Delhi District Court
Ms. Amita Gupta vs Union Of India on 6 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No.28/11
New No. LAC -112/16
Area: Mundka
Award No.: 02/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 01.01.2009
Ms. Amita Gupta
W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar
R/o 265, Deepali,
Pitampura, Delhi ....Petitioner/Claimant
versus
1. Union of India,
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
(District West) Office at D.C. Office,
Rampura, Delhi-35.
2. D.M.R.C.
Through its Director
H.O. : Metro Bhawan Fire Brigade Lane,
Connaught Place, Delhi-110001 .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 14.07.2011
Date of reserving of judgment : 25.01.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.02.2017
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 143 Bigha and 02 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/3291 dated 07.06.2007 also under Section 6 vide LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 1/44 notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/10635 dated 23.10.2003. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/10636 dated 23.10.2007. The land was acquired for the purpose of Construction of Depot, Staff Quarters and TSS of Inderlok- Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II near Senior Secondary School, Mundka and North of NH-10 (Mundka Depot).
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)') passed award no. 2/DC(W)/2008-09 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the extended Lal Dora land under acquisition @ Rs.1210/- per sq. mtrs.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector petitioners were shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
Item Name of Khasra Total Details of
No. of recorded owner No. Area in trees/
NM & share Bigha- Buildings/
Biswa Crops
3. Ms. Amita Gupta 1010 min 1-0 -
W/o Sunil Kumar
(Full share)
4. The petitioner filed the reference 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 has been referred to the reference court.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 2/44
5. In brief the facts stated are that the claimant is recorded owner and bhumidhar of total 1-0 bigha land in Khasra no. 1010 min of village Mundka, Delhi, which was acquired vide award in question. The claimant is recorded owner and bhumidhar of the aforesaid land. The claimant referred to raise her claim for enhancement of compensation on the following grounds:
6. It is stated that the acquisition of the land of the claimant will affect her right of residence on the land in question. The claimant may be given reasonable compensation to enable her to change her residence.
7. It is stated that the Collector in an arbitrary, malafide and unreasonable manner fixed the compensation for acquisition of extended Lal Dora land of village Mundka @ Rs.1210/- per sq. mtrs. While assessing this compensation amount for extended Lal Dora land of village Mundka, the Land Acquisition authorities failed to appreciate that the actual market value of the land is approximately Rs.40,000/- per sq. mtrs. The Collector failed to consider various sale deeds wherein the similar land was transacted in the year 2005 for consideration of Rs.12454/-, Rs.12649/-, Rs.11860/- and Rs.14,233/- per sq. mtrs. It is stated that most of the Lal Dora land/properties acquired are main road facing properties having high commercial values.
8. It is stated that the Collector failed to appreciate that the circle rate of the adjoining land subject matter of acquisition, which fall in category G of colonies was fixed @ Rs.13,700/- per sq. mtrs. While dealing with this circle rate in LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 3/44 the present award, the Land Acquisition authorities opined that since notification under Section 4 of the Act was issue on 07.06.2007 and this circle rate was notified subsequently i.e. on 18.07.2007 and therefore the circle rate is not applicable and not relevant in deciding the market value of land. It is stated that while arriving at this conclusion the Collector failed to appreciate that these circle rate were already under process on the day of notification U/S 4 of the Act and in fact, this was finalized by the cabinet committee on 18.05.2007 but was notified only on 18.07.2007. Thus on the relevant day of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act the circle rates were already approved by the cabinet. The market value of the land can be higher than this circle rate but in no event it can be less than the prescribed circle rate. Thus while making award the Collector was duty bound to consider the circle rate.
9. It is stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments had held that there is no bar in taking into consideration subsequent sale deeds in fixing the compensation of the land, therefore on the same analogy there can be no bar to take into consideration the subsequent notified circle rates which were notified just after 41 days of the Section 4 notification by taking the base of year 2005.
10. It is stated that the land of the claimant under acquisition is situated on the Delhi Rohtak NH-10 on the northern side and the claimant's land surrounded by many colonies/godowns, industrial areas, village abadi etc. The land has got potential value and the same has been surrounded by village Nangloi, Rani Khera, Kirani Gheura, Hiran Kudna, LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 4/44 Bakkarwara, Ranholla village boundaries. The land is also surrounded by Nangloi Extension, Rajindra Park, Amar Colony, Swarn Park, Gulshan Park, Rajdhani Park, Friends Enclave etc. and residential colonies which are going to confirm in near future Timber Market (Commercial) Area is also situated next to it which is also going to confirm. It is stated that across the railway line the land is already acquired by MTRS and in Rohini Project. Therefore, no other land is available in village Mundka and because of these reasons the market value in the above said area is not less than Rs.40,000/- per sq. mter.
11. It is stated that as per draft plan, bypass road of 46 k.m. from Narela to Najafgarh is proposed from the Revenue Estate of Mundka. There are thousand of godown in the surrounding area and there are hundred of farm houses upon the land of village of Mundka, Jharoda, Ghevra, Sawda, Nizampur, Neelwal, Hiran Kudna. It is stated that while assessing the compensation to be paid to the present claimant against her holdings in the extended Lal Dora land of village Mundka, the Collector adopted the same yardstick for determining the compensation for the entire land falling in this extended Lal Dora area. While fixing the compensation against the holding of the claimant, the Collector failed to appreciate that this land is located on the main Delhi-Rohtak Highway and having wide opening therefrom and therefore, carrying more commercial value than the land located inside the locality.
