Delhi District Court
Sh. Parmal vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 August, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC No. : 161/1/07 AWARD No : 02/LAC/N/200506
VILLAGE : Burari, Delhi
In the matter of :
1 Sh. Parmal
2 Sh. Mangat
Both sons of Sh.Shiv Dayal @ Shiv Lal
3 Sh. Surender Kumar
4 Sh. Sanjay Kumar
Both sons of late Sh.Raje
All residents of village Jagatpur,
Gali No.5, P.O. Burari, Delhi
( Through Ld. Counsel Sh. S.C.Dhamija )
...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
( Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Rajesh Raina & Sh. G.P.Sharma )
...Respondents
Reference received on : 17.10.2007
Award reserved on : 07.08.2008
Award announced on : 14.08.2008
A W A R D
REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
1 Vide notification No.F.11(30)/2003/L&B/LA/6600 dt. 18.07.2003
U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act) followed by the declaration vide notification No.F.11(30)/ 03/L&B/LA/23254 dated 08.01.2004 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act, the land including the land of the petitioners situated in the revenue estate of village Burari, Delhi as per statement U/sec. 19 of the LA Act was acquired by the Govt. for Development of BioDiversity Park PhaseII at 2 Burari, Delhi. 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/LAC/N/200506 on 07.01.2006 and awarded the compensation @ Rs.15.70 lacs per acre (CategoryA) and Rs.5.05 lacs per acre (CategoryB) 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 petitioners are the bhumidars and in possession of the agricultural land bearing khasra nos.113/1/2 (33), 2 (416), 108/24 (416), 25 (416), 109/21/2 (30), 108/7 (416), 14 (416), 17/1 (40), 113/1/1 (07), 10/1 (08) & 114/5 (416) situated in the revenue estate of village Burari, Delhi. According to the petitioners, the petitioner nos.1 & 2 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the aforesaid land while petitioner nos.3 & 4 are entitled for equal share out of 1/3rd share of the aforesaid land being sons and legal heirs of late Sh.Raje. The impugned award is wrong, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair against the facts & circumstances of the case, malafide and in any case is the result of illegal and discriminatory and arbitrary exercise of the jurisdiction and discretion. The market value of the land in question assessed by the LAC is grossly inadequate and far below the market value of the land prevailing in the locality/ area where the land in question 3 situates. The LAC has absolutely and completely ignored the facts that the land in question has got special adaptability and great potential value for building sites for residential cum commercial purposes. The market value was in no case less than Rs.75,000/ per sq. yard on the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the Act. The award was made after the lapse of about 4 years from the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act and there was inordinate delay after the publication of the notification u/sec. 4 as well as 6 of the Act. The concerned authority remained silent for a long time which has resulted a huge loss to the petitioners and is bound to result in miscarriage of justice. Keeping of acquisition proceedings pending for such a long time is itself arbitrary, unreasonbale, unjust, unfair and illegal. The delay is oppressive since by doing so the petitioners are deprived of over the last more than 4 years. The prices have increased several folds and paying today the compensation at the rae of prevailing long back is an abuse and misuse of the powers and provisions of the Act. The compensation assessed and paid to the petitioners is unfair and unjustice. The LAC ought to have assessed the market price according to the market value prevailing at the time of announcement of the award in order to make good the loss which caused substantial loss to the petitioners on account of inordinate delay on the part of concerned authority. The LAC did not make fair and proper survey of the acquired land as well as the locality where the land is situated.
