Delhi District Court
Sh. Hoshiar Singh S/O Sh. Yad Ram vs Union Of India on 30 April, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC NO : 186/1/06 AWARD NO : 90/1980-81
(Old No. : 420/81) VILLAGE : Masoodpur, New Delhi
In the matter of :
1 Sh. Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh. Yad Ram
2 Sh. Kartar Singh S/o Sh. Yad Ram
3 Sh. Balwan Singh S/o Sh. Yad Ram
4 Sh. Diwan Singh S/o Sh. Yad Ram
5 Smt. Rishalo D/o Sh. Yad Ram
6 Smt. Ratni D/o Sh. Yad Ram
7 Smt. Santosh D/o Sh. Yad Ram
8 Smt. Man Kaur wd/o Sh. Yad Ram
9 Sh. Mukhtiar Singh (deceased)
through his LRs
i Sh. Suraj Bhan - son
ii Ram Pyare - son
10 Sh. Om Singh S/o Sh. Kale
11 Sh. Sardar Singh S/o Sh. Kale
12 Sh. Daya Chand S/o Sh. Kale
13 Sh. Sant Ram S/o Sh. Kale
14 Sh. Rohtash S/o late Sh. Jagat Singh
15 Sh. Vijender S/o late Sh. Jagat Singh
All residents of village & P.O. Masoodpur, Delhi
...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India
through Land Acquisition Collector,
(South-West), Distt. Kapashera, New Delhi ...Respondent
AWARD REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1 Vide notification No.F4(98)/64-L&H dated 23.01.1965 U/s 4 of the LA Act (hereinafter referred to as the ACT) and declaration was also made vide notification No.F4(98)/64-L&H-I dated 26.12.1968 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act, the land including the land of the petitioners situate in the revenue estate of village Masood Pur, Delhi was acquired by the Govt. for Planned Development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act passed the award bearing No. 90/1980-81 and awarded the compensation @ Rs.1,700/- per bigha for block I (A) and Rs. 2,000/- per bigha for block II (B).
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 in compensation on the grounds that the acquired land of which the petitioners are bhumidhars in possession is situated adjoining the abadi of village Masoodpur and it also adjoin the outer Ring Road and is situated at the pucca road leading to Palam Airport. The LAC should have taken into consideration the situation of the acquired land and also the market value of the acquired land prevailed in the locality at the relevant period and then the compensation should have been assessed @ Rs.25/- per sq.yard. The LAC failed to appreciate that the land is situated adjoining to Jawahar Lal Nehru University and is surrounded by well developed posh colonies of Delhi/New Delhi and all the facilities i.e. Electricity, buses/ transport, water-taps, schools, colleges, hospitals and other municipal facilities are available in the locality where the land is situated. The LAC failed to appreciate that the acquired land is within the Delhi Municipal Corporation area and all the municipal facilities are available. The potential value of the land is very high and it is fit for commercial as well as residential purposes. It is further stated that the LAC should have taken into consideration that in South Delhi the value of the land is very high and it has been rapidly increasing since 1960. The LAC should have also given the compensation for severance and compound wall of khasra no.405/98 in area 5 bighas 15 biswas. On these grounds, the petitioners have filed this reference petition claiming the market value of the acquired land at Rs.25/- per sq. yard besides statutory benefits and also the claim of the compound wall and other super structure building, trees, etc. 4 On 07.05.1984, the counsel for the petitioners made a separate statement that as a writ is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the proceedings be adjourned sine die. Any of the parties may get the proceedings revived on application. For the period, the proceedings remained stayed, no interest shall be claimed. In view of the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the petitioners, the proceedings of this reference were adjourned sine die with the direction that no interest shall be payable for the period during which the proceedings remained stayed. However, any of the parties may get the proceedings revived on application. An application u/s 151 CPC was filed for revival of the proceedings of this reference on 23.09.2002 on the ground that this reference petition was stayed because the petitioners herein with the other villagers filed a writ petition for the denotification of the acquired land on the ground of delay acquisition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi all the related petitions regarding the delay acquisition to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1996. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed all the petitions on the point of delayed acquisition vide the judgment in Re: Murari & Ors. Vs UOI along with other several writ petitions on 01.11.1996. Vide order dt. 24.09.2004 of the Ld. Predecessor Court, the proceedings of this reference has been revived.