12. It is stated that on 09.01.2007, the claimant entered into agreement to sell with M/s. Byte Leasing and Invest Ltd having its office at 12, Rail Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 5/44 for sale of the aforesaid land for total sale consideration of Rs.2,80,000/-, which means the claimant already entered into agreement to sell with respect to aforesaid land with the third party much before the publication of Section 4 notification. After entering into agreement to sell, the claimant on same very day accepted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque No. 824762 dated 09.01.2007 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Sector
-9, Rohini, Delhi as earnest money, which was duly cahsed by the claimant. After entering into agreement for sale claimant applied for No Objection Certificate on 11.01.2007 with the revenue authorities.
13. It is stated that the sale transaction executed earlier in the Lal Dora of village Mundka indicative of the fact that the market value in the village Mundka is very high. The claimant has mentioned some sale deeds wherein sale prices are Rs.11861/- per sq. mtr., Rs.14233/- per sq. mtr. And Rs.12650/- per sq. mtr., which show that the market value in village Mundka is very high. It is stated that there are certain unauthorized and unapproved colonies like Amar Colony, Friends Enclave, Swarn Park, Rajdhani Park close to village Mundka, which are colonized illegally and unsystematically situated on the land of village Mundka and even in these colonies the circle rate has been fixed by the Govt. @ Rs.13,700/- per sq. mtr.
14. It is stated that just 300 meter away from the land in question, scheme of Mundka Udhyog Nagar (North), Swarn Park, Manufacture Association, Mundka Udhyog nagar (South) is about to approve by the Govt. due to which the prices of the land in question have gone score high. It is LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 6/44 stated that the claimant is not retaining the land for any commercial purposes but the land was meant for her residential needs and if the residential needs of the claimants will not be adjusted by allotting him some alternative land in the same very area or in Rohini Scheme, the life of claimant and her family will be shuttered and she will not be able to mange her life and the life of her family.
15. It is stated that in an open auction conducted by DDA on 23.08.2006 with respect to the residential plots of Rohini Scheme, fixed the reserve price @ Rs.48,500/- per sq. mtr. However, in auction these plots fetch them prices @ Rs.1,10,000/- per sq. mtr. and also in an auction for plots in Sectors, 11, 16, 24 in Rohini reserve price was Rs.1, 01,750/- per sq. mtr. It is stated that the DDA has already acquired the land after crossing railway line 500 mtr. In north of the plot in question for its Rohini Project, which includes the land of village Mundka also and this land will be sold by DDA at per the price prevailing in Rohini Scheme. The claimant claims that he may also be given benefit of that and may be given alternative residential pot in the similar location in Rohini Scheme so that the claimant's residential need can be satisfied.
16. It is stated that the land in question is equipped with all the modern facilities and necessities like electricity, water connection, public school, Govt. School connected through public transport system and DTC etc. Hundreds of transporter doing business in the surrounding area and more than 1000 industries have been settled just near in the land in question and Delhi Rohtak Railways Line also goes from the LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 7/44 revenue estate of Mundka. It is further stated that the land in question is a part of extended Lal Dora. There is scarcity of land in Delhi especially in DDA colonies and the accommodation in Lal Dora area is the only option for the people who want to settle in Delhi, therefore, demand of the Lal Dora area is very high in Delhi.
17. It is further stated that the Collector failed to appreciate the provisions of clause J of Rule 6 of Delhi Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules 1959, which says that "Bhumidar whose land has been included in the extension of the village Abadi may be given agricultural land worth two times the standard value of land surrender." It is stated that the Collector has failed to appreciate that during consolidation proceedings the valuation of different portion of land under consolidation has to be done separately and on that basis of their valuation, the entitlement of the person whose land has been included in village abadi has to be considered.
18. It is stated that the Govt. Agency for whose benefit the land is sought to be acquired cannot deprive the land owner's from claiming suitable compensation for the land acquired under Land Acquisition Act. The claimant had constructed boundary wall with a height of 7 ft. around the plot in question after investing huge amount on the above said land and as such the claimant is entitled to prevalent construction cost, which is assessed at Rs. 5 lacs. It is stated that value and the cost of a plot similar to the size of the claimant at that location is more than Rs.15 Crores. The claimant herself purchased a land of 4 biswa in Khasra no.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 8/44 1019 in Lal Dora of Village Mundka vide registered sale deed on 09.12.2005 @ Rs.12649.70 per sq. mtr, then how cane she be given compensation even less than that for acquiring the similar land in the year 2008.
19. The plaintiff seeks market value of the acquired land @ Rs.40,000/- per sq. mtr along with 30 solatium and Addl. amount and interest as per LA Act; alternative residential plot; damages of Rs.15,00,000/-; and Rs.5,00,000/- the wall surrounding the plot.
20. Written statement filed by respondent no.1/ Union of India and taken the preliminary objection that the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The petitioner is not entitled for compensation in respect of any constructions or structure which is raised without the sanction of law. It is stated that at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, there were no structures, tree, well on the land in question except mentioned in the Award in question. The Collector (West) has rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated under Section 23 & 24 of the Act. The Collector (West) has also considered the the level of development, locality and situation of the area while assessing the fair market value of the land.
21. On merits, all the averments made in the reference petition are denied. The grounds taken by the petitioner are also denied. It is stated that petitioner is not entitled to any relief and reference is liable to be dismissed.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 9/44
22. Respondent no.2/DMRC also filed written statement and taken preliminary objection that reference petition is liable to be rejected under Section 7 Rule 11 CPC and the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question. It is stated that the petition is barred under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC.
23. On merits, again all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied and it is reiterated that the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. It is categorically denied that petitioner is also entitled to alternative business site from DMRC/respondent no.2. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
24. The petitioner has filed replications to the written statements of respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 respectively. In which the averments made in the written statements are denied and the averments made in the petition are reiterated.
25. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 13.12.2011, Ld. Predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. What was the market value of the land on the date of notification U/s 4 of LA Act?
OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any enhancement, if any, to what an extent?
OPP LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 10/44
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation on account of any superstructure or damages, as prayed for?
OPP
4. Relief.
26. To prove her case, petitioner got examined PW1 Sh. Anil Kumar, Reader from the Office of Sub-Registrar, II-A (Punjabi Bagh), Nangloi, Delhi; PW2 Sh. Ram Kumar Singh, Asstt. LA Residential, Vikas Sadan, DDA, INA, Delhi; PW3 Sh.S.K. Sodhi, Valuer (Paramid India); PW4 Sh. Krishan Beer, Patwari from the office of SDM/SDO, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi; PW5 Sh. Krishan Kant, Assistant deputed in RKD Branch, Delhi High Court; PW6 Sh. M.P.S. Rawat, Naib Tehsildar, Revenue Department; PW7 Sh. Safa Hasan, Junior Judicial Assistant, Record Room, Delhi High Court; PW8 Smt. Amita (petitioner); PW9 Sh. B.M. Gupta, Office Suptd. DMRC; PW10 Sh. Sabir Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Office of Revenue Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi; and PW11 Sh. Anil Chaudhary, Tehsildar from the office of SDM Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed vide separate statement of Counsel for petitioner dated 15.03.2016.
27. From the side of respondents, Sh. Sachin Nawani, Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered in evidence copy of Award No. 02/DC(W)/2008-09 of village Mundka as Ex. R-1 and certified copies of five sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to R-6. Thereafter, he closed the evidence of behalf of respondent no.1/ Union of India. Sh. Iqbal Khan, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC adopted the evidence led by LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 11/44 respondent no. 1 and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.2/ DMRC vide statement dated 17.03.2016.
28. I have heard Sh. Devender Verma, Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Vikas Shokeen, Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India and Sh. A.S.Rao, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC and perused the material on record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE Nos. 1 & 229. Issue nos. 1 & 2 are taken up together as they are inter connected and onus to prove both the issues is on the petitioner. Before deciding the issues, let us first peruse the evidence led by parties.
30. PW1 Sh. Anil Kumar, Reader deposed that he has brought the summoned record pertaining to the registered sale deed dated 09.12.2005 executed by Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Amir Singh in favour of Smt. Amita Gupta W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar for a piece of land comprised in Khasra No.1019, situated in the Extended Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi which is registered vide registration no. 6960 and certified copy of the same is Ex. PW1/1. He further deposed that registered sale deed dated 12.12.2005 executed by Sh. Gaurav Dua S/o Sh. Ramesh Dua in favour of M/s. Relaxo Footwears Ltd. Through its General manager Sh. Satpal Malhotra for a piece of land comprised in Khasra no. 1003, situated in the Extended Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi which is registered vide registration no.7016 in additional book no. 1, Vol. No. 246 on pages 31 to 50 on dated LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 12/44 12.1.2.2005, certified copy of which is Ex. PW1/2. He further deposed that the registered sale deed dated 12.12.2005 executed by Sh. Nikhil Dua S/o Sh. M.L. Dua in favour of M/s. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Through its authorized signatory Sh. Hans Raj Sapra for a piece of alnd comprised in Khasra No. 1002 situated in Extended lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi which is registered vide registration non 7017 in additional book no.1, Vol. no. 246 on pages 51 to 66 on dated 12.12.2005, certified copy of which is Ex. PW1/3. He further deposed that registered sale deed dated 06.02.2008 executed by Sh. Johinder Singh, Sh. Dharampal Singh, Sh. Dharambir all sons of Sh. Ram Kala; Sh. Balley Ram, Sh. Mahinder Singh, Sh. Rajinder Singh, Sh. Virender Singh, Sh. Satpal Singh all sons of Sh. Insha Ram; Sh. Rajbir Singh, Sh. Satbir Singh, Sh. Jagbeer Singh sons of Sh. Chet Ram, all residents of Village Bakkarwala, Delhi in favour of Tabasco Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Of land comprised in Mustatil No. 59, Khasra nos. 14 (4-16), 16 Min (4-05), 17 (4-16) & Mustatil No. 60 Khasra Nos. 20/1 min (0-3), situated in village Bakkarwala, Delhi, which is registered vide registration no. 672 in additional book no.1, Vol. no. 888 on pages 91 to 111 dated 06.02.2008, which of which is Ex. PW1/4.
31. In the cross-examination PW1 deposed that he has no personal knowledge with respect to the Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4. He did not know the vendor or the vendee of Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4. He has also not seen the land in question involved in the sale deeds Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/4. His statement is only on the basis of record and he has no personal knowledge of Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 13/44
32. PW2 Sh. Ram Kumar Singh, Asstt. LA (Residential) DDA deposed that he has brought the summoned record of the auction done by them in respect of DDA property in Sectors-8, 11 and 16, Rohini, Delhi. Auction brochure were sold by the DDA for the said auction. He has placed photocopy of the brochure of the auction programme for 17 th and 18th November, 2011 as Ex. PW2/1 and photocopy of the auction programme for 23rd, 24th and 25th July, 2007 as Ex. PW2/2. Reverse price for the auction of the corner plot was fixed as Rs.1,01,750/- per sq. mtr and the non corner plot ws Rs.92,500/- per sq. mtr. And corner plus 24 sq. mtr. RW was Rs.1,11,000/- per sq. mtr. For the auction of July, 2007. Their office received the Bid for the said auction was of Rs.1,06,17,438/-, Rs.1,22,72,050/-, Rs.1,12,50,000/-, Rs.1,22,75,000/-, Rs.91,58,000/-, Rs.83,31,000/-. The said reserve price, Bid price were for the residential plots at Rohini, Delhi.
