taking into consideration the location, potentiality and the commercial value of the acquired land as the land was declared as commercial vide notification F.13/96/2006-UD/18071 dt. 07.09.2006; (ii) that the LAC has ignored that all the facilities and amenities of life much prior to the date of notification and as such the prevailing market rate as on the date of notification was not less than Rs. 7,71,914 (Seven Lacs Seventy one thousand nine hundred fourteen) per sq. mtr; (iii) that the LAC did not take into consideration the lease hold documents in respect of the properties which were leased out at Pul Bangash Metro Station, Delhi and capitalized value of the lease hold properties comes to Rs.5 Lakhs per sq. mtr. on the basis of capitalization method of LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 15/40 20 years; (iv) that the LAC also did not allow shifting charges which the petitioner had to incur on account of compulsory nature of acquisition and as such, the petitioner has to start his commercial establishment from the beginning. It has been asserted that while awarding the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector has not taken into account all these factors and has awarded the compensation which is not suitable to the kind of properties, acquired by the Govt.
24. Having heard the arguments and perused the record, firstly, it will be appropriate to refer the broad parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case titled as Chaman Lal Hargovind v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 751 wherein it was observed that the case of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land are required to be considered on the following parameters:
"4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) A reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award; and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court. (2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilized by her for making his valuation cannot be utilized by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellant court.
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 16/40 (3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceedings before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award in inadequate on the basis of the material produced in the court of course, the material placed an proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determine as on the crucial date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under section 6 & 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land). (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivate the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from the angle.
(ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors any be evaluated in terms price variation as a LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 17/40 prudent purchaser should do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deducted by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clause (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do.
We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Sl.No. Plus factors Minus factors
1. Smallness of size Largeness of areas
2. Proximity of size Situation in the interior at a
Distance from the road
3. Frontage on a road Narrow strip of land with very
small frontage compared to
depth.
4. Nearness to developed Lower level requiring the
area depressed portion to be filled
up
5. Regular shape Remoteness from developed
locality
6. Level vis-a-vis land Some special disadvantageous
under acquisition factor which
would deter it purchaser
7. Special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it may
have some very special
advantage.
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the judge must place herself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.
25. Before I advert to the respective contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties, let us discuss the statutory provisions of law, precedent and the findings arrived at in other LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 18/40 similar cases. The reference petition u/sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is made pursuant to the dis-satisfaction of the petitioners to the amount/market value determined as compensation on the date of acquisition of land.
26. On this, firstly, let us go through the conditions precedent to the making of a reference under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 as under:
3. Conditions Precedent to the Making of a Reference under Section 18 "As per Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the following conditions must be complied with before the Collector can make a reference and for the court to exercise jurisdiction and entertain the reference :
(1) a written application to the Collector, (2) by a person interest who had not accepted the award, (3) stating the ground of objection as to the measurements of the land or to the amount of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable or as the apportionment of the compensation money among the persons interested, (4) within the period of time prescribed therefor under proviso to section 18(2)."
27. These formalities are matters of substance and their compliance is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of reference under section.
28. In the case titled as Mahadeo Krishna v. Mamlatar of Allbeg, AIR 1944 Bom 200, it was held as under:
"The court is bound to satisfy itself that the reference made to it by the collector complies with the specified conditions, so as to give the court jurisdiction to hear the reference. If the reference does not comply with the terms of the Act the court cannot entertain it."
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 19/40
29. In the instant case, I am satisfied that before making of the reference Land Acquisition Collector has complied with the aforementioned specified conditions. Further, I find that acquisition in this matter, was of compulsory in nature as enlisted in section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file objections under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act which, in the present reference, was the commercial property of the petitioner who was using the said property for commercial activities in order to earn his livelihood. All the civic amenities were available to the land in question. The acquired property was completely abutted to the Boulevard road, which was acquired for the same purpose i.e. construction of a grade separator at Rani Jhansi Road and was pertaining to the same area i.e. Civil Lines area of village Civil Station.
