Delhi District Court
Sh. Raghubir Singh vs Page 1 Of 23 on 15 February, 2007
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No. 284/04 (Old LAC No. 212/2001)
In Re :-
1. SH. RAGHUBIR SINGH
S/O LATE SH. CHANDGI RAM
2. SH. SHER SINGH
S/O LATE SH. KUNDAN
3. SH. MEHAR SINGH
S/O LAE SH. KUNDAN
4. SH. ISHWAR SINGH
THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS
(i) SMT. RAMO DEVI Wd/O SH. ISHWAR SINGH
(ii) SMT. GEETA D/o SH. ISHWAR SINGH
5. SH. KARAN SINGH, THROUGH HIS L.Rs
(i) SH. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O SH. KARAN SINGH
(ii) SMT. PHOOLWATI WD/O SH. KARAN SINGH
(iii) SMT USHA D/O SH. KARAN SINGH
(iv) KM. NISHA D/O SH. KARAN SINGH
6. SH. ATTAR SINGH S/O SH. SUBE SINGH
7. SH. OM PARKASH S/O SH. SUBE SINGH
8. SH. SURESH KUMAR S/O SH. SUBE SINGH
9. SH. KRISHAN SWAROOP S/O SH. SUBE SINGH
ALL R/O VILLAGE & P.O. BAWANA,
DELHI.
...... PETITIONERS
Versus
Page 1 of 23
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING,
VIKAS BHAWAN, I.T.O. NEW DELHI.
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
3. THE C.R.P.F.
THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL,
AT C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI.
........ RESPONDENTS
Award No. 1/96-97
Village Bawana
Date of Award/ Date
of Announcement of Award 23.04.1996
Notification U/s 4 F.7 (33)95-L&B/LA/1606
dt. 21.06.1995
Notification U/s 6 F.7 (33)95-L&B/LA/2397
dt. 08.02.1996
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
Date of Order of Remand Back: 30.09.2004
Date of Decision: 15.02.2007
Page 2 of 23
JUDGMENT
1.0 These proceedings have arisen out of order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30.09.2004 in LA Appeal No. 80/04, vide which the Hon'ble High Court set aside judgment/award of the Learned Predecessor court dated 24.12.2003. Vide abovesaid order, the Hon'ble High Court, while setting aside the award, directed this court to permit the parties to lead evidence as to yield and decide the reference in accordance with law after considering the fresh evidence recorded as well as the evidence already on record. 1.1 Accordingly the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
2.0 The brief facts as per the reference petition are that the petitioners were in cultivatory possession of land bearing khasra no. 55/8 min(3-0), 54/16 (4-16), 17 (5-06), 18/2 (1-13), 19 (4-
16), 20 (4-16), 21 (4-16), 22 min. (2-08), 24/2 (1-05), 25 (6-06), 69/1 (4-12), 2 (4-12), 3 (4-12), 4/1 (4-10), 7 (4-16), 8 (4-16) and 9 (4-16), according to their share, situated in the revenue estate of Village Bawana, Delhi. (the said land) The said land was acquired vide Page 3 of 23 award no.1/96-97. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") awarded compensation @ Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre for 'A' category (Rs. 96,875/- per Bigha) and Rs. 3.36 Lacs per acre for 'B' category land (Rs. 70,000/- per bigha). The petitioners not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by LAC, challenged the same under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') before the LAC, who forwarded the same to this court, for adjudication.