33. In the cross-examination PW2 admitted that the auction of Ex. PW2/1 and Ex. PW2/2 were carried out after development of land. The department did not auction the agricultural land. He further deposed that he cannot tell whether above noted Sectors at Rohini are well-designed or nor. He volunteered that this aspect relates to the Planning Department of the DDA. He is not aware where the suit property is situated. He cannot tell how far away the suit property is situated from Rohini. To a specific question that the above noted Sectors at Rohini are in accordance with government policy and government approved maps/site plans, he replied that he cannot tell about this. He denied the suggestion that the above noted Bid prices are not the actual LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 14/44 Bid prices. He does not have the personal knowledge of summoned record.
34. PW3 Sh. K.S. Sodhi deposed that he is professional valuer and qualified Architect conducting the business in the name and style of Pyramid India, Architect, Engineers & Interior Designers at UGF-6, Kirti Shikhar, Janakpuri, District Centre, New Delhi. He has been issuing the valuation report in respect of the properties/lands/plots situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi from time to time to different persons after visiting the site. He further deposed that the valuation report dated 10.06.2007 for Khasra no. 192/1 measuring 2 Bigha 3 Biswa i.e. 2167.97 sq. yds. (1812.654 sq. mtr.) Village Mundka has been prepared by him. The said land has been assessed by him at the rate of Rs.38000/- per sq. mtr. after visiting the spot and verifying the market vlaue of the same and his report is Ex. PW3/B.
35. He further deposed that the said property was reinspected on 10.08.2007 and the valuation report based on the circle rate for the year 2007 for property of Mundka Village Ward No. 44, Najafgarh Zone, which comes under 'G' category was assessed at the rate of Rs.13,700/- per sq. mtr. As per the circle rate and his report is Ex. PW3/C. It is deposed that the rate in the NCT of Delhi were increasing as per the potentiality of the property/land/plot and accordingly the said land was revisited on 11.11.2011 and was reassessed by by him at the prevailing rate which was Rs.53000/- per sq. mtr. He visited the spot and on verification the market value of the said land was in the range of LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 15/44 Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per sq. mtr. on Main National Highway 10 and his report is Ex. PW3/D.
36. PW3 further deposed that he has also visited another property during the said period and valuation report dated 10.06.2007 for khasra no. 570/1/2 measuring 3 Bigha 2 Biswa i.e. 3125.83 sq. yds. (2613.595 sq. mtr.) Village Mundka, Delhi has been prepared by him. The said land has been assessed by him at the rate of Rs.27,500/- per sq. mtr. after visiting the spot and verifying the market value of the same and his report is Ex. PW3/H. He further deposed that the present property was reinspected on 10.08.2007 and the valuation report based on the circle rate for the year 2007 for property of Mundka village Ward No. 44, Najafgarh Zone which comes under 'G' category was assessed at the rate of Rs.13,7000/- per sq. mtr. as per the circle rate and his report is Ex. PW3/J.
37. PW3 further deposed that the present land was revisited on 11.11.2011 and the same was reassessed by him at the prevailing rate which was Rs.44,000/- per sq. mtr. He visited the spot and on verification the market value of the said land was in the range of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per sq. mtr. on main National Highway 10, Rohtak Road and his report is Ex. PW3/K. He deposed that his reports are true and correct as per the market value existing at the site in question at the said relevant time. The market value of the other adjoining, adjacent land in respect of which he has given the valuation report were also nearly the same having slight variation as per their location.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 16/44
38. PW3 Sh. K.S. Sodhi in his cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/ UOI deposed that he has done his All India Institute of Architect from Mumbai in the year 1994. He has not joined any corporate sector but started his independent practice in the field of architecture. Paramid India is his firm operated since 1994. His wife Smt. Pupinder Kaur is the proprietor of M/s. Paramid India. She had done interior decoration course. She has no qualification in the field of architecture. He further deposed that he has started giving valuation reports since 1996. He had not given any notice either to DMRC or UOI before conducting any of three valuation reports Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/3 in respect of property in question. He has not placed any other report as deposed in para 2 of his affidavit. He has prepared this report after consulting the local dealers and requesting the concerned parties to provide him any registered sale deeds in respect of surrounding areas. He has not placed any sale deeds on record. He denied the suggestion that he has not placed any sale deed on record because there was not such sale deed. He further denied the suggestion that the sale value in those sale deeds were less than the valuation conducted by him. He cannot tell as to when notification u/s 4 of LA Act were issued by the government. He has only requested the parties to pro vide him the latest sale deeds in respect of the surrounding areas. He has inspected the property just four days before preparing the valuation report. He has not prepared any site plan in respect of property in question. He know the surrounding area of the property in question.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 17/44
39. PW3 further in his cross-examination deposed that he visited the site alone with the party. He had no assistant with him. He had carried measuring tape. The measuring tape was with one chowkidar on the one side at the time of measurement while other side he was holding the same. The construction on the site has been mentioned by him in the report but he had not taken any sample/assessment in respect of the material/life of construction. He had talked to the nearby neighbours in respect of the properties. He cannot tell the names of those neighbours. He had not asked the neighbours about their sale deeds. He had prepared the valuation report as per the market value. He assessed the market value on the statements of dealers and neighbours. He had mentioned the names of dealers in his valuation report. He denied the suggestion that the valuation in his report is exaggerated at the instance of the petitioner. He further denied the suggestion that he has never visited the site.