30. Against the backdrop of the present scenario, the acquisition for the purpose of grade separator at Rani Jhansi Road, which undoubtedly is good for larger part of the public, by the Govt. cannot be faulted or questioned but in these circumstances and even otherwise, the IPs were entitled to suitable compensation which according to the Govt. has already been given to them, but being not satisfied, the present reference under Section 18 of the LA Act came into being. In the instant matter where the acquisition was of compulsory nature, one did not have even the opportunity to question it but to resign to one's fate and accept the monetary compensation. Thus, the compensation (consolation) in the form of money should be potent enough at least to console if not compensate.
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 20/40
31. Referring to the evidence led by the petitioner, it was submitted by the ld. Counsel for petitioner that vide Award Ex. R-1 compensation was given to the petitioner. It is submitted that vide notification u/Sec. 4 of Land Acquisition Act dated 20.04.2010 the area is mentioned as Pul Bangash, Rani Jhansi Road. Vide notification dated 28.06.2010 u/Sec. 6 of Land Acquisition Act the possession is deemed to have been taken by the LAC. The ld. Counsel for petitioner has referred at page 32 of the Award showing proximity of the area to St. Stephen hospital, Barf Khana, Civil Lines, Sadar Bazar. It is recorded that all the areas are fully developed with multi-storeyed buildings. The current land use is mentioned as commercial shops, offices and commercial establishments. The road is also mentioned as declared commercial vide the said notification. The Collector in the Award itself has awarded commercial rates.
32. The petitioner has relied upon judgment titled as Naraindass Aggarwal vs. Union of India. Vide the said judgment the petitioner herein has brought on record the fact that Ld. Predecessor of this Court has already enhanced the market value of the properties acquired vide Award No. 12/LAC/2012-13 as well as of property bearing no. 12-14, Boulevard Road and that of National Cold Storage. It was further brought on record that all the above mentioned properties are similar in location and potentiality as that of petitioner in the present case. It is further argued that the property in question in the present matter and the property referred to in the above citation are abutted to each other and subject matter of the same award. In the above case another case titled as Pankaj Bhardwaj v. UOI & Anr. vide LAC no. LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 21/40 3149/16 as Ex. PW1/3 was relied upon and duly proved which also pertains to the same notification as under consideration in the present matter. The location is same and the purpose for acquiring the land is same. As part of evidence in the said matter (Pankaj Bhardwaj case) PW-2 therein, Sh. T. Minz, Kanoongo the RTI obtained by petitioner were produced and which were discussed at para no. 29 of the said judgment and it was found that the acquired property is abutting properties acquired vide Award no. 8-12 and has similar market value. The RTI replies were produced in evidence by the petitioner also in case titled Ramesh Chander Gera v. UOI & Ors which was a reference petition under Sec. 18 of LA Act decided on vide LAC no. 06/17 dated 31.10.2019. Hence on the ground of parity the evidence of RTI reply when the properties are situated near to each other under the same Award can be relied upon. It mentions the distance of the acquired property from Pul Bangash metro station of DMRC and other properties all of which are abutted. The property acquired vide Award are at zero distance from Rani Jhansi road. In judgment titled as Pankaj Bhardwaj vs. Union of India & Ors. Dated 26.08.2017 (Ex.PW1/3) wherein both respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 were party, Ld. Predecessor of this Court had awarded the market value of the land @ Rs.2,14,280/- per sq. mtr for the notification dated 20.04.2010 u/Sec. 4 of LA Act. In the present case the notification u/Sec. 4 of LA Act is dated 20.04.2010 and notification u/Sec. 6 of LA Act is dated 28.06.2010. It is submitted by the petitioner that same instance of Nawab Ganj, Chandni Chowk, Delhi were considered and rejected which were very far from the acquired property. The LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 22/40 MCD had went in appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi however no stay is available for deposit of the decreed amount. Thereafter, MCD went to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP no. 2023/2019 dated 15.07.2019 wherein directions are available in respect of MCD to deposit 50% of the enhanced amount without any security or guarantee with liberty to petitioner to withdraw the same.
33. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for petitioner that in citation titled Krapa Rangiah v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (1982) 2 SCC 374, it is held at para no. 3 that when the area are comparable and the situation being the same in both the cases then the rate for acquisition of the land in question must be the same as that awarded consequently and the compensation was enhanced accordingly. The relevant para is reproduced as under:
3. Counsel for the State however contended before us that the Judgment under appeal according to her is a more reasoned one than the judgment of the High Court in which compensation at the rate of Rs. 9/-per sq. yd. has been awarded and on merits the rate of Rs. 7/-per sq. yd. at which the compensation has been awarded is justified and should not be interfered with. Having gone through both the judgments we are not impressed by the argument that the judgment of the High Court in the subsequent case in which compensation at the rate of Rs. 9/- was awarded is' not. a reasoned judgment or that it is any less reasoned than the judgment under appeal. The area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the self-same 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. We accordingly enhance the compensation granted to the LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 23/40 claimant by Rs. 2/-per sq. yd. with consequential increase in solatium and interest. There will be no order as to costs.
34. The petitioner has further relied on citation titled Nandram & Ors. v. State of Haryana JT 1988 (4) SC 260, wherein it is laid down at para no. 1 that the State cannot refuse to pay same rate in respect of lands acquired under the same notification same 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. The sale deed produced by the LAC is pertaining to the area Nawab Ganj, Azad Market and Civil Lines which are already rejected at para no. 30 of the said judgment and has been sub- judice before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal and for payment as per directions the matter is sub-judice in SLP No. 2023/2019 dated 15.07.2019. The above submissions regarding the sale deed of respondents was also considered and rejected in the case titled Pankaj Bhardwaj v. UOI in LAC no. 3149/16 vide judgment dated 26.08.2017 already referred above. The said argument of the respondent was not accepted. The respondents cannot go against the Award already been passed by the LAC in view of bar u/Sec. 25 of LA Act that compensation cannot be granted lower than already awarded in the Award.
35. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for petitioner that the petition is within period of limitation and it is filed within 42 days from the date of pronouncement of the Award. Notice is given u/Sec. 52 of LA Act in which MCD did not appear and LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 24/40 contested the notice. The present case is covered case in reference to judgment Pankaj Bhardwaj (supra). The sale deed Ex.R-6 pertains to area Chandni Chowk and sale deed Ex.R-4 pertains to area Azad Market which are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. They are neither near nor similar to the area under consideration. The sale deed Ex.R-2 dated 10.11.2009 pertain to area Mohalla Bahargarh, Roshnara Road, Delhi-7 for land measuring 40 sq. yds for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- whereby the second floor was sold. It is not shown that whether the said premises in Ex.R-2, Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-6 were used for commercial purpose. It is settled law that even if the property is sold nearby even then it is required to see that how it is similar to the acquired property both in area and in its use. Further, the date of construction of suit property also has effect on it. The rate may vary even from one street to another street depending on the development carried out. Further, the acquired property of petitioner is on the main road situated at Rani Jhansi road abutting metro station. None of the sale deeds reflects that they are situated at main road as wide and populated as Rani Jhansi road. The respondents have failed to show the approximate distance of the above property to the property acquired. The acquired land is both in the nature of residential and commercial and it is admitted position of LAC that the commercial land rates are applicable and which were so awarded in the Award. The relevant citation is reproduced here as under:
"It was held in case titled State of Maharastra v. Govind Rao Dashrath Patanga 2001 (SUPP) LACC 270 (Bombay) wherein it is held as under:
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 25/40 "It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands, command same market-value. The lands abutting the main road or National Highway command higher market-value and as the location goes backward, market-value of interior land would be less even for the same kind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value. It is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. So all the lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market-value. Burden is always on the claimant to prove the market-value."
36. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that as per MPD 2021 the commercial streets, mixed use streets and pedestrian shopping streets. It is submitted that even when the road is declared commercial even then the premises may not be used for commercial purpose. It is noted that when the LAC itself has awarded the commercial rates after consideration of contention of both the parties then at this stage MCD is not permitted to go back on the same in view of citation titled Nandram (supra) and Section 52 of LA Act. The land in question is accepted as commercial property by the LAC and the rate offered to the petitioner by the LAC is for commercial property only in the Award Ex. R2W1/1 at page 34 where rate awarded by the LAC is Rs.55,200/- per sq. mtrs. for the area category "E". The compensation is awarded for land. The relevant citation from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Delhi Development Authority vs Ganga Singh on 11 July, 1980 Equivalent citations:
1980 CriLJ 1175, 18 (1980) DLT 354, 1981 RLR 186 is reproduced here as under:
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 26/40
17. Exhibit DW 2/C is the copy of the receipt No. 765020 dated 24th November, 1962, by which the amount of Rs. 325.00 demanded by the Corporation in its letter Exhibit DW 2/B was deposited by the landlady. From the documentary and oral evidence, noted above) it is evident that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden, namely, to prove that the building was put to non-conforming user from the year 1964. On the other hand the evidence supports the plea of the respondent that the building in question was being used for housing offices of the various concerns from 1961., i.e., prior to the coming into force of the Master Plan. The learned counsel for the Authority, however, contended that section 14 of the Act is a complete bar to any land or building being used for a purpose other than the one envisaged in the Master or Zonal Plan after the coming into operation of any of the plans in a zone and that no person shall use or permit to be used any land or building in that zone otherwise than in conformity with such plan.
18. The learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary contended that the proviso to section 14 of the Act permits to continue to use any land or building for the purpose and to the extent for and to which it was being used upon the date on which any of the plans, viz., Master or Zonal comes into force.
The learned counsel for the appellant controverting the plea advanced on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the exception carved out by the proviso to section 14 was available,in case the Authority by regulations prescribes the terms and conditions upon which it shall be lawful to continue the old user of any land or building prior to the enforcement of the Act or any of the plans.
19. To settle the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to note the provisions of Section 14 of the Act which reads as under :- "User of land and
14. After the coming into operation of any buildings in of the plans in a zone no person shall use contravention of or permit to be used any land or building plans, in that zone otherwise than in conformity with such plans : Provided that it shall be lawful to continue to use upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in this behalf any land or building for the purpose and to the extent for and to which it is being used upon the date on which such plan comes into force."
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 27/40 The aim of the Act is to provide for the development of Delhi according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto. According to clause (d) of section 2 of the Act,unless the context otherwise requires, "development" with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining and other operations in, on, over or under land or the making change in any building or land and includes re-development. According to section 6 of the Act, the object of the Authority shall be to promote and secure the development of Delhi according to plan and for that purposes the Authority shall have the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other property, to carry out building, engineering, mining, and other operations, to execute work in connection with supply of water and electricity, disposal of sewage and other services and amenities and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for purposes or such development and for such purposes incidental thereto.
20. Planned development of Delhi as envisaged in the above-noted provisions of the Act was likely to take time and during the intervening period human activity was not desired to be brought to a standstill. The legislature knew that human problem was involved and a large segment of society engaged in trade could not be uprooted over-night. To tide over such difficulty, proviso to section 14 made it lawful to continue to use any land or building for the purpose and to the extent for and to which it was being used upon the date on which any of the plans came into force. It is true that proviso carves out an exception to the general rule embodied in section 14 and the exception envisaged in the proviso would be subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed in regulations made in that behalf. But if the Authority fails to make regulations no disability is created for using any land or a building for a purpose for which it was previously being used. Proviso to Section 14 is intended to relieve the hardship in carrying out the planned development of a zone. The words "use upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed" in the proviso enable the Authority to restrict by regulations the use of any land or building for a purpose for which it was being previously used. In other words so long as regulations are not framed an occupier of a land or a building cannot be deprived of taking advantage LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 28/40 of the proviso to section 14. Pending framing of the Regulations prosecution in respect of a non- conforming user prior to the coming into force of any of the plans, is misconceived.
