Delhi District Court
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain vs Union Of India on 1 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS.NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WAKF TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Suit Number : 26/08.
Unique ID Number : 02403C0958452007.
Reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain,
Son of Mr.Shikhar Chand Jain,
Resident of Flat No.807,
Inderparkash Building,
21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
...................................................................................................Petitioner.
Versus
1.Union of India
2.Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
3.Land and Development Office.
..............................................................................................Respondents.
Award Number : 1/2004-2005.
Award announced on : 30.06.2004.
Purpose of acquisition : For station facility of MRTS
project on Connaught Place
-Dwarka Corridor of DMRC Ltd.
Name of Village/Locality : Barakhamba Road, Connaught
Place, New Delhi.
Date of institution of reference petition :
10.07.2007.
Date of conclusion of arguments :
01.08.2011.
Date of judgment : 01.08.2011.
Appearances: Mr.Shyam Dutt, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.N.L.Singh, counsel for the respondent number 1.
Mr.S.K.Jha, counsel for the respondent number 2.
Mr.Neeraj Kumar, counsel for respondent number 3.
Suit Number LAC 26/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958452007.
Mukesh Kumar Jain v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 1 of 8 ::-
JUDGMENT
1. This is a reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jain, the petitioner, against Union of India, the respondent number 1 (hereinafter referred to as the UOI), Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, the respondent number 2, (hereinafter referred to as the DMRC) and Land and Development Office (hereinafter referred to as the L & DO), the respondent number 3. Petitioner, claiming to be the owner of flat number 807, a part of this property, got his petition under section 18 of the Act referred to the Court for enhancement of compensation awarded in respect of the acquired land.
2. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Indraprakash Apartment Occupants Association (Regd.) had filed a letter/application/ reference dated 14.07.2004 to the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as the LAC) who declined vide order dated 24.04.2006 to make a reference for enhancement of compensation under section 18 of the Act. The said order had been challenged and vide order dated 16.01.2007 of the hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the letter dated 14.07.2004 was ordered to be treated as a request for a reference under section 18 of the Act and for referring the same to the Court. A letter/application, which is undated, was also submitted by the petitioner to the LAC for enhancement of compensation.
PETITION
3. It is averred by the petitioner that lease hold vacant land measuring 541 square meters out of property/land bearing number 21, Suit Number LAC 26/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958452007.
Mukesh Kumar Jain v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 2 of 8 ::-
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, the front portion, owned by the petitioner besides others on proportionate basis as per the flats under their ownership, had been acquired vide award bearing number 1/2004 dated 30.06.2004 vide issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act dated 28.03.2003 and notification under section 6 of the Act dated 17.04.2003 for the purpose of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation for the construction of Metro Rail Station. Possession of this land was taken on 22-7-2003. The LAC has assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.57,960/- per square meter on proportionate basis which is too low, arbitrary, without any reasonable basis and the same is not acceptable to the petitioner. LAC treated this land as being used for commercial purposes vide his award dated 30.06.2004 and assessed the amount of compensation at Rs.57,960/-
per square meter (or Rs. 5,385.115 sq. feet). The property in question which is known as Indraprakash Building, 21 Barakhamba Road is of commercial nature and also had besides its other fixtures and amenities, pump house, electrical fire pumps, two electric fire pump etc., underground water tanks which had to be reconstructed due to the acquiring of the land for the respondent number 2, DMRC regarding which the petitioner had to bear expenses and unnecessary expenses. Petitioner has claimed the compensation amount as inadequate and unjustified on several grounds. As the property in question was a lease hold property, so a separate reference under section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act was also forwarded due to dispute of apportionment of the compensation amount between the petitioner (lessee) and L&DO (Lessor). Request for enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land is made. In the present reference, the petitioner has claimed enhanced compensation of proportionate land as Rs.83,79,000/- as well as some other losses occurred to him due to acquisition proceedings.
Suit Number LAC 26/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958452007.
Mukesh Kumar Jain v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 3 of 8 ::-
SERVICE AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS
4. All the respondents i.e. UOI, DMRC and L & DO were served with the notice of the reference petition and pursuant there to, they had appeared and filed their respective written statements contesting the case wherein they have controverted and rebutted all the averments made in the petition submitting that the compensation award is justified ,correct and reasonable. It is also submitted that the compensation has been awarded on the higher side as MNCs etc. have shifted from Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place to the satellite towns of Gurgaon and Noida and market value of the property has diminished. It is also submitted that the L & DO has already re-entered into the property prior to its acquisition and the petitioner is nor entitled to any compensation. Prayer for the dismissal of the reference petition is made.