40. In the cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2/ DMRC, PW3 deposed that there were somewhere two rooms or boundary walls and some sheds at site. He cannot tell what was the extent of construction in the present case. The valuation report of the witness is shown to the witness, who states that the report pertains to Khasra no. 1008 and not to the Khasra no. 1010. He cannot tell the names of the persons who were present at the site at the time of inspection by him. He cannot tell the date and month, however it was 2007 when he visited the site. To a specific question, he deposed that he cannot tell about Khasra No. 1010 but he can tell about Khasra no. 1008. he is a LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 18/44 summoned witness. He has not brought the copy of the summons. He prepared his affidavit Ex. PW3/A. He admitted that he has come to depose at the instance of the petitioner. His valuation report was got prepared from him by someone else other than the petitioner but he did not remember his name. He has received fees regarding the report. He did not remember from whom he received his fees. He is having a licence for making valuation report issued by the government. He volunteered that the certificate is of Institute of Valuer. The Institute of Valuer is a government agency. At the time of deposition he is not carrying the said licence.
41. PW4 Sh. Krishan Beer, Patwari deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. Aks Sijra of village Mundka which is in two parts i.e. Northern side and Southern side and the copy of the same is signed by him and is correct as per original aks sijra of village Mundka, which are Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B respectively. He has also brought the aks sijra of extended Lal Dora (abadi) area of village Mundka and the attested copy of the same is Ex. PW4/C. The village Mundka is surrounded by other villages i.e. Rasoolpur, Ranikhera, Mubarakpur Dabas in northern side and village Qamruddin nagar is on the Eastern side and village Ranhola is on Eastern South side, village Bakkarwala is on southern side, village Hirankudna is in Western South side and village Ghevra is in Western side of village Mundka. The Rohtak Road passes through the village Mundka towards Bahadurgarh, Haryana and Delhi. He has not worked in consolidation proceedings. The abadi land is used for residential purposes and the agricultural land is used for agricultural land. The LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 19/44 agricultural land when allotted in a Lal-dora, twice the value of the same is deducted or not, he cannot tell and this can be found mentioned in consolidation scheme of village Mundka.
42. PW4 in his cross-examination deposed that he cannot tell the width of Rohtak Road which passes through Mundka towards Bahadurgarh. He did not know how far is the land in question situated from Rohtak Road. He was not summoned to produce the field book. He received the summons only for sijra/masavi. He volunteered that the condition of sijra is not good. He cannot tell what surrounds the land in question. He did not have any personal knowledge about the land in question. He cannot tell whether the aforesaid Rohtak Road is a National Highway or not as such it is not mentioned in his record. He again said that he has not brought the concerned record and again said it might be or might not be in his Khatauni. He has not brought the Khatauni. He has not been summoned to bring the copy of the consolidation scheme.
43. PW5 Sh. Krishan Kant deposed that he has brought the summoned record of the Writ Petition bearing WP (C) No. 5480/08 titled as Jai Kishan Gupta & ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the record of Writ petition bearing No. 2109/08 titled as 'Ajay Kumar & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi'. Further examination of this witness is deferred at the request of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as he could not obtain the certified copies of the relevant documents/ orders. Thereafter, this witness did not appear for completion of his examination and as such his part testimony cannot be read.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 20/44
44. PW6 Sh. M.P.S. Rawat, Naib Tehsildar deposed that he has brought the summoned record. As per order dated 18.07.2007 of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi issued under the signatures of the Joint Secretary (Revenue) vide notification No. F.2 (12)/Fin. (E.1)/Part File/Vol. I (ii)/3548 dated 18.07.2007 and the same is Ex. PW6/A and notification No. F.1 (281)/Regn. Br/HQ/Div.Com./09/45 dated 04.02.2011 is Ex. PW6/B. He has also brought the notification no. F.1(152)/Regn.Br/Div.Com./HQ/2011/919 dated 15.11.2011 as Ex. PW6/C. In the cross-examination he deposed that he did not have the personal knowledge of the summoned record.
45. PW7 Sh. Wafa Hasan deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. record pertaining to WPC 2109/2008 titled 'Ajay Kumar & ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi' and WPC 5480/2008 titled 'Jai Kishan Gupta & Anr. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.' he has seen the certified copies of the common order dated 12.05.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in aforesaid WPC No. 2109/2008 and WPC 5480/2008 and the same is correct as per the record brought by him. The certified copy of the said order dated 12.05.2011 is Ex. PW7/A. In the cross-examination he deposed that he did not have the personal knowledge of the summoned record.
46. PW8 Smt. Amita Gupta - petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW8/A reiterated the averments made in the petition. He relied upon the copy of certified copy of order dated 08.12.2008 in SLP (Civil) No. 17117/2007 titled as 'Jayant Juneja vs. Union of India & Others' converted to Civil Appeal no. 4115/2009, exhibited as Ex. PW8/1; order dated LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 21/44 23.08.2011 along with Valuation report by ABC Valuer in contempt petition no. 34/2011 in Civil Appeal No. 4115/2009 as Ex. PW8/2 (colly); order dated 21.02.2012 in contempt petition no. 34/2011 in Civil Appeal No. 4115/2009 as Ex. PW8/3. He further relied on certified copy of SLP (Civil) No. 17117/2007 converted to Civil Appeal No. 4115/09 as Ex. PW8/4; Notification dated 18.03.1994 and Award No. 1/DC/W/05/06 as Ex. PW8/5 (colly); Eight photographs as Ex. PW8/6 (colly); Zonal development plan for West, Delhi with Annexures/maps as Ex. PW8/7 (colly).