2. The petitioners have challenged the award on the following grounds that:
i) the compensation as assessed by LAC is very low and inadequate ;
ii) the land of the petitioners is very fertile and was giving 2/3 crops in a year and entire family of the petitioners wholly depended upon the same for their livelihood ;
iii) the LAC has failed to appreciate that the land of the petitioners had a great potential for being used for agricultural/residential/commercial purpose, without Page 4 of 23 incurring much investment ;
iv) That the LAC has failed to appreciate that the petitioners' land is situated on the main road and is surrounded by developed residential colonies and market value of land in those colonies is not less than Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yds., ;
v) all the amenities and facilities of life, like electricity, roads, railway, school, hospital, bank etc. are available to the petitioners' land.
vi) that the LAC has failed to appreciate that due to the permanent acquisition of the land, the petitioners have been deprived of their source of livelihood permanently ;
Petitioners have prayed for compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yard besides solatium @ 30% and other statutory benefits ; Rs. 1,20,000/- for the well, tube-well and crops. 3.0 The reference petition was contested by the respondents i.e. Union of India (hereinafter referred to as 'UOI') as well as by Central Reserved Police Force (hereinafter referred to as "CRPF") raising number of objections viz. the land in question is not Page 5 of 23 surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can be used only for agriculture; LAC has awarded adequate compensation to the petitioners after determining the cost of land and taking into consideration various aspects such as claims, potentiality of land and facility available to the land.
3.1 The respondents defended the award and asserted that compensation granted by the LAC is adequate, just and legal. They contended that the LAC, while making the award, had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of all the documents which were made available and produced before him. He had also taken into consideration the area of the land and other amenities/facilities available thereon, while assessing the compensation.
4.0 On the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. predecessor had framed the following issues on 27.11.2001 :-
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount ?
2. Relief.Page 6 of 23
5.0 The petitioners in support of their claim had earlier filed certified copy of judgment of Ld. Predecessor Court dated 11.09.2001 in LAC no. 223/00 titled as Sh. Pawan Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. Ex. P-1 and certified copy of judgment of Ld. Predecessor Court dated 07.01.2002 in LAC no. 214/01 titled as Sh. Rajesh Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. Ex. P-2.
5.1 The respondents earlier had placed reliance only upon the award Ex.R1, in support.
6.0 Thereafter, arguments were heard by the ld. predecessor and vide a detailed judgment dated 24.12.2003, the ld. Predecessor had determined the market value of the land in question of 'B' category @ Rs. 1,12,000/- per bigha as on 23.04.1996 i.e. the date of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. 7.0 The Respondent CRPF preferred appeal against the said judgment. As mentioned in para 1 supra, the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 30.09.2004 had set-aside the order of the Ld. Page 7 of 23 Predecessor court and remanded the matter back, on the ground that land sought to be acquired was agricultural land and as no evidence was led as to yield, which has a bearing in determining the amount of compensation, therefore, opportunity to the parties be given, to lead evidence in this regard.
7.1 Subsequently, after the matter was remanded back to this court by the Hon'ble High court, with liberty to both the parties to lead evidence, as to yield of the land. The petitioners despite opportunities, failed to lead any evidence with regard to the agricultural yield and petitioner's income from the same. 7.2 So far as the respondents are concerned, after remand back of the case, the respondents filed in evidence, the following documents :-
1. Copy of Award No. 1-96/97, village Bawana, (Award in question) Ex. R-1
2. Copy of sale deed dated 13.8.96, executed by one Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Baldev Singh in favour of one Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kishan with respet of land situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi vide registeration No. Page 8 of 23 5348, Book No. 1, Vol. No. 131 pages 187 to 194, Ex-R2.
3. Copy of judgment of Ld. Predecessor Court dated 30.11.2004 in LAC No. 199/03 titled as Gajraj Vs. UOI & Ors. relating to award No. 22/97-98, village Holambi Kalan, Ex-R3.
4. Copy of judgment of Ld. Predecessor Court, dated 31.08.2004 in LAC No. 379/03 titled as Chajju Vs. UOI relating to award No. 1/97-98, village Bawana, Ex-R4.
8.0 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners/their counsel failed to appear to advance arguments. I have also carefully considered the record. My issue-wise findings are given hereinafter.
9.0 Findings on Issue No.1 9.1 Petitioners have contended that their land is fertile & irrigated land and gave 2-3 crops in a year. It was fit for agricultural/residential/commercial purposes and was worth much more than the compensation fixed by the LAC. It is to be seen firstly whether the petitioners have proved their case for Page 9 of 23 enhanced compensation, on the basis of agricultural yield.