21. The view that we have taken is reinforced by two earlier decisions in Sarojini Market Shopkeeper Association (Regd.) another v. Union of India and others, 1964 Plr 1144 and Lal Singh and others v. The Lt. Governor, Delhi and others, . In Sarojini Market Shop-keepers Association's case, the construction of a building by the Union of India in Sarojini Nagar near the Sarojini Market and its use as shops to be allotted to various persons to facilitate their rehabilitation was objected to by the petitioners on the ground that the construction and use of the aforesaid building as shops was contrary to the provisions of the Master Plan and the provisions of the Delhi Development Act. The building was sought to be constructed at the site which was already being used as a shopping centre with a view to rehabilitate the persons thrown out of jobs as a result of fire which broke out in the said shopping centre. It was held that assuming the construction of the shops was not strictly in conformity with the Master Plan, the use of the land in dispute as a shopping centre was permissible under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act because the aforesaid land was previously used as a shopping centre and that the non-framing of the regulations could not stand in the way of the persons whom the shops in question were proposed to be allotted from using them for the purpose of selling their merchandise. It was observed that proviso to section 14 carves out an exception to the general rule laid down in that section. The exception embodied in the proviso would be subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in that behalf and where no regulations are made) the use of the land for a purpose for which it was being used on the date the plan came into force would not make it subject to any further restriction. The proviso to section 14 it was observed, does not create a disability but enables the use of land for a purpose for which it was previously being used and that the proposed allottees of the shops could not be deprived of the benefits of the proviso because of the omission of the authorities concerned to frame regulations mentioned in the proviso. It would be open to the authorities concerned to make LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 29/40 regulations so as to restrict the use of the land for a purpose for which it was being previously used but so long as the regulations are not framed a party cannot be prevented from taking the full advantage of the proviso to section 14.
22. In case Lal Singh and others (supra) the petitioners challenged the acquisition of their lands and buildings, amongst others, on the ground that their Colony (Shakarpur Extension Colony) was in existence prior to 1959 in which the petitioners had built the residential houses over a large number of plots owned by them and that the aforesaid Colony had been car-marked as a residential area in the Master Plan for Delhi and that in the Draft Zonal Development Plan also, except for a small portion, it had been shown as residential area and that the houses built in the Colony did not in any way violate the land use pattern provided in the Master Plan The precise argument was that both according to the provisions of law contained in section 14 of the Act and the policy announced by the Government from time to time, the built up areas were not to be disturbed even if such areas were not in conformity with the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan. Dealing with the submission pertaining to section 14 of the Act, it was observed that the main part of the section prohibits the user of a land or building in a zone otherwise than in conformity with either the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan for the zone. But the proviso lays down an exception to the main provision, and states that the previous user to which the land or the building was being put on the date on which such plan came into force can be lawfully continued upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in that behalf. It was observed that it is true that the proviso states that the continuation of the user has to be upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in that behalf, but that does not mean that the exception recognised under the proviso does not operate so long as no regulations are made. The words "upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in the behalf" in the proviso only enable the Authority concerned to make regulations prescribing terms and conditions for the continuation of the previous user. If regulations are not prescribing such terms and conditions, it only means that the continuation of the user permitted LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 30/40 by the proviso would be subject to no terms and conditions. In other words, it was held, a person does not lose the benefit of the proviso if he is otherwise entitled to it, merely because the authority concerned has not chosen to make regulation prescribing terms and conditions for the continuation of the previous user. The concerned authority by closing not to avail of the enabling provision in the proviso, cannot circumvent the rest of the provision in the proviso and deprive the petitioners of the benefit conferred there under.
23. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that where, as in the present case, the language of the main enactment is clear and unambiguous, a proviso can have no repercussion on the interpretation of the main enactment so as to exclude from it by implication what clearly falls within its express terms. There can be no dispute to the proposition sought to be urged but the proviso to section 14 as already noted above carves out an exception to the main rule embodied in section 14. The principle sought to be urged is accordingly of no consequence in the instant case.