47. In the cross-examination PW8 deposed that her ownership documents are in the court file. There was a boundary wall around her land. There was no other structure except boundary wall on the land in question. He denied the suggestion that there were no circle rates at the time of date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. He denied the suggestion that her land was agricultural land and due to this reason circle rates were not applicable. Her affidavit was read over to her by her Counsel. She is not aware about the observation of the Apex Court as mentioned in para 4 of her affidavit Ex. PW8/A. She denied the suggestion that the land in question could not be used for commercial purpose as it was an agricultural land and no commercial activities could be allowed on the said land. She further denied ther suggestion that the land had a great potential value. Her land fell in village Mundka. Her land was situated near the main road, however, she did not remember the name of the road. She is not aware about the colonies abutting village Mundka. She had visited her land about 2-3 times. She admitted that Village Mundka is situated on one side of the LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 22/44 Delhi Border. She denied the suggestion that there was not much development around her land or arbound village Mundka when it was acquired. There was Swarn Park Residential colony, Rajinder Park Residential Colony near Village Mundka. Opposite her land there was Mundka Industrial Area at the time of acquisition of land.
48. PW8 in her cross-examination further deposed that there was Assam Timber Market also. She cannot say whether the colonies surrounded her land were regularized or not. There was boundary wall and rooms on the land in question but they had not obtained any sanction from the sanctioning authority. She has not placed on record any bills pertaining to electricity and water connection. She know the reference of Supreme Court order in para 10 of her affidavit. Supreme Court determined the land value at more than Rs.40,000/- per sq. yards. She is not aware about the judgment/order of the Supreme Court in matter titled 'Jayant Juneja vs. E. Shridharan & others'. She does not have any knowledge about the valuation report as mentioned in para 12 of her affidavit Ex. PW8/A submitted by ABC Valuer Company in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. She is not aware about the contents of the documents mentioned in para 14 of her affidavit. She denied the suggestion that the LAC granted just and fair compensation as per the prevailing market rate for her land.
49. PW9 Sh. B.M. Gupta deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. proof of payment vide cheque No. 020696 dated 22.02.2016 in favour of Jayant Juneja case as per direction of Hon'ble court. The copy of the said cheque is LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 23/44 Ex. PW9/A and the forwarding letter in that respect is Ex. PW9/B. In the cross-examination he deposed that he has no knowledge at all that what was the matter of Jayant Juneja vs. Dr. E. Sridharan and for what purpose the matter was listed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and what transpired in the said matter. He is not even aware that for what purpose the amount mentioned in the Ex. PW9/B was given.
50. PW10 Sh. Satbir Singh, Naib Tehsildar deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. notification dated 15.11.2011 bearing no. F.1 (152)/Regn. Br./Div. Com./HQ/2011/919 dated 15.11.2011 as Ex. PW10/A, notification dated 04.02.2011 bearing no. F.1 (281)/Regn. Br./HQ/Div. Com./09/45 dated 04.02.2011 as Ex. PW10/B, notification dated 18.07.2007 bearing no. F.2(12) Fin. (E.I)/Part File/Vol.I (II)/3548 dated 18.07.2007 as Ex. PW10/C. He did not know the date of commencement of proceedings for fixation of circle rate which was notified on 18.07.2007. In the cross-examination he deposed that he has joined the department since June, 2015. he has no personal knowledge about the above said Ex. PW10/A to Ex. PW10/C.
51. PW11 Sh. Anil Chaudhary, Tehsildar deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. Chakbandi Scheme pertaining to year 1976 of village Mundka. Original seen. Copy is Ex. PW11/A. He has knowledge about the consolidation scheme. The size of plot in Lal Dora vis-a-vis agricultural land depends upon the consolidation scheme of the relevant land of relevant period. In the cross-examination he deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the consolidation scheme of village Mundka pertaining to year 1976.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 24/44
52. Sh. Sachin Nawani, Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered in evidence copy of Award No. 02/DC(W)/2008- 09 of village Mundka as Ex. R-1 and certified copies of five sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to R-6. Sh. Iqbal Khan, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC adopted the evidence led by respondent no. 1.
53. Before examining the issue of determination of market value of the acquired land, firstly I would like to refer to relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act which are Section 23 and 24 which are reproduced hereunder :-
Section 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation -
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration----
first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1).
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 25/44 fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any), bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
(1A)...............................................................
(2).................................................................
Section 24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. -- But the Court shall take into consideration----
first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition;
secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit;
fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 26/44 seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of, the land acquired commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section 1; eighthly, any increase to the value of the the land on account of its being part to any use which is forbidden by land or opposed to public policy.
54. The determination of market value of acquired land shall be keeping in view the settled principles of law in evaluating market value in compulsory acquisition on the hypothesis of a willing Vendor and a willing Vendee. Therefore, let us glance through the settled principles of law in this regard.
55. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Narayan Gajapati Raju Vs. Revenue Divisional officer, AIR 1939 PC 98 held that :
"compensation for compulsory acquisition governed by Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Act "what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser".
56. The function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the evaluation may be as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 27/44 Adinarayana Setty AIR 1959 SC 429 where the Supreme Court laid down the following principles :
"(1) Opinion of experts; (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the land acquired or the land adjacent to the acquired land and possessing similar advantages; (3) Number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately perspective profits of the land acquired."
57. In Tribeni Devi Vs. Collector of Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 1417, the Supreme Court held that :
"for determining compensation payable to the owner of the land, the market value is to be determined by reference to the price which may be reasonable obtained from willing purchasers but since it may not be possible to ascertain this with any amount of precision the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. While reiterating the three tests laid down in S.L.A. Officer's case, it was further emphasized that these methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive at as nearly as possible at an estimate of the market value. In arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may be necessary to take even two or all these methods into account inasmuch as the exact LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 28/44 evaluation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which the valuation can be accurately determined.
