Delhi District Court
Mani Ram & Ors vs . Uoi & Anr. Page 1 Of 16 on 14 May, 2019
LAC No.10/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. NIKHIL CHOPRA, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
ROOM NO. 606, SAKET COURTS, SOUTH DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
In the matter of
LAC No.10/2016
Filing No.25619/2015
CNR No. DLST010002122015
1. Mani Ram (Deceased)
S/o Ramji Lal
Through his legal heirs:
a. Sunder Singh (son)
b. Krishan Parkash (son)
Both:
R/o C154, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi
2. Nand Lal (Deceased)
S/o Ram Nath
Through his lega heirs:
a. Khem Chand (son)
b. Vijay Singh (son)
c. Surat Singh (Deceased)
Through his legal heirs:
A. Amar Singh (Deceased) (son)
Through his legal heirs:
i. Smt. Pushpa (widow)
ii. Ms. Ridhi (daughter)
iii. Master Manav (son)
B. Smt. Rajesh Kumari (daughter)
C. Smt. Babita (daughter)
D. Smt. Seema (daughter)
E. Smt. Anita (daughter)
d. Karan Singh (son)
e. Laxman Singh (son)
3. Uddal
Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 1 of 16
LAC No.10/2016
S/o Sh. Devi Singh
4. Mitter
S/o Sh. Devi Singh
5. Prithi
S/o Devi Singh
6. Attar Singh (Deceased)
S/o Sh. Mangtu
Through his legal heirs:
a. Manbir Singh (son)
7. Ishwar Singh (Deceased)
S/o Late Mangtu
Through his legal heirs:
a. Smt. Kamla Devi (widow)
b. Manoj Kumar (son)
c. Azad Singh (son)
d. Naresh Kumar (son)
e. Smt. Nirlep Kaur (daughter)
8. Randhir Singh (Deceased)
S/o Late Mangtu
Through his legal heirs:
a. Smt. Maya Devi (widow)
b. Vikram Mehlawat (son)
c. Deepak (son)
d. Smt. Babita Malik (daughter)
e. Smt. Geeta Rana (daughter)
9. Lachhman Singh (died unmarried)
10. Pehlad Singh
S/o Mangtu
(petitioner No.6, 8, 10 and legal heirs of 7 are the legal heirs of
petitioner No.9)
All:
R/o Village Kishangarh,
Mehrauli, New Delhi
...................... Petitioners
Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 2 of 16
LAC No.10/2016
VERSUS
1. Union of India Through the
Land Acquisition Collector (S)
M. B. Road, Saket, New Delhi
2. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
.....................Respondents
Reference received on : 02.12.1982
Date of institution : 02.12.1982
Date on which order was reserved : 14.05.2019
Date of Award : 14.05.2019
AWARD
(by the court under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, 1894)
1. The present reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was received from the office of Land Acquisition Collector on an application moved by the petitioners, who have sought enhancement of the monetary award given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the assessment of the market value of the acquired land was done on the lower side without considering the relevant factors for correctly assessing the market value of the land in question. The reference was received from the office of LAC (South) on 02.12.1982.
Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 3 of 16 LAC No.10/2016For answering the present reference petition, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
i. Date of Notification under Section 4 of 12.05.1969 the Act iia Date of Notification under Section 6 of 14.11.1969 the Act iib Date of Notification under Section 17 Nil of the Act iii. For Project Planned Development of Delhi iv Location/Name of Village Mehrauli va Award Number under Section 11 of 27/198283 the Act by LAC & date of Award 16.07.1982 vb Area under acquisition in question 37 bigha 3 biswa vi Petition referred to Court on 02.12.1982
2. The present reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land situated in village Mehrauli which was acquired for the public purpose of 'Planned Development of Delhi'. The land in question was acquired by the LAC vide award No.27/198283 dated 16.07.1982 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 12.05.1969 which was followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 14.11.1969.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after considering the relevant factors, gave its Award No.27/198283 by determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 4 of 16 LAC No.10/2016 @ Rs.12,000/ per bigha.
4. Since the petitioners did not accept the award, they preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference filed by the petitioners along with statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 (giving details of the acquired area, date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, date of possession, rates of compensation, and the share of the petitioners in the acquired land) has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector for answering the same.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 07.02.1983 passed by the Learned Predecessor Judge, the present reference was dismissed in default. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioners/claimants for restoration of the reference petition which after framing of formal issue and leading evidence on behalf of the petitioner, was allowed by the Learned Predecessor Judge vide detailed order dated 23.08.1983.
6. Subsequent thereto, an application moved on behalf of the applicant Prabhu under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed and he was impleaded as respondent vide order dated 01.04.1987. However, on 01.10.1996, objections moved on behalf of the respondent Prabhu were dismissed in default.
Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 5 of 16 LAC No.10/20167. During the course of the proceedings, legal heirs of petitioners Mani Ram & Nand Lal moved separate applications under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for bringing them on record which were allowed vide order dated 28.08.2001 & 10.09.2002, respectively. However, thereafter, vide order dated 27.04.2004, the present reference was adjourned sine die in view of the fact that reference under Section 3031 of the L. A. Act was pending disposal. Subsequently, on 28.07.2015, application moved by Krishan Prakash i.e. legal heir of petitioner Mani Ram was allowed and the reference was restored to its original number. On 08.12.2015, applications moved by the legal heirs of Ishwar Singh & Surat (who in turn was legal heir of original petitioner Nand Lal), were allowed and they were brought on record. Vide order dated 17.05.2016, applications moved under Order I Rule 10(2) and under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were allowed and respondent No.76 to 84 were transposed as petitioner No.2 to 10 and respondent No.2 to 75 were deleted from the array of parties, in view of the judgment dated 30.04.2010 passed in the reference under Order 3031 of the L. A. Act. Further, Sh. Attar Singh, Sh. Ishwar Singh, Sh. Randhir Singh and Sh. Pahlad Singh were impleaded in place of respondent No.83 (since expired). On 05.07.2017, legal heirs of Sh. Ishwar Singh were brought on record.
Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 6 of 16 LAC No.10/20168. On 03.04.2019, application moved on behalf of the legal heirs of Randhir Singh was allowed and they were brought on record.
PETITIONERS' CASE
9. Reference was forwarded by the LAC with the claim of the petitioners to the effect that they, being the bhumidars, were in possession of ¼th share in the land bearing Khasra No.1250 measuring 28 bigha 4 biswa & No.1298 measuring 5 bigha 19 biswa situated in Village Mehrauli; that the LAC at the time of assessment of the market value of the land in question did not consider the potentiality of the same which was not less than Rs.500/ per sq. yds since the same could be used for commercial & residential purposes; that petitioners' land was situated in the neighbourhood of Jawaharlal Nehru University Complex; that the LAC did not grant compensation for the standing crops & trees which was not less than Rs.25,000/ per bigha; and that all the civic amenities were available at the land in question. Consequently, by way of present reference, petitioners have prayed for grant of compensation @ Rs.500/ per sq. yd. along with other statutory benefits as well as for grant of compensation @ Rs.25,000/ for the standing crops and trees.
Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 7 of 16 LAC No.10/2016RESPONDENTS' CASE On behalf of UOI/respondent No.1
10. No written statement was filed on behalf of the UOI. On behalf of the DDA/respondent No.2
11. DDA in its Written Statement submitted that the LAC had correctly and adequately assessed the market value of the acquired land; and that the land in question was not surrounded by developed colonies. On merits, the Reference claim was denied and prayer for dismissal of the same was made.
ISSUES
12. On 16.08.2016, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor Judge for answering the present reference:
1. Whether Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is within prescribed period of limitation?Onus on Parties
2. What was the market value of land acquired, on the date of preliminary notification dated 12.05.1969 under Section 4 of the Act 1894? OPP
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed? OPP Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 8 of 16 LAC No.10/2016
4. Relief EVIDENCE ADDUCED On behalf of the petitioner
13. Petitioners in order to prove their claim for enhanced compensation, examined Sh. Sunder Singh S/o Late Sh. Attar Singh i.e. petitioner No.1(a) as PW1 who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:
1. Copy of the Award No.27/198283 dated 16.07.1982 as Ex.PW1/1;
2. Copy of Reference Petition as Ex.PW1/2;
3. Certified copy of the order dated 30.04.2010 as Ex.PW1/3;
4. Copy of order dated 24.09.2014 as Ex.PW1/4; and
5. Copy of the judgment dated 07.04.1998 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Ex.PW1/5.
14. PW1 deposed on the lines of the reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act. During his cross examination, submitted that he alongwith his brother were the cosharers of the acquired Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 9 of 16 LAC No.10/2016 land to the extent of ¼th share and had no concern with the remaining ¾th share; that petitioner No.1 Mani Ram was his maternal grandfather by admitting that sine die proceedings were not set aside by Mani Ram since he expired way back on 14.07.1989 and the matter was adjourned sine die in the year 2004 but reference under Section 18 L. A. Act for enhancement in the compensation was moved by him within time; that his maternal grandfather used to cultivate the land and he also assisted him; and that the land in question could be used for agricultural purposes and building could also be raised thereon.
No further evidence was led and the same was closed on 31.10.2017.
On behalf of the respondents
15. In evidence, on behalf UOI/respondent No.1, statement of Sh. S. K. Puri, Learned counsel for UOI was recorded whereby he exhibited the Award No.27/198283 Village Mehrauli as Ex.R1.
16. On behalf of DDA/respondent No.2, Ms. Sudesh Sharma, Learned counsel for the DDA adopted the evidence led by UOI.
No other witness was examined by the respondents.