24. Reliance placed on Madras and Southern Maharatta Ry. Co. Ltd. v. Bezwada Municipality ; Links Advertisers and Business Promoters v. Commissioner Corporation of the City of Bangalore, ; and Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subash Chandra Yograj Sinha, , is misplaced, having no bearing on the question under consideration.
25. The submission that where the language of a statutory provision is susceptible of two interpretations, the one which promotes the object of the provision, composts best with its purpose and preserves its smooth working, should be chosen in preference to the other which introduces inconvenience and uncertainly in the working of the statute, should be preferred is. equally of no avail. The provision of Section 14 and the proviso to it are not susceptible of two interpretations. The provision envisaged by section 14 is clear, while proviso to the said section carves out an exception to the prohibition for using or permitting to be used any land or building in a zone after the coming into operation of any of the plans in a zone otherwise than in conformity with such plan."
LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 31/40
37. During the course of final arguments, The ld. Counsel for respondent no.2/MCD has relied upon schedule of commercial rates announced by Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India dated 02.05.2017. The rates were fixed w.e.f. 01.04.2000 on recommendation of Land Rates Revision Committee (LRRC) under the Chairmanship of Addl. Secretary, UD. The recommendation was accepted to align the rates of commercial land to that of conversion land rates of DDA. The land rates were applicable on 01.04.2004 based on 100 FAR which will increase proportionally with the increasing FAR. Ld. Counsel for the MCD has referred to the said rates highlighting Roshnara Road and Azad Market which mentions a sum of Rs.43,923/- at column no. 10 which is w.e.f. 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. At the first instance, it is noted that the said rates were applied for the purpose of conversion of land use and not for determination of market value of the acquired land. Secondly, it is required upon the respondents to show that the said determination of value of land is made by duly appointed Parliamentary Committee for such determination of market value after taking due evidence in this regard. In absence of the same the above rates cannot be accepted in view of citation titled Lal Chand v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 117(1) at para no. 16 and 17 in the said citation the reliance on stamp law and circle rates was rejected for the reasons stated. The relevant para are reproduced as under:
4. It should however be noted that as contrasted from the assessment of market value contained in non-statutory Basic Value Registers, the position may be different, where LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 32/40 the guideline market values are determined by Expert Committees constituted under the State Stamp Law, by following the detailed procedure laid down under the relevant rules, and are published in the State Gazette. Such state stamp Acts and the Rules thereunder, provide for scientific and methodical assessment of market value in different areas by Expert Committees.
These statutes provide that such committees will be constituted with officers from the Department of Revenue, Public Works, Survey & Settlement, Local Authority and an expert in the field of valuation of properties, with the sub-registrar of the sub-registration district as the member secretary. They also provide for different methods of valuation for lands, plots, houses and other buildings. They require determination of the market value of agricultural lands by classifying them with reference to soil, rate of revenue assessment, value of lands in the vicinity and locality, nature of crop yield for specified number of years, and situation (with reference to roads, markets etc.).
The rates assessed by the committee are required to be published inviting objections/suggestions from the members of public. After considering such objections/ suggestions, the final rates are published in the Gazette. Such published rates are revised and updated periodically. When the guideline market values, that is, minimum rates for registration of properties, are so evaluated and determined by expert committees as per statutory procedure, there is no reason why such rates should not be a relevant piece of evidence for determination of market value. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference to opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted expert committees, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We however hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 33/40 accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either street-wise, or road-wise, or area-wise, or village-wise) and finalised after inviting objections and published in the Gazette. Be that as it may. We have referred to this aspect only to show that there are different categories of Basic Valuation Registers in different states and what is stated with reference to the stamp law in Andhra Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh, may not apply with reference to other states where state stamp laws have prescribed the procedure for determination of market value, referred to above.
