Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2023
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Sanjay Karol
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2023
(@ SLP (C) Nos.13193-13203/2021)
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2023
(@ SLP(C) No. 13943-13944/2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2023
(@ SLP(C) No. 14305-14306/2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2023
(@ SLP(C) No. 14376-14377/2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2023
(@ SLP(C) No. 19205-19206/2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2023
(@ SLP(C) No. 21058-21059/2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2023
(@ SLP(C) No. 20138-20148/2021
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant – Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). Mr. C. Solomon, learned Counsel appears for the Union of India. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Representing the interest of the land owners, submissions are made Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.10.03 19:16:09 IST Reason: by Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Amit Sibal, and Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Ajoy Bhushan Kali, learned counsel. 2
3. Application for condonation of delay in filing substitution application is allowed, abatement is set aside and substitution is allowed in SLP(C) Nos.19205-19206/2021.
4. Under the impugned judgment the High Court had decided the appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “LA Act”) challenging the judgment of the Reference Court under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act with respect to the LAC Award No.13/2001-02. The acquisition related to the property bearing No.8 at Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi.
5. The above property was the subject matter of the Notification dated 31.03.2000 issued under Section 4(1) and Section 17(1), and the Section 6 notification dated 23.05.2000. The acquired area measured 10,800 sq. mtrs. or 2.67 acres in Plot No.2, Block No. 125 otherwise identified as 8, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi. The acquisition was made for traffic integration and the intake shaft for the underground Metro Rail at Patel Chowk.
6. Following the acquisition, the LAO passed an Award which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“The onus to prove this issue is upon the petitioner. The petitioner has averred in the reference petition that there was a dispute to the apportionment and rights in respect of the claim of some po1tion of the compensation which was referred to the. Ld. ADJ, Delhi and the, said dispute was decided vide order dt. 29.05.2001 by the Ld. ADJ,. Delhi. The petitioner along with other co-owners of the said property were awarded further sum of Rs.5, 18,91,840/- as compensation of the property in question. It is further averred in the reference petition that the said order has been duly executed and the money has been disbursed to the petitioner and the other coowners of the abovementioned 3 property as per their respective shares. The petitioner has also tiled copy of the said judgment dt. 29.05.2001 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.96/2000 titled. UQI Vs Adil Singh & Ors. whereby L&DO has been held entitled to compensation at Rs.960/- and rest of the compensation has been awarded to the petitioner herein and the co-sharers. The respondents have neither led any evidence nor proved any document in rebuttal. Even otherwise, the counsel for the parties have not apprised to this court, if any appeal against the judgment passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the reference u/sec. 30-31 of the LA Act, is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, I hold that the petitioner has got the right, title and interest as per his share in the property in question. This issue is answered accordingly.”
7. A reference was then made under Section 18 of the LA Act and the Reference Court after considering the prime location of the acquired property and the sale exemplars placed on record, increased the rate of the acquisition to Rs.56,908/- per sq. mtr. from the earlier Rs.18,480/- per sq. mtr. as was determined in the Award. The Reference Court however ordered for a 25% deduction as development charges, from the payable market value as per the revised rate in its order dated 14.05.2008.
8. The order of the Reference Court was challenged through cross appeals filed by both sides. The High Court in those appeals observed that the acquired property is comparable to the property at No.11, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The Court then considered the objection of the counsel for the DMRC on the price fetched by the property No. 11, Barakhamba Road and noted that the said property was commercial in nature. It was then set out that for the property at 11, Barakhambha Road, there was a collaboration agreement dated 12.02.1987 for a group housing project and to develop the property as a residential complex. 4
9. The issue of annual escalation was next examined together with the deduction of 25% of the market price towards development charges ordered by the Reference Court. The learned Judge then went on to observe that the rate of escalation at 15% per annum should be awarded to the affected land owners. In reaching such conclusion, the Court took into account that the property owners had not led any evidence on price escalation of immovable property in the proximate area where the acquired property was located. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the land owners had contended that transaction of the property in the area of Jantar Mantar is very rare and one cannot possibly have sale exemplars of property sold in the said area.