5 Since the land in question was acquired for the purpose of Planned Development of Delhi and DDA is the beneficiary of the land, therefore, vide order dt. 24.09.2004 of the Ld. Predecessor Court, DDA was impleaded as necessary and proper party in this reference. DDA has filed its written statement wherein it has raised the objections on the ground that while making award No. 90/1980-81 relating to the village Masoodpur, Delhi had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of the adjoining lands of the area as well as all other documents which were made available before the LAC. Moreover, the area of the land and other appurtenance/ amenities/ facilities were also taken into consideration while assessing the compensation. The amount awarded by the LAC in the present case is perfect, just and proper. It is based on cogent and reliable evidence and hence there is no scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The correctness of the khasra nos., their area and the extent of share of the petitioners therein admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished U/s 19 of the LA Act. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or un-developed at the time of publication of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. There was no structure, tree, well, or tube well on the land in question at the time of publication of notification U/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The claim of the petitioners is without any basis and no ground as well as the details have been furnished in the reference petition. However, it is admitted by the DDA that the physical possession of the land bearing khasra no.43 (10-19), 53 (4-9), 55 (3-00), 64 (10-16), 405/98 (13-15), 373/70 (6-15), 390/81 (3-00) and 375/83 (12-11) measuring 65 bighas 05 biswas i.e. except 4 bighas 4 biswas out of khasra no.405/98 (13-15) has been taken over by DDA from LAC/L&B on 29.12.1980 and the land has been transferred to Horticulture, DDA on 21.01.1981 and thereafter the land has been transferred to SFS, DDA on 24.07.1984. 6 During the pendency of the proceedings of this reference, Sh.Mukhtiar Singh one of the petitioners had expired and the application U/o 22 Rule 3 r/w/sec. 151 CPC was filed on behalf of the LRs of late Sh.Mukhtiar Singh wherein it was stated that Sh.Mukhtiar Singh expired on 24.06.1982 leaving behind the LRs namely, Suraj Bhan-son & Smt.Ram Piary
- widow of late Sh.Mukhtiar Singh. Separate statement of Sh.Suraj Bhan - son of late Sh.Mukhtiar Singh was also recorded as AW1 in the reference court on 06.01.1984. Since the application on behalf of the LRs of late Sh.Mukhtiar Singhwas filed within a period of limitation, therefore, vide order dt. 06.01.1984 of the Ld. Predecessor Court, the aforesaid LRs of late Sh.Mukhtiar Singh were brought on record in this reference. Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Smt.Giaso, Sh.Daya Chand, Smt.Man Kaur, Sh.Sardar Singh had also expired and the applications U/o 22 Rule 3 r/w/sec. 151 CPC were also filed on behalf of the LRs of aforesaid deceased persons. Separate statements of the LRs of the said deceased persons were also recorded in the court. Vide order dt. 20.03.2007 of this court, the LRs of late Sh.Hoshiar Singh were brought on record. Separate statements of Sh.Manjit S/o late Sh.Daya Nand Malik, Nawal Singh S/o late Sh.Sardar Singh and Sh.Om Singh S/o Sh.Kale & Smt.Giasu were also recorded in this reference court. The LRs of the other deceased claimants who have already filed their applications to bring them on record and given their statements proving the death certificates of deceased claimants in this reference are also brought on record with the directions that the interest on the enhanced amount in compensation, if awarded by this reference court, shall not be given for the period from the date of demise of the deceased claimants till the filing of the LRs applications to bring them on record except the period of 90 days for filing of the LRs applications.
