Delhi District Court
Smt. Veena Goel vs Union Of India & Through on 2 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No.27/11
New No. LAC - 116/16
Area: Mundka
Award No.: 02/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 01.01.2009
Smt. Veena Goel
W/o Sh. Suresh Chand Goel
Both are R/o 5/11, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi
....Petitioner
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA & THROUGH
Land Acquisition Collector,
Distt. West ,Rampura,
Delhi-35.
2. D.M.R.C Through its Director
H.O. : (NBCC) Building, Bhisham Pitamah Marg,
Pragati Vihar, Delhi-110003
.....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 14.07.2011
Date of reserving of judgment : 26.12.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.01.2017
(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. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 1/12 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 agriculture land under acquisition @ Rs.17,58,400/- per acre.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector petitioner was shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
Name of Field No. Total Kind of Details of
petitioner Area in soil trees/
& share Bigha- Buildings/
Biswa Crops
Smt. Veena 66//8/2 min 0-10 As per
Goel W/o award
Sh. Suresh
Chand ( 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. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 2/12
5. In brief the facts stated are that the land of the petitioner comprise Lal-Dora Abadi land/ in Khasa No. 66//8/2 measuring 0 bighas 10 biswa having full share situated at Mundka was acquired vide award in question. The notice under Section 9 & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued to the petitioner by the Collector. Except the petitioner no other person has any right, title or interest in the aforesaid land. The petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of Award and the petitioner has not received any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act and the present petition is within limitation as per law.
6. It is stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector does not represent true and correct market value of the land as well as Lal Dora land (village abadi) as on date of notification under Section 4 of the Act on dated 07.06.2007 and the compensation assessed by the Collector is much below to the actual market value of the acquired land and same is assailed, interalia, on the following grounds:
7. It is stated that the market value of the land is not less than Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. The Collector failed to appreciate or apply his mind to determine the proper market value of the acquired land. The Collector failed to consider that the acquired land is adjacent to industrial area situated between main Rohtak Road, National Highway No.10 and Railway Line at Revenue Estate of village Mundka. The Collector further failed to consider 12% appreciation on the compensation from the date of announcement of policy dated 30.08.2005 to 07.06.2007.
LAC No. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 3/12
8. It is stated that the Collector failed to consider the important fact that Government of NCT of Delhi has increased the minimum rate of agricultural land @ Rs.53 lacs per acre vide notification dated 18.12.2007, whereby there is a increase of minimum rate of land up to three times. The Collector also failed to consider that the land situated within the Lal Dora is not having value less than Rs.6900/- per sq. yard. The circle rate as fixed by government does not imply correct and actual market value of the acquired land. It is stated that petitioner's land has great potential and higher value which is supported the fact that on 30.06.2007, DDA had invited the bid in Rohini Vicinity which is situated in vicinity of the acquired land and reserve price was fixed at Rs.85,000/- per sq. yards, whereas the Government has fixed the circle rate in vicinity of the land acquired @ Rs.18,000/- per sq. yards. The Collector failed to appreciate and does not consider the fact that only 34 days prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, government announced the policy of fixing the minimum rate of the land acquired and method adopted for assessing the award No. 2/DCW/1999-2000 has not been adopted in the present award. Further, the Collector has misinterpreted the notification no. RNZ/173 of MCD Delhi dated 24.08.1963, which was published in Gazette on 12.09.1963. According to which factories, warehouses are permissible at the Lal Dora land but Building Bye-laws are applicable. The Collector wrongly interpreted that the boundary wall and structure existing at the Lal Dora (Residential area) land are unauthorized but infact all the structures are legal and boundaries are entitled to structure as well as awarded by the Collector while passing the award no. 2/DCW/1999-2000.
LAC No. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 4/12
9. It is stated that the Collector has failed to consider that the amenities and facilities of daily life are available on and near the acquired land such a banks, namely, State Bank of India, Corporation Bank, Delhi Cooperative Bank, Punjab National Bank are situated at main Rohtak Road. Therefore, are in and around the acquired land is much developed and has good potential value and petitioner is entitled to market value of the acquired land not less than Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. Not only this, under notification, the part of the area under notification is also for the purpose of industrial area in Mundka Udyog Nagar, South of Rohtak Road, Mundka. Same is notified by government vide notification no. F1/C1/Policy/Institu/Firni Road Mundka and Mundka Udyog Nagar/ 2007/20 in Delhi Gazette Notification dated 17.09.2007.