The petitioners failed to lead any evidence either prior to or after the remand back of the case, as to agricultural yield/produce from the said land and their income from the same.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1564 has held that the onus is on the claimant/petitioner to prove that his land is capable of fetching higher compensation than what has been determined by the LAC and that he is entitled for enhanced compensation. The onus was upon the petitioners to lead evidence as to the agricultural yield of their land. Moreso, in view of the fact that the petitioners were given an opportunity to lead evidence in this regard, by the Hon'ble High Court, while remanding the matter back to the reference court. The petitioners have failed to prove the produce/yield they were getting from the land in question and their income from the crops grown by them. The petitioners have failed to discharge the said onus.
In view of above, I find that the petitioners have failed to prove their claim for enhancement of compensation on the basis of Page 10 of 23 agricultural yield/income.
9.2 Now coming to the petitioners' contention that their land had great potential and was fit for usage for residential/commercial purpose without much investment. The petitioners have also contended that their land was adjacent to developed colonies and all the amenities & facilities of modern life viz. road, electricity and schools etc. are available to the said land. All these factors also enhanced the value of petitioners' land. The petitioners' land was capable of fetching not less than Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yards at the relevant time.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand have argued that this court need not look into the rates of residential land of that village or of neighbouring villages for the reason that those pertain to developed colonies, whereas the land of the petitioners was basically agricultural in nature and therefore, the same cannot at all be compared with developed land.
Page 11 of 23 9.2.1. The respondents' plea that acquired land was purely agricultural in nature and cannot be compared with residential/commercial lands, cannot be accepted in view of the Hon'ble High Court's observation in judgment dated 11.05.2006 in L.A. Appeal No.866/2005 titled as Mahender Singh v/s. Union of India and others. UOI's said plea was duly considered in the Mahender Singh's case and rejected by the Hon'ble Court, while disposing of appeals preferred by number of claimants, vide common judgment dated 11.05.2006. The Hon'ble High Court, after deliberating upon the potential of land of village Bawana acquired vide award no. 1/97-98 observed that it can safely be concluded that the land of village Bawana had a declared potential of user as residential and commercial purposes. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the land in question had the potential of being used for residential/commercial purposes. But at the same time, it needs to be examined whether the petitioners have been able to demonstrate that their land was capable of fetching the market price of not less than @ Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yds.
9.2.2. The petitioners failed to lead any evidence by way of sale Page 12 of 23 instances or otherwise, in support of their claim that their land could have fetched more than Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yds.
On the other hand, the respondents have argued that if land rates of similar lands are to be considered, then the sale deed Ex.R2 be referred to. According to Ex. R2, the market value of the land of village Bawana in the year 1996 was Rs.14,117/- per bigha only.
Ex.R-2, pertains to sale of land measuring about 4 bigha 5 biswas for a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 13.08.1996. As per Ex.R-4, the rate of land per bigha would come to nearly Rs.14,117/-. It is seen that LAC has already awarded rate much more than Rs.14,117/- per bigha. UOI has not explained, how does this sale deed support their contention about prevalent rate. Further, it would also be pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court in Mohinder Singh's case (supra) while considering the same sale deed filed by UOI, observed that this amount (Rs.14,117/-) can no way be considered even relevant for determining the compensation payable to the claimants as the Collector himself has given much higher value which cannot be disturbed by the Court.
Page 13 of 23
In view of the above facts and that the petitioners have failed to lead any evidence, I find that the petitioners have failed to prove their claim that their land would have fetched a minimum price of Rs. 3,000/- per square yards.
9.3. Further, the petitioners have simply stated that their land was levelled and they are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yds. The petitioners have neither made any submission about placing of their said land in category 'B', nor have they specifically challenged the observations of the LAC about existence of pits and gadhas on the petitioner's land. Nor have petitioners led any evidence to prove quality of their land.
So far as the respondent is concerned, in support of categorization, the respondent has placed reliance upon the Award Ex. R-1.