10. The Court in the impugned judgment eventually opined that the appeal filed by the DMRC was devoid of merit and the same was dismissed. The connected appeals filed by the property owners were partly allowed and the market value of the property as on the date of acquisition i.e. 31.03.2000 for an area admeasuring 10,800 sq. mtrs. was computed by ordering escalation at the rate of 15% per annum for a period of 3 years. The value of the acquired property was assessed at Rs. 84,742/- per sq. mtr. by revising the rate fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 56,908/- per sq. mtr. The authorities were accordingly directed to determine the market value of the property at the rate of Rs. 84,742/- per sq. mtr. and the compensation was ordered to be paid together with other payable statutory amounts, to the affected land owners. 5
11. A Review petition was then filed by one of the land owners i.e., Tripat Kaur, where grievance was raised on escalation being awarded at simple interest rate of 15% and secondly on computation of escalation only for 3 years whereas the period should have been taken as 3 years 5 months and 14 days. The learned Court in the Review order dated 30.07.2021 opined that a broad view of the period in question is sufficient and one need not precisely account for each and every day. It was also noted that the claimant had not produced any precedent where escalation for a portion of the year was granted. Accordingly, the escalation granted for a period of 3 years was left undisturbed under the Review order. However, on the other plea for compounding the interest, the Court after referring to the related judgments, held that the interest rate should be compounded and accordingly, relief to this extent on compounding of interest was granted in the Review Order dated 30.07.2021.
12. As can be noticed the Reference Court while rejecting comparability of properties, weighed in not only the price & size difference, but also the customer base for properties located at Amrita Shergil Marg & Golf Links. The Court noted that the per sq.mtr. price of a house situated at Golf Links could not be an indice for determination of the per sq.mtr. price of a bungalow on Jantar Mantar Road. Thus, the High Court rightly concurred with the findings of Reference Court while rejecting the semblance between the properties located at Amrita Shergil Marg (& Golf Links) & the subject properties for being incomparable to those at Jantar Mantar. Bringing on record the correct exemplar, the High Court 6 considered the sale of property No.11, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, its price & residential nature amongst other things. The Court drew a rather fair comparison between the property no.11, Barakhamba Road & held it to be identically positioned to the subject property at Jantar Mantar.
13. The Reference Court while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded, justly placed reliance on the decision of State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh (2001) 6 SCC 254, which held that a Court shall consider the market value of the land and also discussed the impermissibility of any further payments on account of ‘potential value’ over the market value. Settling the position that potentiality forms part of the market value and would be a factor to be considered while determining the market value. However, once such market value is determined, there is no question of awarding any further amount in addition thereto by reason of any future potential. It was therefore, held that since the compensation was assessed on the market value, it was declared that the appellant-lessor shall get 25% of the compensation and the rest 75% compensation will go the respondents.
14. The lessor as their share had claimed 25% of the total compensation. Accepting this, the required compensation was ordered to be deposited in the Court of ADJ under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act for apportionment amongst the lessor and the lessee. The learned Judge in the impugned judgment examined the issue of apportionment of compensation. The Court noticed that although 7 acquisition notification was only in respect of lease hold rights, the Award however indicated that determination of compensation is made on the basis of the market value of free-hold land.
15. While putting to rest the issue of compensation, the High Court rightly set aside the 25% deduction from the market value, towards development cost, ordered by the Reference Court. It was noted that deduction towards development cost is required to be made when development of the property would lead to certain portions of the property being sacrificed in such development, towards providing common areas / amenities & which portions are not capable of fetching any value. Since the subject property was located in an area with sufficient civic amenities that do not require any further development, it correctly held that the question of any part of acquired land being wasted and/or any monies being required to be paid for development, would not arise.
16. Following a thorough analysis of the precedents on the question of escalation, the High Court correctly noted that no specific property’s price escalation was required to prove that there had been a general increase in value or rental over the years. Therefore, the High Court rightly allowed for escalation at the rate of 15% per annum in prices, for a period of three years without deducting any development charges.
17. On the issue of apportionment of compensation in respect of acquisition of land at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, the learned Single Judge addressed the issue in the RFS no. 838/2002 & 5 other 8 appeals. He granted 75% compensation to the Lessees & 25% to the Lessors through the analogous order dated 04.01.2013. This was the subject matter of the SLP(C)No. 32352/2013 which was dismissed by this Court on 17.11.2015. In respect of these proceedings, suffice it would be to note that those arise out of the estimation made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 17(3A) of the LA Act. Therefore, the issue of apportionment declared in these RFAs will not have a bearing on the impugned orders passed by the High Court on 04.05.2021 and 30.07.2021.