10. The petitioner also referred to the sale deeds i.e.
(i) Gaurav Dua in favour of Relaxo Footwear Limited for the sum of Rs.60,00,000/- dated 12.12.2000 for the area of 10 Biswas only situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi, which is duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sub Distt. IX Janakpuri, Delhi as documents No. 7016 in additional Book No. 1 Volume No.246 on pages No. 31 to 50 dated 12.12.2005; (ii) sale deed of Rs.2 Crore for land measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas situated in Khasra No. 815 in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna, in favour of MEK Developers Pvt. Ltd. by Smt. Gupta W/o Sushil Kumar Gupta executed on 24.11.2006 which is duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division West Distt. Delhi as document No. 6108 in additional Book No. 1, Volume no. 519 at page No. 42 to 105 on dated 24.11.2006; (iii) Sale LAC No. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 5/12 deed of Rs.5 Crore and 35 lacs for land measuring 16 bighas 11 biswas situated in Khasra no. 663, 667, 773, 813, 780/1 in the village of Hiran Kudna in favour of Mek Developers Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jai lal S/o Chattar Singh executed on 14.11.2006 duly registered with Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh Sub-Division West Distt. Delhi as document no. 6113 in additional Book no.1 volume no. 521 at page Nos. 1-198 dated 14.11.2006;
(iv) sale deed for Rs.5 Crore for land measuring 11 bighas 9 biswas situated in Khasra no. 576 min, 586, 597, 602, 616, 617, 624, 625, 765 min, 766, 769, 770, 772 and 771 in the revenue estate of village of Hiran Kudna in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jagphool Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh executed on 31.05.2007; (v) sale deed of Rs.3 crores for land measuring 7 bighas 1-1/3 biswas situated in the village Hiran Kudna, in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Gordhan executed on 22.07.2007 duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division West Distt. Delhi as documents No. 2746 in additional Book No.1, Volume no. 691 at page no. 1-80 dated 22.07.2007; (vi) sale deed for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 12.12.2005 for the area of 10 Biswas only situated in Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi executed by Nikhil Dua in favour of M/s. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Which is registered as document no. 7017 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 246 on pages 51 to 66 dated 12.12.2005 for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 12.12.2005; (vii) sale deed for Rs.43,75,000/- for land measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna in favour of Mek Developers Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jagphool S/o Sh. Ram Singh executed on 31.05.2007 registered as document No. 2938 in additional Book No.1 volume No. 699 at page no. 36 to 74 on LAC No. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 6/12 dated 31.05.2007 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division, West Distt. Delhi.
11. It is stated that the acquired land is quite leveled one and fit for residential, commercial and industrial purpose and petitioner is also entitled for alternative business site as per policy of DMRC. As per consistent policy of the government, it does not acquire built up lands and various notifications have been lapsed.
12. The petitioner seeks compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards along with statutory benefit as solatium @ 30%, additional amount at the rate of 12% and interest there on at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the enhanced amount is paid. Interest on the compensation amount till payment and compensation amount in respect of structure existed on the land of petitioner.
13. Written statement filed by respondent no.1/ LAC/ Union of India and taken the preliminary objection that the petitioner are not entitled for compensation in respect of any construction or structure, which is raised without the sanction of law. However, at the time of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act there was no structure, tree, well on the land in question. The LAC rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspect enumerated under Section 23 & 24 of the L.A. Act. The land owner/interested person filed evidence in support of their claim, which was exorbitantly high.
LAC No. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 7/12
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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. The entitlement of the petitioner to the alternative property/land is subject to the Policy of the Respondent in this respect. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to written statements filed by respondents.
18. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 14.10.11 by Ld. Predecessor:
1. What was the market value of the land on the date of Notification u/s 4 of L.A. Act?
OPP LAC No. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 8/12
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any enhancement, if yes, to what an extent? OPP
3. Relief
19. In support of his case, petitioner got examined PW1 Sh. Anil Kumar, Reader Office of Sub-Registrar, Punjabi Bagh; PW2 Sh. Surendran Raman, Inspector, Industries Department; PW3 Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Kanoongo, Land & Building Department; PW4 Sh. Hari Dutt Kaushik, Kanoongo from LAC; PW-5 Sh. Rewti Prasad Sharma, Patwari from SDM/SDO, Punjabi Bagh; PW-6 Smt. Veena Goel. Vide separate statement of counsel for the petitioner, petitioner's evidence was closed on 08.08.2014.
20. From the side of respondent no.1/ Union of India, Sh. R.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered copy of award No. 02/DC (W)/2008-2009 pertaining to Village Mundka as Ex. R1 and photocopies of sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.1 on 09.01.2015.
21. On behalf of respondent no. 2/ DMRC, Sh. Sikandar Arora, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 adopt the evidence led on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI and closed evidence on behalf of respondent no. 2 on 09.01.2015.
22. I have heard Sh. D.S. Lakra, Counsel for the petitioner; Sh. S.K. Puri, Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India; and Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
LAC No. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 9/12 ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2
23. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/ UOI Sh. A.C. Tiwari and Sh. A.S. Rao, Law officer, on behalf of respondent no.2/DMRC submitted that the fair market value of the land in question has already been determined by this Court in LAC No. 58/11 titled as 'Smt. Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Others' decided on 03.10.2016. They further referred the judgment of Apex Court titled 'Nand Ram vs. State of Haryana' 1988 (4) JT 260 and 'Goa Housing Board vs. Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar & Anr.' AIR 2012 SC 193. It is further submitted that the Apex Court has laid down the principle that lands acquired under the same notification, the compensation shall be awarded to the land owners who are similarly situated under the same notification. Applying the same principle, the petitioner are entitled to the same fair market value i.e. Rs.21,31,277/- per acre after enhancement @ Rs.3,72,877/- per acre. I have considered the respective contentions of both the parties and gone through the judgments of Apex Court, the present case is covered by the principles laid down in Nand Ram (Supra), therefore, the petitioner are entitled to the same market value and enhancement as determined in LAC No. 58/11 titled as 'Smt. Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Others' decided on 03.10.2016. Both the issues are decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
24. In view of my findings on Issue nos. 1 & 2, the fair market value of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.21,31,277/- per acre after enhancement @ Rs.3,72,877/- per acre. Besides this the petitioner are also entitled to 30 per LAC No. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 10/12 cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
25. The petitioner 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 whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
26. The petitioner 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.
27. The petitioner is 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.
28. 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.
29. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioner 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.
LAC No. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 11/12
30. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
31. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 2nd January, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 02.01.2017 LAC No. 27/11 (New No. 116/16) Smt. Veena Goel vs. UOI & Anr. 12/12