I have perused the award carefully. The relevant portion of the award, as appearing at page no. 12 of the Award is as under :-
"....... The land under acquisition is agricultural land and is being used for agricultural as well as Page 14 of 23 Bhatta purposes. ..... The land which is being used for Bhatta purpose is having 'Gadhas' up to 4 feet from which earth has been taken out from making bricks. This also includes 'Bhatta Grund". Hence for the purpose of assessing the market value, land can fairly be divided into two blocks. One block will consist of level land ................ categorised as Block 'A' and second block will consist of 'Gadhas" and 'Bhatta Grund' measuring 138 bighas categorised as Block 'B'.
In a policy announcement which came into effect from 27.4.90 the Government of Delhi fixed the minimum price of agricultural land @ Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre for the acquisition of agricultural land.
In view of the absence of any documentary evidence on record to the contrary, I find Rs. 4.65 lac per acre to be the most reasonable price for best land i.e., land falling in 'A' Block. I accordingly determine the market value of the 'A' Block land @ Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre or Rs. 96,875/- per bigha.
As far as assessment of land falling in 'B' block is concerned, attention is required to be paid to the quality of the land. As stated earlier, this land has 'Gadhas' and 'Bhatta Grund'. From this land earth has been taken out for making bricks. It is the general practice to lease out the land to the Bhatta owners who removes earth from the land for Page 15 of 23 making bricks, for a consideration. Thus the land owners have already got some compensation for their land, which has now become of inferior quality. For the assessment of the inferior land, it would be appropriate here that landowners should not be given the amount which they have already received in consideration of removal of earth from their land. For arriving at this amount, inquiries were made and it came to my notice that for removing earth up to 4-5 feet, Rs. 1.20 lacs to Rs. 1.30 lacs per acre is paid as lease consideration. M/s Adarsh Bhatta Co., has also filed a Lease Deed dated 1.12.94, which is for a consideration of Rs. 1,28,500/- per killa, along with claims. Keeping in view the findings of the local inquiry as well as Lease Deed, I am of the opinion that Rs. 1,29,000/- per acre should be given as deduction in the market value of the 'B' Block land from that of the 'A' Block land decided earlier. As such I assess the market value of 'B' Block land @ Rs. 3,36,000/- per acre or Rs. 70,000/- per bigha......"
I have carefully weighed the evidence on record. Taking into account that the petitioners have failed to make any specific submissions and failed to lead any evidence with regard to quality of Page 16 of 23 land, I find that LAC's findings of facts viz. that from the part of the acquired land, earth was being taken out for making bricks ; Due to which, such land had been rendered inferior in quality ; owners of such land have already earned consideration by leasing their land for bhatta purpose, remain unchallenged.
In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with LAC's findings that the said land was of category 'B' . 9.4. Now coming to the valuation of the said land, it is seen that LAC has assessed the market value of the land on the basis of policy of Govt. of NCT, Delhi dated 03.05.1990, as per which minimum price of agricultural land has been determined as Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre w.e.f. 27.04.1990.
The market value of the land has to be determined as on the date of notification U/s 4 LA Act i.e on 21.6.96. Whereas, the LAC has determined the same as on 27.4.90. Further, LAC has failed to take into account the trend in land prices during the period between 27.04.1990 and the date of notification u/s 4 LA Act in the instant case i.e. 21.6.95. It cannot be denied that land prices were going up Page 17 of 23 during the period, due to development in the area. LAC has not taken the same into account. Thus, to arrive at a fair market value of the said land, I am of the considered opinion that escalation of 12% p.a. on the minimum agricultural price of Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre for agricultural land from 27.4.90 till 21.6.95 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 LA Act, shall be reasonable. In this regard, I find support from the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Rameshwar Solanki & another Vs UOI & another, AIR 1995 DELHI 358, wherein also escalation at the rate of 12% per annum was allowed to arrive at a fair market value. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Tindey Vs Ors. VS UOI & Ors, 2000(54) DRJ(DB) 384. The Division Bench of Hon"ble High Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr., 93 (2001), DLT 150 (DB), has held the increase of 12% p.a., to be reasonable.