FINDINGS Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 10 of 16 LAC No.10/2016
17. The Court gave a patient hearing to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties, and has also minutely gone through the pleadings on record and the evidence adduced.
18. After giving due consideration to all of the above, the issuewise findings are as follows:
ISSUE NO.1 Whether Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is within prescribed period of limitation?Onus on Parties
19. The onus to prove this issue was on the parties. Petitioners their evidence relied on the Award No.27/198283 dated 16.07.1982 as well as reference petition under Section 18 of the L. A. Act filed before the LAC.
20. The reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act was filed by the petitioners before the LAC on 28.07.1982 and the Award was passed on 16.07.1982 which is well within the statutory period of limitation.
21. Consequently, this issue stands decided in favour of the petitioners.
Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 11 of 16 LAC No.10/2016ISSUE NO.2 What was the market value of land acquired, on the date of preliminary notification dated 12.05.1969 under Section 4 of the Act 1894? OPP
22. The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioners.
23. Petitioners, in order to prove this issue, placed reliance on the judgment dated 17.04.1998 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No.186/1986 titled as Nand Kishore vs. UOI & Anr. Ex.PW1/5 and judgment dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Learned Predecessor Judge in the case titled as Mani Ram vs. UOI & Ors. bearing LAC No.310/93 & M. No.76/2011 Ex.PW1/4 wherein one of the petitioners namely Mani Ram was also the petitioner. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgment assessed the market value of the land of Village Mehrauli acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act dated 23.01.1965 @ Rs.16,000/ per bigha alongwith other statutory benefits.
24. Learned Predecessor Judge vide its judgment dated 24.09.2014 by relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (Supra) assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.16,000/ per bigha.
Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 12 of 16 LAC No.10/201625. So far as the present reference is concerned, the notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act was issued on 12.05.1969 which is approximately 4 years after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act in the the relied upon cases. However, the land in the present reference as well as in the relied upon judgment was of the same Village i.e. Village Mehrauli and even the purpose of acquisition was the same i.e. Planned Development of Delhi.
26. I have gone through the judgments Ex.PW1/4 & Ex.PW1/5 whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has assessed the market value of the land of Village Mehrauli @ Rs.16,000/ per bigha. Though the date of Award, number of the Award and date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act etc. are different however, acquired lands were of the same village i.e. of Village Mehrauli and the purpose for which the lands were acquired was also similar i.e. Planned Development of Delhi. Consequently, the present reference can be said to be covered by the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Ex.PW1/5 as well as the judgment passed by Learned Predecessor Judge Ex.PW1/4. Moreover, the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act in the present reference being of a later date, the petitioners can validly rely on an 'Award' which has been passed in respect of an acquisition which was of similarly situated land and for similar public purpose, especially since the petitioners Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 13 of 16 LAC No.10/2016 are praying for assessment of market value on the basis of an assessment of market value which was admittedly of a prior notification.
27. On the other hand, Respondents in their evidence, only proved the award passed by LAC as R1. No evidence was led by respondents to controvert the judgments relied upon by Learned counsel for the petitioners.
28. Consequently, it can be safely held that market value of the acquired land in the present reference cannot be less than as assessed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No.186/1986 titled as Nand Kishore vs. UOI & Anr. since lands under both the references were acquired for a common public purpose, and variance in situation of acquired lands would not make much of a difference. Accordingly, on the basis of above discussion as well as judgments Ex.PW1/4 & Ex.PW1/5, the petitioners are held entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.16,000/ per bigha. Consequently, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO.3 Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed? OPP Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 14 of 16 LAC No.10/2016
29. The onus to prove this issue was also on the petitioners. Petitioners in support of their claim over the enhanced compensation relied on the judgment dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Learned Predecessor Judge in the reference under Section 3031 of the L. A. Act on the basis of which certain respondents i.e. respondent No.76 to 84 were transposed as petitioner No.2 to 10 and names of respondent No.2 to 75 were deleted from the array of parties. In view of the above, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners by holding that they shall be entitled to receive the enhanced compensation @ Rs.16,000/ per bigha, as per their shares.
RELIEF
30. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners are held entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.16,000/ per bigha with respect to the land acquired as mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 alongwith 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land; 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court from the date of possession of land for period upto one year; and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period till amount is deposited in court under Section 28 of the Act. However, legal heirs of Sh Surat Singh S/o Late Sh. Nand Lal are Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 15 of 16 LAC No.10/2016 held not entitled to interest from 16.03.2009 to 22.07.2014.
31. Further, petitioners are also held entitled for other benefits allowed in the Award by Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The compensation will be disbursed to petitioners as per the statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894.
32. The reference petition stands answered as above. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, South District, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance on his part for remitting of amount payable to the petitioners. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (NIKHIL CHOPRA)
COURT ON 14.05.2019 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Mani Ram & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. Page 16 of 16