7 Separate statement of Sh.Virender Singh/ petitioner no.16 was also recorded in this court whereby he admitted that the adoption deed was executed by which he was given in adoption to Sh.Sarup Singh. The counsel for the petitioner no.14 has also filed on record the certified copy of the adoption deed. Separate statements of Sh.Sube Singh & Sh.Chandgi Ram who were the witnesses to the said adoption deed were also recorded in the court. Sh.Virender Singh/ petitioner no.16 also deposed in the court that since he has got the right of inheritance in the property of Sh.Sarup Singh after his adoption as his son and therefore, he does not claim any right, title or interest in the land in question and share of his compensation amount in respect of the land in question may be given to Smt.Phoolwati - his mother and Sh.Rohtash & Sh.Bijender - his brothers and further the name of Virender Singh/ petitioner no.16 may be deleted from the arrays of the parties in this reference. Vide order dt. 26.04.2007 of this court, the share in compensation amount of Sh.Virender Singh/ petitioner no.16 of the land in question was allowed to be given to Smt.Phoolwati, Sh.Rohtash and Sh.Bijender Singh and therefore, the name of Sh.Virender Singh/ petitioner no.16 was deleted from the array of the parties in this reference. 8 Since issues in this reference have not been framed and left inadvertentely which fact has also not been apprised to this court by the counsel for the parties till the stage of final arguments. Now, on the pleadings of the parties, I shall answer this reference on the aspect of the entitlement of the petitioners for enhancement in compensation of the acquired land in question, if so, to what extent and the specific issues for answering this reference are framed as under :
1 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notice u/s 4 of the LA Act?
2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount?
3 Relief
9 The counsel for the petitioners in support of the case for enhancement in compensation has tendered in evidence the copy of judgment dt. 29.11.2006 passed by this court in LAC No.386/06 titled Devi Singh Vs Union of India as Ex-C1 and the certified copy of the judgment dt. 05.10.2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No.459/77 titled Hoshiar Singh & Ors Vs Union of India as Ex-P-1. Despite opportunity given, the counsel for the respondents have not led any evidence. 10 Despite opportunity given, the counsel for the respondents have not appeared for arguments. However, I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and have perused the entire records. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 11 The issue nos. 1 & 2 are inter-connected and I shall decide both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioners. The petitioners have sought enhancement in compensation awarded by the LAC on the grounds mentioned in the reference petition which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It has been held in Catena of 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 :
''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.'' In Shakuntala Bai (Smt.) & another Vs. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC 152, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 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.
12 Let us examine the case of the petitioners herein after applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the copy of judgment dt. 29.11.2006 passed by this court in LAC No.386/06 titled Devi Singh Vs Union of India which is Ex-C1 and the certified copy of the judgment dt. 05.10.2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No.459/77 titled Hoshiar Singh & Ors Vs Union of India which is Ex-P-1. Whereas, despite opportunity given, the counsel for the respondents have not led any evidence. In Ex.C-1, wherein the land situate in village Masoodpur, Delhi was also acquired vide the notification dt. 23.01.1965 U/sec. 4 of the LA Act, the counsel for the petitioners therein relied upon the judgment dt. 15.05.1991 in LAC No.455/69 titled Sh.Deep Chand & Ors Vs UOI. In the case of Deep Chand (Supra), the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi, after considering the materials placed on record fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs.18,000/- per bigha and the value of the minerals (China clay) at Rs.10,000/- per bigha besides statutory benefits. 13 This court has also passed an award/judgment dt. 29.08.2006 in LAC No.283/1/06 titled Prabhu & Ors Vs UOI & Anr wherein the land situate in village Masoodpur, Delhi was also acquired vide notification dt. 23.01.1965 U/sec. 4 of the LA Act followed by the declaration vide notification dt. 26.12.1968 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act. In the aforesaid judgment titled Prabhu & Anr Vs UOI & Anr, this court has already discussed and referred in para 11 in details, while determining the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification dt. 23.01.1965, about the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which is as under :
''11. It is clarified here that the judgment dt. 05.10.2001 passed by the Hon'ble DB of Delhi High Court in RFA No.86/87 & C. M. 517/87 (cross objections) & C.Ms. 108/94, 109/94, 1149/95, 1150/95, 249/2001 titled Smt. Pramod Gupta (dead) through LRs & Ors Vs UOI & titled UOI Vs Smt. Pramod Gupta (dead) through LRs & Ors wherein, the land situated in Masoodpur, Delhi was also acquired vide notification dt.