58. In P. Ram Reddy and Others Versus Land Acquisition Officer (1995) 2 SCC 305, the Supreme Court held that :
"An acquired land could be regarded as that which has a building potentiality, if such land although was used on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act for agricultural or horticultural or other like purposes or was on that date even barren or waste, had the possibility of being used immediately or in the near future as land for putting up residential, commercial, industrial or other buildings. However, the fact that the acquired land had been acquired for building purposes, cannot be sufficient circumstance to regard it as a land with building potentiality, in that, under clause (4) of Section 24 of the LA Act that any increase to the value of land likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired, is required to be excluded. Therefore, wherever, there is a possibility of the acquired land not used for building purposes on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act, of being used for putting up buildings either immediately or in the near future but not in the distant future, then such acquired land would LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 29/44 be regarded as that which has a building potentiality. Even so, when can it be said that there is the possibility of the acquired land being used in the immediate or near future for putting up buildings, would be the real question. Such possibility of user of the acquired land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it should be a matter of inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on record to establish such possibility. Material so placed on record or made available must necessarily relate to the matters such as :
(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;
(ii)the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;
(iii)possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put upon that land;
(iv)absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes;
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 30/44
(v)existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;
(vi)benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and
(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.
The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentiary value for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 31/44
59. In Shaji Kuriakose Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001) 7SCC 650, the Supreme Court held that :
"3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 32/44 Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land that what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land."
60. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 the Supreme Court held that :
"18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. Market value is ordinarily the price the property LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 33/44 may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
The amount of compensation cannot be
ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A
comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under :
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area.
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the
interior at a distance
from the road.
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land
with very small frontage
compared to depth.
(iv) nearness to (iv) lower level requiring
developed areas depressed portion to be
filled up.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 34/44
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from
developed locality
acquisition
(vi) level vis-a-vis land (vi) some special
under acquisition disadvantageous factors
which would deter a
purchaser
(vii) special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it
may have some very
special advantage.
61. In a case Union of India Versus Pramod
Gupta (Dead) by LRs. and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Supreme Court considered the two methods laying down the principles for determining the market value. Firstly, what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser. Secondly, comparison of sale deeds. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. The area of land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the land. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages.
62. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Devender Verma submitted that the Collector (West) has erred in determining the fair market value of the acquired land in LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 35/44 question. He submitted that the sale deed Ex. PW3/1 to PW3/4 also placed before the Collector (West) but same were not considered. He submitted that the sale deeds are pertaining to year 2005 and one of the transaction is of the petitioner, therefore, it is the best evidence to determine the fair market value. He relied on judgment AIR 1997 SC 2625. He further pointed out that the copy of Aks Sizra map of village Mundka proved on record in order to establish the location abutted at National Highway 10, Rohtak Road. In order to establish the good potential value of the acquired land as it is developed, a notification No. F.3(6) Lit./02/LJ/07/5633 dated 17.09.2007 also proved on record. He further submitted that in the case of Jayant Juneja (Supra), DMRC paid the compensation amount of agricultural land including the structural value of 832 sq. yds. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per notification dated 18.07.2007, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi has fixed the minimum circle rates of Lal Dora land and minimum rate has been fixed of 'H' category i.e. Rs.6900/- per sq. meter and the Collector (West) ignored the important piece of evidence and fixed the market value at very low rate at Rs.1210/- per sq. meter. In case from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and notification of circle rate off loading @ 10% is given then only Rs.76/- per sq. meter is to be deducted.
63. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in Award Ex. R1, the Collector (West) has adopted the wrong method and ignored the notification of minimum circle rate, which was notified only after about 40 days of notification under Section 4 of the Act. He further pointed out that in later award, the Collector (West) also relied the LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 36/44 minimum circle rate for determining the fair market value. He pointed out that various notifications wherein the Govt. of NCT fixed the market value of land pertaining to Lal Dora extended time to time in very short period which accelerate in the following manner:
Date of notification Rate of Lal Dora in square meter 18.07.2007 Rs.6,900/-
18.02.2011 Rs.13,800/-
16.11.2011 Rs.15,870/-
05.12.2012 Rs.19,400/-
Ld. Counsel further submitted that all the above notifications show that value of Lal Dora increased by the Government time to time and court may take judicial notice in this regard and the list of Rule village Abadi which shows that village Mundka comes under 'H' category and there are many unauthorized colonies falls under the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi, which comes under 'G' Category and the petitioners claims the 'H' category as well as 'G' Category.
64. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Village Mundka as per circle rate shown in category 'G'. The Collector (West) also not granted compensation for the structures. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is an additional advantage of the acquired land which is not available in other neighbouring villages such as Bakkarwala as there is a Railway Station and boundaries are abutting National Highway which is proved by site plan Ex. PW5/A. He relied on judgments Union of India vs. Mangat 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 815; Municipal Committee vs. Balwant LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 37/44 Singh 1995 (3) R.R.R. 294; and V. Hanumantha Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Collector 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 496.
65. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the compensation may be awarded @ Rs.40,000/- per sq. yards i.e. Rs.33,440/- per sq. meter along with all statutory benefits and interest.
