Delhi District Court
Mrs. Mohini Ram W/O Late Sh.Kesho Ram vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 23 October, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC No. : 278/1/06 AWARD No : 02/2004-05
LOCALITY : Barakhamba Road,
Connaught Place, N.D
In the matter of :
1 Mrs. Mohini Ram W/o late Sh.Kesho Ram
2 Mrs. Babble Goyal D/o late Sh.Kesho Ram
3 Mrs. Neena Khanna D/o late Sh.Kesho Ram
All residents of A-7, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi
4 Mrs. Kum Kum K. Singh D/o late Sh.Kesho Ram
R/o 75-A, Friends Colony, New Delhi
5 Sh.Ashok Gupta S/o late Sh.Ganga Ram
6 Ms. Manju Rani D/o late Sh. Ganga Ram
7 Mrs. Anu Jain D/o late Sh. Ganga Ram
All residents of C-25, Kailash Apartment, G.K.-I, New Delhi
8 Mrs. Asha Gupta W/o late Sh. Rishi Ram
9 Sh. Anil Ram S/o late Sh. Rishi Ram
10 Ms. Geeta Ram D/o late Sh. Rishi Ram
All residents of A-3, Dewanshree Apartment, 30, Ferozshah
Road, New Delhi
...Petitioners
Versus
1 Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
its Lt. Governor, Raj Bhawan,
Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi
2 Land Acquisition Collector
New Delhi District
12/1, Jam Nagar House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-1
3 Chairman
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
NBCC Palace, Bhisham Pitamah Marg,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
...Respondents
Reference received on : 06.02.2006
Award reserved on : 22.10.2008
Award announced on : 23.10.2008
AWARD
REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
1 Vide notification No.F.7(9)/2004/L&B/LA/MRTS/New Delhi/
1897 dt. 27.04.2004 U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act) followed by declaration vide notification No.F.7(9)/2004/L&B/LA/MRTS/New Delhi/4304 dt. 09.06.2004 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act, the land situate in the revenue estate of village/ locality Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi as per statement U/sec. 19 of the LA Act was acquired by the Govt. for station facility of MRTS project on Connaught Place- Dwarka Corridor of DMRC Ltd. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requirements as provided under the Act, announced the award bearing No.02/2004-05 on 08.10.2004 and awarded the compensation @ Rs.57,960/- per sq. mtr. besides statutory benefits. 2 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioners herein filed petition U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value of the acquired land which was sent to the reference court.
3 In this reference petition, the petitioners have sought the enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the land measuring 592 sq. mtrs. out of property No.18, Kanchanjunga Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi has been acquired for a public purpose and the petitioners are the owners of the land, three basements (2800 sq. fts. super area) and eight car parkings in the basement. The compensation assessed by the LAC is too low, unjust, arbitrary, without any reasonable basis and as such the same is not acceptable to the petitioners and is liable to be enhanced in accordance with law. The land of the petitioner is situated in the heart of Delhi and has the maximum commercial value. Despite the admission on the part of the LAC that the user of the land is commercial in nature, yet the same has been assessed at a very low rate of Rs.57, 960/- per sq. mtr. As far as the amount of compensation for three basements is there, the LAC should not have forgotten that the rate in the basements of Kanchenjunga is Rs.3000/- per sq. ft. and in the year 1994, the LRs of late Sh.Rishi Ram were getting Rs.51,351/- per month as rent for their basement measuring 933.66 sq. fts in the year 1995 and later on in the year 2003, they were getting Rs.16,422/- per month as rent. In such circumtances, either the petitioners should get the amount as compensation from which they can get interest equal to the monthly rent or the amount which they can get after selling area of 2800 sq. ft. The LAC, without taking into consideration the rate per sq. ft. in the Kanchenjunga Building in the basement, has assessed them as pucca structure, for which there is no logic or reasoning in the award. It is also stated that as far as the compensation for car parking is concerned, the petitioners are having eight car parking spaces in the basement and the minimum rate is at least Rs.5,00,000/- per car parking in the basement. The acquired land forms part of the multi-storied building which is surrounded by varous multi-storied buildings. On thess grounds among others, the petitioners have claimed Rs.1,00,000/- per sq. mtr. towards the value of the land in questioin.