5. In this case, there is nothing to show the circle rates have been determined by any statutorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis. Hence, the principle in Jawajee Naganatham will apply and they will not be of any assistance for determining the market value. Further, they do not purport to be the market value for lands in rural areas on the outskirts of Delhi, nor the market values relating to Rithala village. The circle rates relate to urban/city areas in Delhi and are wholly irrelevant. Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24.10.1961 is relevant.
38. In the present case the claim is made for entire property and even if taken by the FAR of 100 per floor even then the area may exceed FAR of 100. The material produced in support of submissions nowhere talks about FAR and how it is applicable to the facts of the present case. Merely filing the list of rates applicable for one purpose cannot be made applicable for another purpose. The FAR has to be considered as applicable in the said area. It is submitted by the petitioner that in the RTI from the office of MCD the FAR at Roshnara Road is given as
350. Further, the respondents have failed to explain that when the said L&DO rates are applicable for conversion charges i.e. unearned increase in the value of land then how the same rates are applicable to the facts of the present case when the increase LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 34/40 in favour of petitioner cannot be taken in the nature of unearned increase.
39. Other than this when the value of land was decided on the basis of 100 FAR, then it is admitted case in Pankaj Bhardwaj v. UOI (Supra) that the FAR of the area in question is
350. The value for Roshnara road at column no. 10 is mentioned as Rs.43,923/- for the FAR 100. Hence for FAR 350 the value comes to Rs.1,53,631/-. The said value is determined for the purpose of unearned increase for the purpose of conversion of land. However, in the present case the purpose is determination of market value and not unearned increase therefore acceptance of the above value pleaded by North DMC is not correct method since own document of respondent no. 2 has accepted value higher than Rs.1,53,631/- for the leasehold land which is yet to be converted into freehold land. Therefore, such value of freehold land after conversion has to be much higher than the above rate.
40. The respondents have pleaded that circle rates may be applied for awarding compensation to the petitioner. However, circle rates are not for the purpose of determination of market value. The said rates are for determination of basic minimum rates to be considered for sale and purchase of property and were so determined for the purpose of payment of revenue to the Government. Hence, the purpose of circle rates are quite different from the purpose of grant of compensation. Therefore, the circle rates cannot be said to be applicable to the facts of the LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 35/40 present case. The relevant citation in this regard is titled Lal Chand v. Union of India & Anr. (supra) is relied upon.
41. In Narain Dass Aggarwal Vs Union of India (supra), its judgment is filed in the present reference for the purpose of identification of potentiality of the area. The petitioner has relied upon Pankaj Bhardwaj case (Supra). Reliance of same method is adopted as in both the cases cited as above. In Pankaj Bhardwaj case (Supra) the instance of sale and purchase of property produce in evidence for residential area are taken into consideration and thereafter method of averages is adopted. Thereafter three times that of residential rates are taken into consideration for determination of commercial rates of land. The respondent in the present matter has produced sale deed dated 18.11.2009 Ex.R-4 pertaining to area Nawab Ganj, Pul Bangash, Azad market, Delhi on property built up area measuring 39 sq. mtr. Another sale deed relied upon by the respondent is Ex. R-6 pertaining to Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi dated 29.05.2009 area measuring 79.16 sq. mtr for consideration of Rs.20 lakhs. The said property is not seen as commercial property in Ex.R-2 or Ex.R-4. Further, the respondents have failed to submit that how the area Azad market and the area Chandni Chowk described in the above exhibits is similar and near to the Roshnara Road or to the acquired land. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has pointed out that the above sale deeds were also relied upon by the respondents in Pankaj Bhardwaj case (Supra) where they failed to prove that the said sale deed pertains to the area similar to that of acquired land. In para no. 23 of Ex. P-2, it was found that the property in question falls under village Civil LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 36/40 Station under the category "C" and that such instance had not been taken into consideration by the LAC as per the Award. However, the purpose is to determine the correct market value and merely filing the sale deeds of various properties does not serve the purpose unless and until it is shown that the sale deed filed resemble the correct market value of the acquired land. In Pankaj Bhardwaj case (supra) at para no. 30 it is found that when the sale instance of Nawab Ganj, Chandni Chowk, Delhi which are far from acquired property are produced by the respondents herein then there is no reason that why Roshnara road, Kothi Mem, Boulevard road are not similar to the acquired land. It is potential of the land which has to be considered for the commercial land and thus so proved by the petitioner as discussed above. In Pankaj Bhardwaj case (supra) the reply to RTI from LAC mentions that the distance from Pul Bangash Metro station to the acquired property is abutted and at zero distance from Rani Jhansi Road. The value submitted by the respondents as discussed above is more than Rs.1,53,631/-. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and on the ground of parity with Ex. P-2 and Pankaj Bhardwaj case (supra) and for the same reason discussed in Ex. P-2 and in Pankaj Bhardwaj case (supra) it is found that petitioner is entitled for the same rate of compensation on the acquired land i.e. at the rate of Rs.2,14,280/- per sq. mtr as on the date of notification u/Sec. 4 of LA Act on 20.04.2010 and also on notification u/Sec. 6 of LA Act dated 28.06.2010. Accordingly, the above rate is granted to the petitioner against the respondents and the present issue No. 2 is decided in favour of LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 37/40 petitioner and against the respondents in respect of acquired land.