4 It is also stated that the LAC, therefore, failed to appreciate that the land under acquisition is surrounded by fully developed colony, 4 Milan Vihar, etc in as much as Sant Nagar main market is near to the acquired land and National Highway no.1 is hardly 1 k.m and the market value of the land was Rs.75,000/ per sq. yard and the acquired land can easily fetch the said market price if sold in the open market. The LAC also ignored the fact that the market value of the land in locality has been increasing by leaps and bounds since 1951. The LAC has completely ignored and ommitted to consider that the amenities of life such as water, electricity, telephone, transport, roads, schools, parks, hospitals, commercial market, play ground and other facilities are easily available in the locality. The LAC did not appreciae the fact that the Metro Station is also situated near the river belt and office of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and residential flats are also situated hardly 100 mtrs. from the main stream of the river Yamuna while the land of the petitioners is about 3 k.m. from the stream of the river then it can not be said that the land of the petitioners is in Yamuna River Belt. The State Assembly is also situated hardly 100 mtrs. away from the main stream of river Yamuna. Delhi University is 3 k.m away from the land of the petitioenr and other Govt. schools, public schools are also situated hardly 300 mtrs. away from the acquired land. The LAC has wrongly relied upon the transaction which can not be the proper guidelines to assess the market value of the land. The LAC, while assessing the market value, has absolutely ignored and discarded the evidence in respect of sales effected in the locality. The LAC has wrongly classified the land as mentioned in the award. The land in question has great potential value and is very fertile and at least three crops are yielded easily every year. The award is wrong and illegal in the absence of true and correct 5 measurement of the same. The petitioners are the interested person and is entitled to receive the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land and other items and no other person has got any right, title or claim whatsoever in aforesaid land. On these grounds among others, the petitioners have filed this reference petition claiming Rs.75,000/ per sq. yard for the land. The petitioners have also claimed Rs.1,00,000/ for tube well/ boarding and super structures, Rs.1,00,000/ for crops for one year besides other statutory benefits. 5 The UOI, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the ground that the Delhi Land Reform Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The correctness of the khasra nos., their area and the extent of share of the petitioners therein has been admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished U/s 19 of the LA Act. In response to notice issued by the LAC U/sec 9 & 10 of the LA Act, the petitioners have preferred claim. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can only be used for agricultural. There was no standing tree, boundary, well, or tube well on the land in question at the time of publication of notification U/sec. 4 of the LA Act. All other averments made in the reference petition except matter of record have been denied by UOI.
6 DDA, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the ground that Delhi Reforms Act is applicable to the land in suit which reduces its market value. The aforesaid land has no potential except that can be used only agricultural purposes. The said land is not surrounded 6 by the developed or undeveloped colonies on the land which is under acquisition. The LAC has passed the award after due consideration of the circumstances and the evidence available before him or produced before him and also considered the market value of the adjoining areas at the time of acquisition of the land. The facilities/ amenities with the disputed land were also considered at the time of passing the award. The reference petition is barred by limitation. DDA has admitted to the extent that the land bearing khasra nos.108/1 min (303), 108/1/2 (416), 7 (416), 14 (416), 17/1 (40), 109/21/2 (30), 113/1/1 (007), 10/1 (008), 114/5 (416), 108/24 (416) & 25 (416) was notified u/sec. 4 & 6 and the same was acquired vide the award in question. The actual possession was taken by DDA on 29.05.2006 from LAC/ L&B Department and the same was transferred to Sh.V.K.Bhatia, JE/ND5/DDA on 29.05.2006. All other averments made in the reference petition execept matter of record have been denied by DDA.
7 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on 09.01.2008 which are as under :
1 Whether the petitioners have any right, title or interest in the land in question? OPP 2 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act? Onus on parties.
3 Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 4 Relief
8 Sh.Parmal/ Petitioner no.1 has examined himself as PW1. PW1 has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A 7 and also tendered in evidence the copy of the award no.02/200506 of village Burari, Delhi as Ex.PW1/1. PW1 has further adopted the same evidence as led in similar reference i.e. LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal Vs UOI. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the copy of the award no.2/LAC/N/200506 pertaining to village Burari, Delhi as Ex.R1, the copy of the sale deed dt. 22.05.2003 vide regd. no.2380, book no.1, volume no.765 at pages nos.162 to 171 as MarkA, the photocopy of certified copy of the sale deed for the land measuring 1 bigha in village Burari, Delhi for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ executed by Smt.Bimla Devi in favour of Sh.Birender Yadav vide regd. no.345 in book no.1, volume no.683, pages 75 to 80 on 21.01.2003 as Ex.R/X1, photocopy of certified true copy of sale deed measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas situate at village Burari for a sum of Rs.6,32,000/ executed by Sh.Ram Phal & Ors in favour of Smt.Nisha Tyagi vide regd. no.5996 in book no.1, volume no.906, pages 188 to 197 on 22.11.2003 as Ex.R/X2 and photocopy of certified true copy of sale deed for the land measuring 2 bighas 10 biswas 5 biswansi situate at village Burari, Delhi for a sum of Rs.2,65,651/ executed by Sh.Daya Nand & Ors in favour of Smt.Shobha Tyagi W/o Sh.Tilak Ram Tyagi & Smt.Usha Tyagi W/o Sh.Raj Bal Tyagi vide regd. no.32, book no.1, volume no.937 at pages nos.120 to 127 on 02.01.2004 as Ex.R/X3 (certified copies of the said sale deeds have already been placed on record in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI in LAC No.226/1/07).