4 The UOI, in its written statement, has raised the main objections on the grounds among others that the land has been acquired for the public porpose namely for ''Station Facility of MRTS Project'' on Connaught Place-Dwarka Corridor for DMRC Ltd. Notices u/s 9 & 10 were issued to the land owners/ interested persons inviting claims of the affected properties. Pursuant to the notices, numbers of claims were filed by the affected persons claiming different value of the land in properties. After considering all the claims of the land owners/ interested parties, the LAC made and pronounced the award in question u/sec. 11 of the LA Act. The claim of the petitioners with respect to measurements, apportionment and compensation of the land has been admitted by UOI to the extent of section 19 statement of the LA Act. The compensation assessed by the LAC is sufficient and reasonable and it reflects the true market value prevailing at the time of the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. Various factors were taken into account while assessing the market value. The petitioners are claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land & structures. The land was leased out by the L&DO, Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation and as per the land records received of the L&DO, lease has been determined and the property vest in President of India as intimated vide letter No.L1-8/205(6)/2004/272 dt. 16.07.2004. The LAC has considered the properties sold in the area and their value registered in the office of Sub-Registrar for the approximate period to section 4 notification. However, the same has not been accepted as the average market value of the land component comes to Rs.34,617/-per sq. mtr. only. Therefore, the registered sale deeds could not be relied upon in order to assessed the fair market value of the land. 5 It is also stated that the LAC in order to assess the fair market value of the land adopted the ''schedule of market rates'' of lands in various localities in Delhi issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Government of India intimated/ circulated vide its notification No.J-22011/4/95-LD dt. 16.04.1999. The prevailing rate during the corresponding period was 57,960/- per sq. mtr. for commercial area. There had not been any appreciation in the market price in the locality and the land prices were almost stable since the rates fixed by the L&DO in the year 1999. This is also evident from the sale instances quoted in the award itself and due to the fact that many domestic as well as MNC's have shifted their offices from Connaught Place area because of Traffic congestion and overcrowding to the satellite townships of Gurgaon and NOIDA. After due consideration, the indicative market value has been accepted at Rs.57,960/- per sq. mtr. for the land as the true market value of the land besides other statutory benefits. The LAC rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated under section 23 & 24 of the LA Act. The LAC assessed the fair market value of the land after considering its current use, potentiality for the future land use, proximity of land to the nearby area. The LAC also considered the permissive use of the land of the area under the master plan. The acquired land is the open space which is required to be kept open and vacant under the Municipal bye-laws as the claimants could not have used the land for any other commercial purposes and had very limited building potential, however, the structures appurtenant to the land under acquisition such as boundary wall, gates, etc. were got evaluated by the PWD of Govt. Of NCT of Delhi and received through DMRC. The DMRC conducted the evaluation and submitted the evaluation reports after duly vetted by the Public Works Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the LAC the value of the structure was assessed at Rs.31,45,603/- which were accepted after due consideration. The petitioners are not entitled for compensation as alleged in respect of the construction and structure. There is no record regarding ownership/ possession over the land under the present acquisition. None of the claimants/ interested persons filed any evidence in support of their claim, which is exorbitantly high. All other averments made in the reference petition except matter of record have been denied. 6 L&DO, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the grounds among others that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner failed to serve the mandatory notice u/sec. 80 CPC upon the respondent which is mandatory under the provision of law. The owner of the property no.18, Barakhamba Road filed the claims by the effected persons claiming different value of the land and property. The property of Barakhamba Road was lease hold property (at present re-entered) and the lessor is entitled for the 100% compensation as per law.The claim has been assessed by the LAC in the ratio of 75% of the lessees and 25% for the lessor in non re-entered properties and 100% in the case of re-entered properties as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP bearing No.2582/1981 titled Inder Prakash Vs UOI. The compensation assessed by the LAC is sufficient and reasonbale and the true market value prevailing at the time of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act and also various factors were taken into caccount while assessing the market value by the LAC. The petitioner is claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land and structure. The reference petition is barred by the period of limitation and hence the same is not maintainable and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. It is also stated that the LAC rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view of all the aspects u/sec. 23 & 24 of the LA Act. The LAC assessed the fair market value of the land after considering the use of the land, proximity of the land to the nearby area. The LAC also considered the permissive use of the land of the area in question under the Master Plan and the market of the land assessed at Rs.57,960/- per sq. mtr. The acquired land is the open space which is required to be kept open the vacant under the Municipal Bye-laws as the claimant could not have used the land for any other commercial purposes and had very limited building potential, however, the structures appurtenant to the land under acquisition such as boundary walls, gates, etc. were got evaluated by the PWD of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. All other averments made in the reference petition except matter of record have been denied. 7 DMRC, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the grounds among others that the amount of the compensation has been assessed correctly and legally by the LAC. The amount assessed by the LAC is more than adequate and just. The LAC took into consideration all relevant factors including the location and potentiality of the land in dispute while arriving at the market value of the land. The conclusion arrived at by the LAC is based on cogent evidence and reasons. All other averments made in the reference petition except matter of record have been denied.
