Delhi District Court
Sh.Ishwar Singh vs Union Of India on 3 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-1 (NORTH):DELHI.
LAC NO. 1607A/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.Ishwar Singh
s/o Sh. Hargovind
r/o V.P.O Pehladpur( Banger)
Delhi-42
......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through Land Acquisition Collector
Distt. North West,Kanjhawla, Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, Delhi.
......Respondents
Date of filing of Reference: 25.8.12
Date of assignment to this court: 28.7.15
Date of arguments: 31.8.15
Date of decision: 3.9.15
LAC- 1607A/15 Page:-1/9
JUDGMENT
AWARD REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
1. Vide this award, I shall dispose of the instant reference under section 18 of the L. A. Act preferred by the petitioners against respondents being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC in lieu of 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 petitioner bearing Khasra No. 13//13(4-16), 13//18(4-16), 43//2(4-16), 43//6(0-07), 43//7/2(3-12), 43//8(4-16), 43//13/1(1-05), 43//14(6-04) total area (30-12) having 1/8th share situated in the revenue estate of village Pehladpur (Banger), 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 the petitioner as aforesaid was acquired. It was pleaded in award that petitioner was bhumidar/absolute owner as well as in cultivatory possession of his respective share out of above stated acquired land till taking over the possession from him by the govt. which was out of all sort of encumbrances. It was further stated that compensation awarded by LAC in respect of land acquired is highly LAC- 1607A/15 Page:-2/9 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 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 defect and land of petitioner is fully developed with all modern facilities of like telephone, electric connections, water connections, public schools and govt. schools, computer institutes, full-fledged post office, health gym and transport service. It was stated that land of petitioner is surrounded by some other colony being developed around the land of petitioner which are situated in the revenue estate of village Pehladpur where the market value in those colonies is more than Rs.10,000/- per sq. yards. It was also stated that many people in Delhi have palatial farm houses in the close vicinity of the revenue estate of village Pehldpur and the cost of land of the farm houses which are on Pehladpur on Delhi-Narela road is not less than Rs.15,000/- per sq. yards which is also the increased marketable value of the land of the petitioner. It was also stated that LAC has not given the compensation of the standing crops and standing trees which were there on the land of petitioner at the time of taking possession. Besides that petitioner was fully dependent upon the agricultural land which has been acquired and after its acquisition the petitioner is left without any source of income and petitioner should be compensated adequately for the same which has not been done. Hence, present reference petition was filed by petitioner.
LAC- 1607A/15 Page:-3/9
4. In reply to reference petition, the respondent No. 1 Union of India had filed written statement wherein preliminary objections were raised stating that Land Acquisition Collector has already assessed the market value of the land in question taking into the prevailing market rates of the land at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and various factors were also taken into consideration. It was stated that the petitioner is claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land and structures. It was stated that the DLR Act is applicable to the land in dispute and petitioner is not entitled for compensation in respect of any construction or structure which is raised without the sanction of law, however at the time of issuance of section 4 notification there were no structures, tree, well on the land in question except mentioned in the award and statement under section 19 of Land Acquisition Act. It was stated that the land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can be used for agricultural purposes only. It was stated that the Land Acquisition Collector rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated under section 23& 24 of the Land Acquisition Act. On merits contents of the reference were denied and it was stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement of compensation of any kind and the petition be dismissed.
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 LAC- 1607A/15 Page:-4/9 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. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 05.03.13:-
1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so to what amount?
2) Relief.
7. 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.
8. In defence, counsel for UOI tendered the copy of Award and adopted the evidence led on behalf of respondents in leading case Jaipal Singh Vs. UOI bearing LAC No. 180A/09 and closed the RE. Cl. for DDA had adopted the same evidence and closed the same.
9. I have gone through the record and have heard the arguments of parties. My findings are as under:-
10.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 LAC- 1607A/15 Page:-5/9 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.
11.On perusal of said judgment, I found that Ld. Predecessor had 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 LAC- 1607A/15 Page:-6/9 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 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 LAC- 1607A/15 Page:-7/9 (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".
12.Since no evidence has been led by respondents to controvert the said judgment, therefore, I find no justification to differ from the judgment Jai Pal Singh Vs. UOI (supra). Details of land is mentioned at points X-1 in award Ex. R-1. 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.
13.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.
14.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% LAC- 1607A/15 Page:-8/9 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 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) 3.9.15 ADJ-1(North)/Delhi. LAC- 1607A/15 Page:-9/9