24.10.1961 U/s 4 of the LA Act and also the notification dt. 23.01.1965 U/s 4 of the LA Act. Vide the aforesaid detailed judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi fixed the market value of the land @ Rs.56/- per sq. yard and Rs.30/- per sq. yard for the acquired land with china clay and without china clay respectively for the land which was acquired through notification dt. 24.10.1961 and which are subject matter of award No. 2040 dt. 02.12.1967. Claimant/respondents were also held entitled to compensation @ Rs.98/- per sq. yard and Rs.72/- per sq. yard respectively for such of the lands which were acquired through notification issued U/s 4 of the Act on 23.01.1965 and which are subject matter of award No. 2225 dt. 26.03.1969 passed by the Collector in addition to the statutory benefits. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dt. 07.09.2005 in Civil appeal Nos. 6825-26 of 2003 titled UOI Vs Pramod Gupta (D) by LRs & Ors set aside the judgment dt. 05.10.2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 85 & 86 of 1987 and the matter was remitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with the order that the judgments and awards passed in these appeals must also be set aside in the same RFAs. Since, the aforesaid matter has been remitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, my decision is supported with the aforesaid judgment Ex. P-1 passed by the the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No. 255/69 titled Deepa Chand & Ors Vs UOI. Therefore, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.18,000/- per bigha on the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act.'' 14 This court, in the aforesaid reference i.e. LAC No.386/1/06 titled Devi Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & DDA, after relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, fixed the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. 23.01.1965 at Rs.25,000/- per bigha besides statutory benefits. I would also prefer to rely upon the RFA No.16 of 1998 titled Dev Sharma Vs UOI & Others against the order dt. 29.10.1997 of the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No. 38/1981 (New LAC No. 333/1993 dt. 13.07.1993) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi discussed the facts that after following the procedure laid down in the Act, the LAC made an award being 140/79-80 on 22.03.1980 determining Rs.7,000/- per bigha as the fair market value. The claimant being aggrieved by the fixation of price by the LAC, moved an application U/s 18 of the Act. On appreciation of the evidence placed before the reference court in the aforesaid case, the reference court held that the claimant is entitled to get fair market price @ Rs.15,225/- per bigha with consequential benefits as per the Act. Initially before the reference court claim was limited to Rs.25,000/- per bigha. However, it was increased to Rs.75,000/- per bigha by the claimant. Before the LAC in response to notice U/s 9 of the Act, the claim was made @ Rs.25,000/- per bigha. It was further observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that :
''The intention of Section 23 of the Act taken as a whole is to provide a complete indemnity to a person whose land is compulsorily acquired. It is the value to the seller of the property in its actual condition at the time of expropriation with all its possibilities excluding every advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired. Value to be paid for the land is the value to the owner as it existed at the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the value to the owner consists in all the advantages which the land possesses, present or future, but it is the present value alone of such advantages that falls to be determined.
For the determination of compensation mere production of a map with the judgment of a court in another group of land acquisition cases would not, by itself, be sufficient to evaluate the land on a particular basis. It cannot be left to any guess work. In the absence of substantive evidence produced by the claimant, if the court is asked to determine the price on the basis of other instances of nearby villages, it would be difficult to arrive at a correct market value.
The Apex Court in the country has repeatedly laid down the acid test for determining the market value of the land, the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser would form the basis of fixing the market value. For ascertaining the market value, the court would be justified in relying upon such transaction which would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price. The Apex Court in the case of Special Tahsildar Vs Mangala Gauri (AIR 1992 SC 666) has pointed out that the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time of the date of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act would be the best piece of evidence. Considering the acid test of a willing purchaser and a willing buyer the court should sit in the arm chair of the said willing buyer to have the answer to a question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired land in the available market conditions. It is the bounden duty of the court of public functions and judicial dispensation in determination of the market value of the acquired land. It was further observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in determining the market value of the land the court has to consider the following :
1 The price paid within a reasonable time for the land itself;
2 The rents and profits of the land received shortly before the acquisition;
3 The prices paid for adjacent lands possessing similar advantages; and 4 The opinion of the experts or valuators.'' 15 The Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi in the above mentioned RFA No. 16/1998, after considering and observing the aforesaid facts, circumstances & the judgments placed on record, fixed the market value at Rs. 25,000/- per bigha with other benefits as available under the LA Act in respect of the land situate in village Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi which were acquired vide the notification dt. 15.02.1979 U/s 4, 6 & 17 of the LA Act and the award No.40/1979-80 made on 22.03.1980. Since, the petitioners herein have claimed the market value of the land in question on the date of notification at Rs.25/- per sq. yard i.e. Rs.25,000/- per bigha, therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted more than Rs.25/- per sq. yard. Since this court has also fixed @ Rs.25,000/- per bigha, the market value of the land acquired vide the same notification dt. 23.01.1965 u/s 4 of the LA Act in LAC No.386/1/06 titlted Devi Singh & Ors Vs UOI & Anr. Ex.C-1, therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi & also of this court, I hold that the petitioners herein are entitled to enhancement in compensation of the land in question and the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.25/- per sq. yard (Rs.25,000/- per bigha) on the date of notification i.e. 23.01.1965 U/s 4 of the LA Act.