9 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire records. My issuewise findings are as under :
8ISSUE NO. 1 10 The onus to prove this issue is upon the petitioners. The petitioners have averred in the reference petition that they are the bhumidars and in possession of the agricultural land in question. Perusal of the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act reveals that the share in compensation of Sh.Raje S/o Sh.Shiv Lal of the land in question has been sent to the court of the Ld. ADJ, Delhi. The respondents have not led any evidence to prove on record that the petitioners are not having any right, title or interest in the land in question, even otherwise, no such dispute has been mentioned in the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act with respect to the claim of the petitioners. Thus, I hold that the petitioners have got right, title and interest in the land in question. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NOS. 2 & 3 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 07.01.2006 and the reference petition has been filed by the petitioners before the LAC vide the diary No.321/ADM/N on 16.02.2006. 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 9 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 :
10
''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.'' 11 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 Sh.Parmal/ Petitioner no.1 has examined himself as PW1 on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners have relied upon the copy of the award no.02/200506 of village Burari, Delhi which is Ex.PW1/1. The petitioners have also adopted the same evidence as led in similar reference i.e. LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal Vs UOI. However, the counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment dt. 14.07.2008 passed by this reference court in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal & Ors. Vs UOI. The counsel for the respondents have proved in 12 evidence the award in question as Ex.R1, copies of sale deeds MarkA, Ex.R/X1 to Ex.R/X3. In Raj Bal case (supra), the land situate at village Burari, Delhi was acquired vide the same notification dt.18.07.2003 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act, whereby this court thoroughly considered the materials placed on record i.e. the sale deeds relied upon and the evidence led by the parties and held that the petitioner' land is the agricultural land and petitioners therein are entitled to uniform compensation for the land under acquisition at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre i.e. the rate assessed by the LAC for categoryA land. It was further held by this reference court in Raj Bal case that the petitioners therein were also entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually on the compensation amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the land therein as per their shares from 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003 which roughly comes to the total enhanced compensation of Rs.19,20,568/ per acre (total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/ per acre Rs.5,05,000/ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/ per acre enhanced) as on 18.07.2003.
14 It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have held in catena of judgments that same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimants for similarly situated land, same date of notification and same purpose of acquisition of the land. In this context, I would rely upon some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In Nand Ram & Ors Vs State of Haryana JT 1988 (4) SC 260, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the state cannot refuse to 13 pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date. In Krapa Rangiah Vs Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (1982) 2 SCC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the selfsame notification for Housing Scheme it seems to us proper that the same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimant herein as was awarded by the High Court in Appeal No.50 of 1970. The Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted to the claimant by Rs. 2 per sq. yard. with consequential increase in solatium and interest. In view of the above judgments, the petitioners herein cannot be disentitled for enhancement in compensation of the land in question which is also situate in the same area, location and village i.e. Burari, Delhi. Therefore, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments for enhancement in compensation of the acquired land in dispute in this reference. Thus, the uniform compensation for the land in question is fixed at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre i.e. the rate assessed by the LAC for categoryA land and compounded increase @ 11.5% annually is also given on the compensation amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the land in question from the date i.e. 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003 which roughly comes to the total enhanced compensation of Rs.19,20,568/ per acre (total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/ per acre Rs.5,05,000/ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/ per acre 14 enhanced) as on 18.07.2003. The petitioners have not led any evidence for other claim as averred in the reference petition, therefore, they are not entitled for the said claim. These issues are answered accordingly. RELIEF 15 In view of my findings on the above issues, the petitioners are entitled to compensation for category A land at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre and the petitioners are also entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually from 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003. Therefore, I fix the market value of the land bearing khasra nos.113/1/2 min (33), 2 (416), 108/24 (416), 25 (416), 109/21/2 (30), 108/7 (416), 14 (416), 17/1 (40), 113/1/1 (07), 10/1 (08) & 114/5 (416) situate at village Burari, Delhi at Rs.19,20,568/ per acre as on 18.07.2003 (i.e. total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/ per acre Rs.5,05,000/ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/ per acre enhanced) as per the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act vide the award no.2/200506. The petitioners are entitled for the aforesaid enhancement in compensation according to their shares in the aforesaid land. Besides it, the petitioners shall also be entitled to get additional amount u/sec. 23 (1A) of LA Act @ 12% per annum on the said increase from the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier. The petitioners shall also get solatium u/sec. 23 (2) of LA Act @ 30% on the said increase in compensation and interest u/sec. 28 of LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation i.e. increase awarded by this court and the compensation 15 awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex court titled Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. This reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 14.08.2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
16
LAC No. 161/1/07
14.08.2008
Present None
Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/14.08.2008