Delhi District Court
Suraj Mal & Another vs . on 6 February, 2009
1
In the court of Ashwani Sarpal, Additional District Judge,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
Suraj Mal & another
vs.
Union of India & another
(LAC no. 81/08)
Award no.- 3/DCW/2004-05
Village:- Bakkarwala, Delhi
Date of institution:-13-3-06
Date of decision:-6-2-2009
(Reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
***********************************************************
Judgment:-
According to decision of Supreme Court given in Nand Ram vs. State of Haryana JT 1988 (4) SC 260 where compensation has been awarded for a particular land, then under the same award and for similarly situated adjoining land, same amount of compensation can be given.
Sh. O.P. Gupta, ld. Additional District Judge in LAC no. 53/06 titled as Parag P. Tripathi vs. UOI decided on 24-5-2008 (copy of which is placed on record) in respect of similarly placed adjoining land under the same award has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,71,000/- per acre along with other benefits as prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case also, this much enhancement atleast should have been allowed.2
Undisputed facts of the present case are that petitioner no. 1 and 2 were the recorded Bhumidars to an extent of 2/3rd and 1/3rd share of the land measuring 2 Bighas 4 Biswas out of Khasra no. 49/7 min (0-
01), 8/1 min (0-18), 12/2 min (0-18), 13 min (0-7) situated in village Bakkarwala. A big piece of land including the land of petitioners was acquired for the purpose of construction of outfall drain by the govt. A notification under section 4 of LA Act was issued on 24-9-2003 whereas notification under section 6 was issued on 16-2-2004. The possession of land in question was taken on 31-3-2004 though award was passed on 22-9-2004. LAC under the award fixed the amount of Rs. 15,70,000/-
per acre as compensation besides allowing other mandatory sums.
Petitioners being not satisfied with the compensation amount got the matter referred to the court under section 18 of LA Act. They described the amount of compensation awarded as too low, unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary by alleging that LAC had not taken into consideration the fact that land in question was having great potential value for residential and commercial purposes being situated on the main road and village is well connected with road. It is also stated that building and commercial activities have started coming up all around the land in question and every type of civic amenities and facilities are available. Industrial areas have started being set up in nearby villages and number of posh farm houses have been constructed around the land. Petitioner stated that price of the land could not be less than Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards.
UOI contested the matter and while denying the allegations of the petitioners justified the compensation amount. On basis of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 11-9-2006.
31) What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of LA Act?
2) To what enhancement in compensation, if any are the petitioners entitled to?
3) Relief.
In order to prove their case, petitioners examined only one witness PW-1 Sh. Anil Kumar, UDC from office of Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri who produced two sale deeds in respect of land situated in village Mundka. Under one sale deed Ex. PW1/1, half share in land measuring 1 Bigha 17 Biswas was sold on 20-10-2004 at Rs. 10 lacs. In second sale deed Ex. PW1/2, another piece of land measuring 1 Bigha 4 Biswas was sold on 16-2-2000 at Rs. 4.80 lacs. However this witness had no personal knowledge about any of these two sale deeds.
On behalf of respondent, besides tendering the copy of award Ex. R-1, one sale deed dated 23-7-2003 Ex. R-2 in respect of land measuring 1 Bigha 12 Biswas situated in village Bakkarwala for consideration of Rs. 2,98,000/- was tendered. I have heard counsel for both parties and gone through the record. My decision on above issues is as under;
Issues no. 1 and 2:-
None of the petitioner stepped into the witness box to prove the allegations made in their reference petition. How and on which basis, they claimed enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards was not disclosed. It is not proved that land in question was having great potentials and all type of civic amenities and facilities were available there. Nothing is brought on record to show that adjoining villages have become industrial and farm houses have come into 4 existence in adjoining lands. Even in the reference petition, nothing was claimed that land in question was being cultivated or anything was constructed on it or it was not totally barren land. Thus the averments made in the reference petition has remained only on papers and not established by any of the evidence due to non examination of any material witness including of the petitioners themselves.
The sale deeds brought on record by the petitioners are also not of the same village but of another village situated at some distance. Sale deed Ex. PW1/1 was executed after more than one year of the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and chances of its execution at exaggerated rates with a view to claim more compensation cannot be ruled out. The another sale deed Ex. PW1/2 though is 3½ year prior to date of notification but it is not proved that land mentioned in the same was of similar type of land with same potentiality and facilities as is of the land in question.
Sale deed Ex. R-2 placed on record by the respondent also cannot be relied upon in their favour because if it is considered, then it would infact reduce the amount of compensation already awarded which is not permissible. However, this sale deed is of the same village where acquired land is situated and atleast it shows that land in question also cannot be of much value as claimed in the reference petition.
Accordingly in such situation, none of the sale deeds relied upon by any of the parties can be considered to decide this reference. There is nothing else on the record to find out the amount of compensation to be enhanced. Absence of evidence of the petitioners also further has created problems, so in such circumstances, except to enhance the compensation amount by giving appreciation of 12% p.a. from the minimum rate of govt. as per notification dated 9-8-2001 which is referred to in the order of ld. Additional District Judge Sh. O.P. Gupta 5 in LAC case no. 53/2006 in similarly placed situation, there is no other way to decide this case. The reasoning given in that decision can be applied in the present reference petition also. LAC has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre which should have been Rs. 20,41,000/- per acre so the enhancement comes to Rs. 4,71,000/- per acre. Hence it is held that petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation at the rate of 4,71,000/- per acre. This issue is decided accordingly.
Issue no. 3 (Relief):-
In view of above discussions, it is held that petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation in respect of their land and according to their respective share as per the rate of Rs. 4,71,000/- per acre. They shall be paid solatium at the rate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of possession along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for first year and 15% interest for subsequent years till the full payment of enhanced compensation is made. The interest on solatium and additional amount if any shall be as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sunder vs. UOI. Copy of this order be sent to LAC for depositing the enhanced compensation to avoid further loss to govt. exchequer. Reference is accordingly answered in favour of petitioners. File be consigned to record room.
(Ashwani Sarpal)
Dt. 6-2-2009 Additional District Judge