Giving the escalation of 12% p.a., for the period of 5 years and 2 months, the market value would be Rs. 7,53,300/- per acre. (Rs. 1,55,00/- per bigha) (4.65 lacs x 12/100 x 5 yrs. 2 months + Rs. 4.65 lacs) 9.4.1 What should be the market value for 'B' category land. As Page 18 of 23 mentioned above, the LAC observed that on inquiries, it is revealed that a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- to 1,30,000/- per acre was being paid as lease consideration for removing earth upto 4 to 5 feet. He also noted that as per the lease deed dated 01.12.1994 filed by M/s Adrash Bhatta Company, a consideration of Rs. 1,28,500/- per kila was paid by bhatta owners, for taking out earth for making bricks. Taking these facts into account, LAC deducted Rs. 1,29,000/- per acre (towards the earnings already made by land owners) from the rate of 'A' block of land, to arrive at market value of land of category 'B'.
It would be pertinent to mention here that in Rameshwar Solanki Vs. UOI AIR 1995 Delhi 358, the Hon'ble High Court approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value of the land towards developmental cost of undeveloped land. The deduction of Rs. 1,29,000/- comes to around 27.7%, which appears to be reasonable in the facts & circumstances of this case.
Further, it may also be mentioned here that in award no. 22/97-98 w.r.t. acquisition of land of village Holambi Kalan, the LAC observed that 3-4 feet of earth had been removed and that for removing earth upto 3-4 feet, Rs. 1.20 lac-1.30 Lac per acre is paid Page 19 of 23 as lease consideration. Making reference to another award No. 1/97- 98 of village Bawana, LAC gave deduction of Rs. 1.20 lac per acre for land in Block 'B'. It may be stated that in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 27.04.2006 in Gajraj Singh Vs. UOI, 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 approved the categorization of land and did not disturb the deduction while observing :-
"...... In the award, it was recorded that there is 'B' group land where there are gaddas and bhattas being run by the owners. No evidence was brought on record by any of the claimants to show that the said finding is incorrect. The claimants in whose land there are gaddas and bhattas are being run, have already earned enough from those lands and thus are bound to suffer certain disadvantage and cannot argue that their land should be treated identically to the agriculture lands which were bearing crops at the relevant time and had a higher level of water as well as earth. Thus we do not propose to interfere with the grouping of land into two different sections i.e. Group A and Group B. ........"Page 20 of 23
In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that deduction of Rs. 1,29,000/- per acre for 'B' category of land is just and reasonable, in the facts & circumstances of the case. 9.4.2. Thus market value of 'B' category of land would be Rs. 6,24,300/- per acre (Rs. 1,30,062/- per bigha) (Rs. 7,53,300- Rs. 1,29,000) thus giving enhancement of Rs. 2,88,300/- per acre (Rs. 60,062.50/- per bigha). (Rs. 6,24,300 - Rs. 3,36,000) As the petitioners' entire land is of category 'B', the petitioners are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 6,24,300/- per acre. 9.5 The findings on Issue no.1 may be summarized here under:
i) Petitioners have failed to prove their claim for enhanced compensation (a) on the basis of agricultural yield; and (b) on the basis that their land would have fetched higher price than fixed by LAC, being fit for residential/commercial purpose.Page 21 of 23
ii) Petitioner are entitled to increase in awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,88,300/- per acre ;
10.0 Findings on Issue No.2 - RELIEF 10.1 In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioners area entitled to the following reliefs: -
i) enhancement in compensation @ Rs. 2,88,300/- per acre ;
i) additional amount u/s 23 (1A) @ 12% p.a., on the market value from the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
ii) solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation ;
iii) interest under Section 28 of L.A Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment ;Page 22 of 23
10.2 Reference is disposed of accordingly.
10.3 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (POONAM A. BAMBA) today on 15.02.2007 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE;
DELHI Page 23 of 23