42. The Award Ex. R2W1/1 is perused and at page 34 of the same it mentions that the valuation of super structure could not be completed till the filing of the Award which will be covered by a supplementary Award. Hence the valuation in the present matter is not in reference to the super structure. The present reference is not moved with reference to the super structure. Therefore super structure is not an issue between the parties in the present reference and thus it is held that issue no. 2 regarding super structure and damages and loss of earning do not arise between the parties in the present reference and the they were held as non-issue between the parties and issue no. 1 is already decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents as discussed above in that petitioner is held entitled to rate of Rs.2,14,280/- per sq. mtr as on the date of notification u/Sec. 4 of LA Act on 20.04.2010 and also on notification u/Sec. 6 of LA Act dated 28.06.2010.
ISSUE NO. 3"3. Whether the present reference petition is barred by limitation ? OPD- R2."
43. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the petition is within the prescribed period of limitation and is filed within 42 days from the date of pronouncement of the Award by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Award Ex.R-1 is dated 19.08.2011 and objection filed by the petitioner before LAC is LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 38/40 dated 20.09.2011 vide diary no.46 as bearing on the front page of the petition. In any case the objections were filed by the petitioner within six weeks as apparent on the face of record. The respondents were required to show notice of this Award to the petitioner after its pronouncement on 19.08.2011 which respondents have failed to show. In any case the objections were filed within the prescribed period of limitation and the petition is held not barred by limitation.
44. The respondents have failed to show or lead any evidence in this respect that how and on which particular date the present petition is time barred. In fact there is no specific cross- examination in this respect of PW-1. Hence, in view of settled law above it is held that the respondents have failed to discharge burden of proof under the present issue. Accordingly present issue is decided against the respondents and in favour of petitioner.
45. ISSUE NO. 4 : RELIEF In view of findings under issues above the petitioner is held entitled to the compensation on the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,14,280/-(Rupees Two Lacs Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Eighty only) per sq. mtr as on the date of notification u/Sec. 4 of LA Act on 20.04.2010 and also on notification u/Sec. 6 of LA Act dated 28.06.2010 as per statement u/Sec. 19 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 available on record with solatium and other benefits as applicable. Petitioner is also held entitled to interest in view of law laid down in case citation Sunder v. UOI, DLT 2001 (SC) 569. The petitioner is entitled to LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 39/40 benefit on the above amount u/Sec. 23(1)(A) and u/Sec. 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference is answered accordingly.
46. Copy of the present judgment and decree sheet be sent to LAC within 15 days from tomorrow to make the payment of enhanced amount to the petitioner within 03 months from the date of present judgment having due regard for deduction of amount already paid and to avoid duplication. No order as to costs.
47. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
48. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on 18.08.2023.
(AJAY SINGH SHEKHAWAT) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI LAC No.18/22 (Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr) Page no. 40/40