ISSUES
5. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 26.02.2009 of the learned predecessor of this Court, the following issues were framed:
1. What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP.
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove its case, the petitioner, Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jain, has examined himself as PW1, Mr.S.S.Mehto, Superintendent, L & Suit Number LAC 26/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958452007.
Mukesh Kumar Jain v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 4 of 8 ::-
DO, Nirman Bhawan,New Delhi as PW2, Mr.S.P.Nagar,UDC/Billing- II,A.O.(RL),DDA, Vikas Sadan,New Delhi as PW3. Mr.Shyam Dutt, counsel for the petitioner also made a statement on 04.08.2010 that he adopts the evidence of Mr.Sunil Srivastava, Record Clerk, Sub-Registrar- VII who has been examined in connected case in LAC No.55/08 since the matters arise out of the same award.
7. On behalf of the respondents, the copy of award, Ex.P1/1, and the certified copies of the sale deeds, Ex.P1/2 to Ex.P1/6 were only tendered in evidence. All the respondents adopted each others evidence also.
ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard the arguments at length and have given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provision of law and the precedents on the point.
9. After due consideration, the issues are decided as follows:
ISSUE NUMBERS 1 AND 2
10. Issue number 1 is........What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act? OPP.
11. Issue number 2 is.........Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP.
12. The crucial and relevant date to find out and assess the Suit Number LAC 26/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958452007.
Mukesh Kumar Jain v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 5 of 8 ::-
quantum of compensation is the date of notification under section 4 of the Act i.e. 28.03.2003. The evidence relied upon or led by parties has already been discussed and considered in detail in another case titled as S.Tej Pratap Singh v. Union of India and another, Suit LAC Number 53/08/06; Unique ID Number 02403C0974282008, decided on 06.07.2011 by this Court under the same Award. There is no additional ground or evidence on record in this case which gave any other special concession to the petitioners or to make their land superior to other's land acquired under the same notification and award. Infact, this case cannot be distinguished in any manner from another Suit LAC Number 53/08/06; Unique ID Number 02403C0974282008 already decided by this Court.
13. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Nand Ram v. State of Haryana, JT 1988 (4) SC 260 has held that if a compensation amount is already fixed for a land then the same amount of compensation has to be given to other land owners whose similarly placed and situated adjacent is acquired under the same notification.
14. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as given in S.Tej Pratap Singh's case. There is nothing on record which shows that petition is barred by limitation.
15. In S.Tej Pratap Singh v. Union of India and another, Suit LAC Number 53/08/06; Unique ID Number 02403C0974282008, decided on 06.07.2011 by this Court under the same Award, the reference was disposed off by holding that compensation awarded to the petitioner at Rs. 57,960/- per square meter by the LAC was inadequate and unreasonable. The petitioner was required to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.
Suit Number LAC 26/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958452007.
Mukesh Kumar Jain v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 6 of 8 ::-
81,429/- per square meter.
16. The petitioner in the present matter is, therefore, entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,469/- per square meter (Rs.81,429/- minus Rs.57,960/- totals to Rs.23,469/-) along with 30% solatium. He is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification till the date of possession i.e. 28.03.2003 to 22.07.2003 as per provisions of section 23 (1-A) of the Act. The petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per section 28 of the Act.
17. The claims of the petitioner regarding the other different type of losses are rejected due to lack of evidence.
18. Accordingly, these two issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Petitioner is required to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.81,429/- per square meter only as allowed in S.Tej Pratap Singh's case in respect of land.
ISSUE NUMBER 3
19. Issue number 3 is the relief.
20. In view of above discussions, reference is disposed off by holding that compensation awarded to petitioner at the rate of Rs.57,960/- per square meter by LAC was inadequate and unreasonable. Petitioner was required to be paid compensation for his proportionate share at the rate of Suit Number LAC 26/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958452007.
Mukesh Kumar Jain v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 7 of 8 ::-
Rs.81,429/- per square meter for land. Petitioner is, thus, entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,469/- per square meter along with 30% solatium. As possession of the acquired land was not taken till the date of award so petitioner is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification till the date of award i.e. 28.03.2003 to 22.07.2003 as per provisions of section 23 (1-A) of the Act. Petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per section 28 of the Act.
21. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation to which the petitioner, as per his proportionate share, is entitled, shall be released to him subject to the outcome in the petition for apportionment under section 30 and 31 of the Act.
22. Copy of this order be sent to LAC for information and deposit of balance amount immediately to avoid further burden upon the Government exchequer.
23. After the completion of all formalities, the file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA)
on this 01st day of August, 2011. ADJ-02, Wakf Tribunal, New Delhi.
Suit Number LAC 26/08.
Unique ID Number: 02403C0958452007.
Mukesh Kumar Jain v. Union of India and others. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-