66. Written arguments filed on behalf of respondent no.2/ DMRC perused. Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer submitted that the present reference is barred by time and petitioner has taken four years to complete the evidence, therefore, they may not be awarded 15% interest on account of delay on the enhanced amount. He submitted that the sale deeds filed by the petitioner are created artificially and doctored in order to impress upon the court to award the compensation as per the purchase value of the petitioner's land. The sale deeds are of exorbitantly high rates because they came to of acquisition of land at MRTS Project, therefore, sale deeds of the petitioner are not reliable and bonafide. The formal communication of acquirement of the land in question was sent by Delhi Government on 16.11.2005 well before the sale deeds were executed. Therefore, the sale transactions are not bonafide. He further submitted that market value of the acquired land in question has correctly and fairly determined by the Collector (West) because he has considered in total 60 sale deeds. LAC (West) had ignored the very low value sale deeds and very high value sale deeds and taken the appropriate consistent value of sale deeds to arrive at fair market value. He further submitted that circle rate notification is not applicable because it was of later date. He further submitted LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 38/44 that the land acquired is for public purpose to provide transportation system to the public at large, therefore, the fair market value has been determined and petitioner is not entitled to enhancement and petition is liable to be dismissed.
67. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/ UOI adopted the written arguments filed by respondent no.2/ DMRC. He submitted that the Collector (West) has appropriately and rightly determined the fair market value and there is no error committed by him. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement.
68. I have considered the respective submissions of the parties and perused the evidence led by them. I have also gone through the above stated principles of law to determine the fair market value of the acquired land in question.
69. The first method is to consider the sale deeds proved on record. The petitioners have proved the sale deeds Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/4. The details are mentioned herein above. The sale deeds are executed by the petitioner and other persons whose land has been acquired. It is pertinent to mention here that the project must have been announced in the year 2005 even a letter referred by Law officer of DMRC shows that the project must have conceived and publicized much prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has proved only four sale deeds of all interested persons, which are much higher values to the normal 59 sale deeds LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 39/44 considered by the LAC (West). On the other hand, respondents also proved sale deeds Ex. R-2 to R-6. They show the average price of the sale price at very low. In my considered opinion, the sale deeds are fluctuating from very low to very high. Therefore, they cannot be fair indicator to determine the fair market value of the acquired land in question. The method of consideration of sale deed in my considered opinion is not a fair and correct indicator in the present facts and circumstances of the case. In addition to it, the petitioner also proved price of the auctioned plots by the DDA vide Ex. PW-2/1 & Ex. PW-2/2 It is well settled that the auction of the plots taken place after full development by the DDA after acquiring the land. Therefore, prices of the developed plots cannot be considered and compared with the acquired land in question.
70. Petitioner further relied on valuation report by PW3 Sh. K.S. Sodhi as Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C. It is admitted by the Valuer that it is an ex-parte report. He had not served any notice to the DMRC, Union of India or Land Acquisition Collector. I have gone through the valuation report, it has no parameter and basis for arriving the value. Most of the valuation reports are pertaining to the period after the date of notification i.e. Ex. PW3/C is dated 10.08.2007, Ex. PW3/D is dated 11.11.2011 and Ex. PW3/G is dated 11.11.2011. In my opinion, the valuation reports do not indicate any parameter to determine fair market value of the acquired land. It is prepared on the instructions of the petitioner, therefore, does not inspire confidence and it cannot be relied in the present circumstances being ex-parte report. The valuation report without associating the LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 40/44 representative of LAC is liable to be rejected. My view is supported by the judgment of 'Kalawati Devi vs. Haryana State' 1996 (2) PLR 471.
71. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on judgment of Jayant Juneja (Supra), which is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case and the valuation report does not pertain to Lal Dora.
72. Now coming to the submissions with regard to the fixing of the circle rate by the Government of NCT on 18.07.2007, which is just after 40 days of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. I have perused the notification. It categorize all the colonies, localities and areas of Delhi. The notification deals with the properties in Lal Dora as Class -VI. It is based upon definite parameters and formula while arriving at the minimum circle rate. The acquired land in question is of Lal Dora which is used for residential purposes and the circle rates are also notified with regard to the residential lands. The Mundka Extension at Sl. No. 1088 shown in 'G' category. In my considered opinion, the Collector (West) fell in error while not considering the circle rates when the sale deeds were not found to be correct indicator of the fair market value because the award was pronounced on 01.01.2009 after about two years of Section 4 notification. Therefore, the acquired land in question has potential to be used as land for residential purposes and the fair market value can be arrived while considering the minimum circle rates fixed by Govt. of NCT. The petitioner relied the Lal Dora circle rate to the tune of Rs. 6900/- per sq. meter. In order to came fair, just market valuation on the LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 41/44 date of notification under Section 4 of L.A Act development charges required to be deducted to the tune of 25%. Hence the fair market value is determined @ Rs. 5175/- per sq. meter by giving enhancement of Rs. 3965 per sq. meter. Issue nos. 1 & 2 decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 373. The onus to prove this issue is on the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW8 and proved her affidavit. The evidence has been discussed herein above in detail. The petitioner in para 11 of her affidavit deposed that she has raised the construction of boundary wall of 7 feet height and affixed a gate and claimed Rs.5 lacs for construction and Rs.15 lacs as damages. However, no document proved on record when the said boundary wall constructed and fixed the gate. There is no document proved on record about the expenses incurred. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the circumstances where no document or cogent evidence proved on record, the petitioner failed to establish the claim of Rs.5 lacs for construction of boundary wall and gate and damages of Rs.15 lacs. The issue is decided against the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF)
74. In view of my findings on Issue nos. 1 & 2, the fair market value of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.5175/- per sq. meter after enhancement @ Rs.3965/- per sq. meter. Besides this the petitioners are also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 42/44
75. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
76. The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
77. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
78. The interest on compensation for the period of delay due to impleading of LRs or stay of High Court or any other court may also be deducted.
79. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
80. Petitioner is not entitled to claim of structure of Rs. 5 lacs and damages to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs.
LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 43/44
81. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
82. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 6th February, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 06.02.2017 LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 44/44 LAC No. 28/11 (New No.112/16) Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 45/44