16 Now, let us examine whether the petitioners are entitled to interest for the period of staying the proceedings of this reference. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgment in RFA No. 102/2002 titled Chhattar Singh Vs UOI & another decided by the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi on 13.02.2003. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment that:
''in view of th ratio of the decision in UOI Vs Rajeev Gupta & Others, 96 (2002) DLT 225, the land having been compulsorily acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, it is the duty of the respondents to pay interest and the same cannot be withheld and for that reason, the impugned award is liable to be modified to that extent holding that appellants are entitled to interest even for the period from 17.02.1989 to 16.11.1996. Ordered accordingly. Interest is also payable on solatium in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs UOI, 93 (2001) DLT 569 and to that extent, award of the reference court shall stand modified''.
Further, a reliance can also be had upon the judgment in RFA No. 360/2001 titled Chander Vs UOI & another which was decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 29.07.2005. In the aforesaid judgment, it was also held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that :
''the principle laid down in the case of UOI Vs Rajiv Gupta (Supra) for payment of interest during the period the proceedings remained stayed at the instance of the claimant with the statement that he shall not claim interest during the period of stay, interest is required to be granted is not in consonance with law. This court is of the opinion that when a claimant requested the court to stay the proceedings with the statement that the party shall not claim any interest during the period of stay, the party cannot claim any interest for such period''.
It reveals from the order dt. 07.05.1984 passed by the Ld. Predecessor Court in the present reference that specific statement was made by the counsel for the parties that the parties shall not claim any interest during the period of stay. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, I hold that the petitioners are not entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the stay period i.e. from 07.05.1984 to 23.09.2002 i.e. till the filing of the application for revival of the proceedings of this reference. Since DDA has not taken over the possession of the land measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas out of khasra bearing no.405/98 (13-
15), therefore, the petitioners shall not be entitled to enhancement in compensation for the same. The petitioners have not led any evidence in support of their claim i.e. the claim of the compound wall and other super structure building, trees, etc., therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the same. These issues are answered accordingly.
RELIEF 17 In view of my findings on issue nos. 1 & 2, the market value of the land in question is fixed at Rs.25/- per sq. yard (Rs.25,000/- per bigha) and the petitioners & the LRs of the deceased petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation as per their shares mentioned in the statement U/s 19 of the LA Act. Besides it, the petitioners & the LRs of the deceased petitioners shall also be entitled to get solatium U/s 23 (2) of the LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest U/s 28 of the 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 awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. Since, there is difference of more than three years between the notification U/sec. 4 dated 23.01.1965 and declaration U/sec. 6 of the Act dated 26.12.1968, the petitioners & the LRs of the deceased petitioners are further entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a, on the market value w.e.f 23.01.1968 in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 provided there is no overlapping in the payment of interest U/sec. 4(3) and Section 28 of the Act. The petitioners & the LRs of the deceased petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. However, the petitioners & the LRs of the deceased petitioners shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the stay period from 07.05.1984 to 23.09.2002. Further, the LRs of the deceased petitioners, as held in this award, shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount in compensation for the period from the date of demise of the deceased petitioners till the filing of the LRs applications to bring them on record except the period of 90 days for filing of the LRs applications. Since Sh.Virender Singh/ petitioner no.16 has relinquished his share in compensation, therefore, Smt.Phoolwati, Sh.Rohtash and Sh.Bijender shall be entitled to the share in compensation of Sh.Virender Singh of acquired land. The petitioners shall also be not entitled to enhancement in compensation for the land measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas out of khasra bearing no.405/98 (13-15). This reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount in compensation to the petitioners & the LRs of the deceased 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 30.04.2007 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
LAC No. 186/1/06
30.04.2007 (At 04.00 p.m.)
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 in compensation to the petitioners & the LRs of the deceased 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/30.04.2007