8 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on 02.08.2006 which are as under :
1 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notice U/s 4 of LA Act? Onus on parties.
2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to the enhancement of compensation if yes, at what rate? OPP 3 Relief
9 Despite opportunities given, neither the petitioners nor their counsel have appeared. Even otherwise, no documenary evidence has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. However, Sh.G.H.Ratra, Deputy Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi has examined himself as R3W1. R3W1 has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit as Ex.R3W1/A. R3W1, in his affidavit, has not exhibited any document. The counsel for the respondents have also tendered in evidence the copy of the award no.2/2004-05 pertaining to village/ locality Brakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi as Ex.R-1.
10 Despite opportunities given, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioners for arguments. However, I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the respondents and have perused the entire records. My issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 11 Before deciding these issues, let us examine whether the reference petition has been filed by the petitioners within the limitation period. The award in question was announced on 08.10.2004 and the reference petition has been filed by the petitioners before the LAC on 18.11.2004. In this context, a reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs UOI 1988, RLR 224 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that bare knowledge of the award is not enough. Parties must have knowledge of the contents of the award. Further in Rajjan Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Panam project, Godhra and Ors AIR 1995 Gujrat 170, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that Collector has not merely to intimate parties about passing of award but he has to communicate essential contents of award, if not copy of award. The counsel for the respondents have not led any evidence on record that the essential contents of the award were communicated and the petitioners had constructive or actual knowledge of the award at the time of announcement of the award by the LAC and the reference petition is barred by limitation. Therefore, I hold that the reference petition has been filed within the period of limitation.
12 Now, I shall decide the issue nos.1 & 2. Both the issues are inter- connected and I shall decide both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners have claimed for enhancement in compensation of the land in question on the aforesaid grounds mentioned in the reference petition which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It has been held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which is sought to be acquired by the government, situation, nature, potential/ user and neighbouring land, etc, is to be considered. In this context, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :
''The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes'' In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam Vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
''In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.'' In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1996) 2 SCC 152 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when on record there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself, then it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
''It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.''
13 The petitioners have neither filed any documentary evidence nor examined any witness in support of their case for enhancement in compensation. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have examined Sh.G.H.Ratra, Deputy Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi as R3W1. R3W1, in his affidavit Ex.R3W1/A, has deposed almost the same facts as stated in the written statement filed by L&DO. Further, the respondents have also relied upon the award in question which is Ex.R-1. The LAC, in Ex.R-1, while assessing the market value of the land in question has specifically stated that lands under acquisition is located in the Connaught Place area which is well developed urban locale for a long period. This area is dotted with beautiful constructed commercial buildings, shopping complexes and private accommodation, etc. The piece of land under acquisition is commercial in nature. These points were kept in mind while arriving at the market values of the land under acquisition and are determined with reference to the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act i.e. 27.04.2004. The LAC has also stated that none of the interested persons filing the claim have submitted any documentary proof in support of their claim of market value of the property. In view of the unrebutted evidence led by the respondents and also the reasons mentioned by the LAC in Ex.R-1, I hold that the market value assessed by the LAC is adequate, sufficient which is based on reliable evidence, therefore, no scope is warranted for enhancement in compensation fixed by the LAC of the land in question. These issues are answered accordingly.
RELIEF 14 In view of my findings on the above issues, the petitioners are not entitled for enhancement in compensation of the land in question. Therefore, this petition u/sec. 18 of the LA Act is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. No order to costs. This reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC for his information. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 23.10.2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
LAC No. 278/1/06
23.10.2008
Present- None
Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this petition u/sec. 18 of the LA Act is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. No order to costs.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC for his information. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/23.10.2008