18. It must also be noticed that it was only the land owners who had sought reference under Section 18 before the Reference Court whereafter the order was passed on 14.05.2008 and the affected land owners were held entitled to the entire acquisition compensation.
19. As is well settled, the Reference Court derives jurisdiction from the reference made. The references by the land owners were for enhancement of compensation under Section 18. Whereas a reference under Section 30 relates to apportionment of compensation. The jurisdiction of the Courts under the LA Act is special and limited to the provisions for which specific challenge is made. However, when objection is taken only with the regard to the rate of compensation, the Reference Court has to confine its consideration to that aspect alone. The Court in that situation cannot convert the reference to one under Section 30 of the LA Act. There was some challenge to the estimation on the apportionment but there was no challenge to the award passed by the LAO on 27.02.2002 where 9 apportionment was not granted. In these circumstances, non- granting of any apportionment by the Courts, cannot be faulted.
20. It cannot also be overlooked that the estimation made by LAO was on the basis of the market value of the acquired property and it was not considered to be a free hold property.
21. We have carefully considered the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant materials. The basis on which the market value of the acquired plot was re-determined by the impugned judgment dated 04.05.2021 shows that all relevant parameters were taken into account by the Court. The relevant aspects were logically addressed and decisions on those were rendered with proper application of mind.
22. In view of the forgoing, we uphold the common judgment(04.05.2021) and the order dated 30.07.2021 of the Delhi High Court. The compensation sum lying with the competent court should accordingly be disbursed forthwith, in terms of the impugned judgement dated 04.05.2021. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Parties to bear their own cost.
23. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
....................J. [ HRISHIKESH ROY ] ....................J. [ SANJAY KAROL] NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023.
10
ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13193-
13203/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-05-2021 in LAAPP No. 612/2008 04-05-2021 in LAAPP No. 749/2008 04-05-2021 in LAAPP No. 812/2008 04-05-2021 in LAAPP No. 821/2008 04-05-2021 in LAAPP No. 822/2008 04-05-2021 in LAAPP No. 912/2008 04-05-2021 in LAAPP No. 919/2008 04-05-2021 in LAAPP No. 920/2008 04-05-2021 in LAAPP No. 921/2008 04-05-2021 in LAAPP No. 1082/2008 30-07-2021 in RP No. 109/2021 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 106432/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH SLP(C) No. 13943-13944/2021 (XIV) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 113700/2021 IA No. 113700/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) SLP(C) No. 14305-14306/2021 (XIV) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 114915/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 114916/2021 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 116024/2021 IA No. 114916/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 114915/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 116024/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) SLP(C) No. 14376-14377/2021 (XIV) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 115777/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 115778/2021 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 11 116032/2021 IA No. 115778/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 115777/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 116032/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) SLP(C) No. 19205-19206/2021 (XIV) (Mr.Amarjit Singh Bedi, Advocate has appeared only on behalf of proposed LR No.2 Simran Kaur IA No. 141254/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 42038/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN.
IA No. 134730/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 105775/2023 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT) SLP(C) No. 21058-21059/2021 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.151679/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.151677/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..)) SLP(C) No. 20138-20148/2021 (XIV) (IA No.159515/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT....[TO BE TAKEN UP ALONG WITH ITEM NO. 16 I.E. Diary No. 26454/2021] IA No. 159515/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 26-09-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Nagarajan, AOR Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vineet Bhagat, AOR Mr. Ajoy Bhushan Kalia, Adv.
Ms. Manju Bhagat, Adv.
Ms. Archna Midha, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Gulati, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mrs. Ruchira V Arora, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjay Mehlawat, Adv.
Mr. Kartikeya Gautam, Adv.12
Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Mr. C. Solomon, Adv.
Mr. S. Nagarajan, AOr For Respondent(s) Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR Mr. Varun Chandiok, Adv.
Ms. Riya Seth, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mrs. Ruchira V.arora, Adv.
Mrs. Ruchira V. Arora, Adv.
Mr. Dhanajay Mehlawat, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjay Mehlawat, Adv.
Mr. Kartikeya Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vineet Bhagat, AOR Mr. Ajoy Bhushan Kalia, Adv.
Ms. Manju Bhagat, Adv.
Ms. Archna Midha, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Gulati, Adv.
Mr. C. Solomon, Adv.
Mr. S. Nagarajan, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed Order is placed on the File)