Delhi District Court
Sh. Jawala Singh vs Union Of India on 23 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-1 (NORTH):DELHI.
LAC NO. 129A/15
Award No: 14/2002-03,
Announced on: 08.07.2002
Village: Pehlad Pur, Delhi
Notification No. F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/11394
dated 27.10.99
In the matter of:
Sh. Jawala Singh,
S/o Sh. Kapoor Singh
R/o VPO Pehlad Pur Bangar
Delhi. .....Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through LAC (NW)
Kanjhawala, New Delhi.
2. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
3. Delhi Development Authority
Through Its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. ......Respondents.
Date of filing of Reference: 25.08.2012
Date of assignment to this court: 09.02.2015
Date of arguments: 20.03.2015
Date of decision: 23.03.2015
JUDGMENT
REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
1. Vide this award, I shall dispose of instant reference under section LAC-129A/2015 Page:-1/9 18 of the L. A. Act preferred by petitioner against the respondents being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC in lieu of the acquisition of land of the petitioner.
2. That vide Notification No. F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/11394 dated 27.10.99 under section 4 of LA Act, the land of the petitioner as mentioned in statement U/s 19 of L. A. Act situated in the revenue estate of village Pahladpur (Bangar), Delhi was acquired for the public purpose namely for the "Rohini Residential Scheme, Phase IV & V', by the Government and possession of the same was taken by Govt. The Land Acquisition Collector, after completing all the formalities as provided under the Act assessed the market value of total land.
3. The reference petition U/s 18 of LAC Act was filed by petitioner wherein it was stated that vide above award, the land of petitioner was acquired by Govt. It was pleaded in award that petitioner was the Bhumidar/absolute owner as well as in cultivatory possession of his respective share out of above stated acquired land till the date of taking over the possession from him by the govt. and the land was out of all sort of encumbrances. It was further stated that no measurement of the land has been taken in the presence of claimant and also no opportunity has been given to the claimant for hearing at the time of alleged measuring of land. It was averred that petitioner has not accepted the above noted award and he received his compensation under protest only. It was stated that compensation awarded by LAC in respect of land acquired is highly inadequate and is not in accordance with the prevailing market value as on the date of notification U/s 4 (1) of the LA Act. Some grounds were also raised in petition wherein it LAC-129A/2015 Page:-2/9 was pleaded that LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation and market value of land as assessed is imaginary and without any basis. It was further stated that land of petitioner is very fertile and is levelled without any kind of depression or defect. It was also averred that land of petitioner is fully developed with all modern facilities of life since telephone, electric connections, water connections, public schools and govt. schools, inter and degree college, computer institutes, full fledged post office, health gym, modern panchayat ghat and transports services are available. It was also stated that LAC has not taken into consideration the relevant transaction/sale purchase of land in the village Pehlad Pur Banger, Delhi and its adjoining village and areas itself. It was also stated that LAC has not given any compensation for the damage done to the standing crops of petitioner at the time of taking possession. Hence, present reference petition was filed by petitioner
4. In reply to reference petition, the respondent No. 1 Union of India had filed written statement wherein preliminary objections were raised stating that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to land in dispute. It was further averred that LAC rightly assessed the market value of land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated U/s 23 and 24 of L.A. Act. On merits, It was stated that land owners are claiming exorbitant value of land which was correctly assessed by LAC. It was also pleaded that LAC in order to assess fair market value of land indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi as Rs. 12,16,000/- per acre for the year 2000-01 conveyed by order dated 11.09.2001 which are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2000. It was stated that petitioner is not LAC-129A/2015 Page:-3/9 entitled to any enhancement over and above value assessed by LAC. It was further averred that no ground or reason has been shown by petitioner for any enhancement in market value of land or super structure which were correctly assessed by LAC. The other contents of petition were denied and it was prayed that reference under reply be dismissed with heavy cost.
5. Separate written statement was filed on behalf of DDA wherein preliminary objections were raised to the effect that amount awarded by LAC in the present case is adequate, sufficient, just and legal and there is no scope for enhancement of amount of compensation. It was also pleaded that present reference petition is barred by the period of limitation. It was averred that DLR Act was applicable to the land in dispute at the time of notification. On merits, it was stated that compensation passed by the LAC is legal, adequate, just and fair and same has been awarded by Ld. LAC after taking into consideration all the factors relevant for determining the compensation and as such petitioner is not entitled for grant of enhancement of compensation. The other contents of reference petition were denied and it was prayed that present reference petition be dismissed with costs.
6. Written statement was not filed by Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
7. It is just pertinent to mention here that initially, DDA was not impleaded by petitioner, hence vide order dated 04.03.2013, DDA was impleaded as respondent and amended memo of parties was directed to be filed on record.
8. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 03.07.2013:-
LAC-129A/2015 Page:-4/9
1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in
compensation, if so to what amount?
2) Relief.
9. In petitioner's evidence, the counsel for petitioner adopted the evidence led on behalf of petitioner in leading case titled as Jaipal Singh Vs. UOI bearing LAC No. 180A/09 and closed the PE.
10.In defence, counsel for Union of India relied upon the copy of Award and adopted the evidence led by UOI in case titled as Jaipal Singh Vs. UOI bearing LAC No. 180A/09 and closed RE. The counsel for DDA also adopted the evidence led on behalf of UOI and closed the RE.
11.I have gone through the record and have heard the arguments of parties. My findings are as under:-
12.Issue No. 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so to what amount?:- The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. Petitioner has contended that valuation of land determined by LAC is not reasonable as LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation. However, petitioner has not examined any witness to support his case for enhancement in compensation, but Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has tendered the evidence of Jai Pal Singh Vs. UOI LAC No. 180A/09 which was decided by my Ld. Predecessor on 11.07.2011. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that Jai Pal Singh Vs. UOI (Supra) pertained to the same village, same notifications and same award by which the land of the present petitioner is acquired. Hence, same market value of petitioner's land be determined.
13.On perusal of said judgment, I found that Ld. Predecessor had LAC-129A/2015 Page:-5/9 determined the market value @ Rs.12,85,628/- per acre. Relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
"Ld. counsel for the petitioner has contended that the LAC has not taken into account the location, potentiality of the land, that same is fit for residential/commercial purpose and is very closed to the developed area of Rohini Township where DDA has developed residential colony and commercial. He has further contended that from the award itself it is proved that land of village Pehladpur has been acquired for developing Phase IV, V of Rohini Residential Scheme. To prove the location of land Ld. Counsel has relied upon testimony of PW2 Sh. Prem Singh, Patwari who has proved Sizra of Village Alipur Ex. PW2/1. PW2 has deposed that petitioner land is situated at a distance of one km from Rohini Sector 23,24,25. Delhi Engineering College is at a distance of one or one and half kms and Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar at a distance of 2 ½ km and 82 ½ fut vide road from village Samaipur of village Bawana passes through village Samaipur. No cross examination has been done on this respect. Hence, it is proved that petitioner's land has future potential to be used for residential or commercial purpose. But onus was on the petitioner to prove the potentiality of his land has not been considered by LAC. LAC has determined the market rate on the basis of Govt. policy dated 11.09.01 whereby Govt. determined minimum price of agricultural land @ Rs. 12.16 lac per acre for period 01.04.99 to 30.03.2000. Govt. determined minimum price of agricultural land on the report of expert committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the absence of any other evidence, adopting the govt. policy of minimum price of agricultural land is a wrong method. However, I am agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that land rates were increasing, which is evident from the Govt. policy Ex. PW4/1 to Ex. PW4/8. On perusal of the policy it is evident that Govt. vide policy dated 03.05.90 has determined the minimum market price of agricultural LAC-129A/2015 Page:-6/9 land @ Rs. 4.65 lac per acre from 27.04.90., Rs.10 lac per acre from 01.04.97 and Rs.11.20 lac from 01.04.98 and Rs.12.16 lac for period from 01.04.99 and Rs.13.82 lac from 01.04.2000. Therefore, considering these I am of the view that atleast petitioner is entitle to escalation for the intervening period from the date when the Government policy (become effective till the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 01.04.1999 to 27.10.99). But what should be the percentage of increase for intervening period? There are numerous judgment in this regard. In Karigowda case (Supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded 15 percent enhancement for intervening period between 2 sale deeds. Recently in Chiranji Lal Vs. UOI LA Appeal no. 489/2008 decided on 02.06.2011, Hon'ble Justice Pardeep Nandrajog has while relying upon Partap Singh Vs. UOI LA Appeal No.193/2006 dated 19.12.08 has observed that till year 1996 the increase was 12% and thereafter 10% per annum. Considering all these judgment and the fact that gap between two notifications is just four month, I am of the view that it would be justified to give increase @ 10% for the intervening period between the date of government policy & notification u/s 4 of LA Act i.e. from 01.04.1999 to 27.10.1999 (209 days), which comes to Rs.1285628/- per acre (1216000 X 10 X 209/365 X 100 = 69628, 1216000+69628 = 1285628). Hence, I determine the market value @ Rs.1285628/- per acre thus giving enhancement of Rs.69628/- per acre. Besides this petitioner should be entitled to 12% additional amount u/s 23(1)A and 30% Solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act. He should also be entitle to 9% interest per annum as the enhancement compensation for the first year and thereafter 15% per annum till the realization of last enhanced compensation as per Section 28 of LA Act".
14.Since no evidence has been led by respondents to controvert the said judgment, therefore, I find no justification to differ from the LAC-129A/2015 Page:-7/9 judgment Jai Pal Singh Vs. UOI (supra). Hence, I determine the same market value @ Rs.12,85,628/- per acre thus getting an enhancement of Rs.69,628/- per acre. The findings of issues no. 1 are as under:
i. Market value of the land as mentioned in the statement u/s 19 of the Act is fixed @ Rs.12,85,628/- per acre thus getting an enhancement of Rs.69,628/- per acre.
15.Besides this petitioner would be entitled to other statutory benefits i.e. 12% additional amount u/s 23(1A) and 30% Solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act. He is also entitled to 9% interest per annum on the enhanced compensation for the first year and thereafter 15% per annum till the realization of enhanced compensation as per Section 28 of LA Act. The issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
16.Relief:- In view of the findings herein above, the reference is answered accordingly. The market value of the land as per statement u/s 19 LA Act is fixed @ Rs.12,85,628/- per acre thus getting an enhancement of Rs.69,628/- per acre. The petitioner is also entitled for additional amount u/s 23 (1A) of the Act @ 12% p.a. from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier. The petitioner is also entitled for solatium u/s 23(2) of the Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation. The petitioner is further entitled for interest under Section 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 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 payment. The LAC-129A/2015 Page:-8/9 petitioner is also entitled for the interest on solatium and additional amount as per judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder Vs Union of India. Copy of this judgment be sent to LAC and beneficiary department for information and deposit of the enhanced amount of compensation within 3 months. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on (Ajay Goel) 23.03.2015 ADJ-1(North)/Delhi. LAC-129A/2015 Page:-9/9