Delhi District Court
Sh.Sudershan Jain vs Union Of India on 31 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01 (NORTH-EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
LAC 2/2012
Date of Institution of case : 1.2.2012
Date on which Reserved for Judgment : 31.5.2014
Date of Judgment/Order : 31.5.2014
Case I.D. Number : 02402C00037222012
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1.SH.SUDERSHAN JAIN
2.SH.SUSHIL JAIN
BOTH SONS OF SH. SC JAIN
RESIDENTS OF A-72, MADHUBAN
DELHI 110 092 ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH LAC/ADM NORTH EAST DISTT
NAND NAGRI, OPPOSITE GAGAN CINEMA,
SHAHDARA DELHI
2. DELHI METRO RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM
PROJECT PHASE II, SHAHDARA
DILSHAD GARDEN, DELHI
.......RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
1. A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has been made to this Court by the office of the Land Acquisition Collector (North-East) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the LAC). The statement under Section 19 of the Act accompanying the same states that the petitioners had not accepted the award bearing No.2/2007-08 rendered by the LAC under Section 11 of the Act in respect of lands acquired in village Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi. As per the details mentioned in the statement under Section 19, the name of LAC 2/2012 1/9 the project for which land was acquired in village Jhilmil Tahirpur was 'Construction of Shahdara-Dilshad Garden Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase II at GT Road, Shahdara', for which notification under Section 4 was issued on 12.4.2006 and notifications under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act were issued on 22.5.2006 in respect of land measuring 16 bigha 16 biswas. Possession of the acquired lands was taken by the LAC on 17.8.2006. The details of the lands of the petitioners as mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of the Act are as under:
Sl. No. Name of the Petitioner Field No. Total Area Share Bigha Biswa
1. Sh. Sushil Jain 313 min. 60 sqyds As decided in the matter of UOI Vs. Sushil Kumar Jain and Sudershan Jain LAC No. 55/2011
2. Sh. Sudhershan Jain -do- -do- -do-
2. The statement under Section 19 of the Act is accompanied with a copy of award no.2/2007-08 of the LAC. The summary of the same is reproduced as under:-
"Summary of the Award
1. Rate of 1 Sq.Meter (Commercial) Rs.6,450/-
2. Market value of the land measuring Rs.9,07,38,600/- 16 Bigha 16 Biswas i.e. 14068 Sq.Mtr.
3. Solatium @ 30% of market value Rs.2,72,21,580/-
4. Additional amount @ 12% of market value w.e.f. 12.04.2006 (date of not. U/s 4) to 17.8.2006 (date of possession) (128 days) Rs. 38,18,479/-
5. Cost of Structures Rs. 7,35,83,520/-
6. Total amount of compensation Rs.19,53,62,179/-
7. Interest U/s 34 of L.A.Act @ 9% for one year Rs. 1,75,82,596/-
8. Interest U/s 34 of L.A.Act @ 15% for 106 days Rs. 85,10,298/-
9. Total Rs.22,14,55,073/-"
3. The statement under Section 19 of the Act is also accompanied with the LAC 2/2012 2/9 copy of the petition filed by the petitioners before the LAC praying for a reference to this Court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference of the petitioners was received by this Court from the LAC on 01.02.2012. Court notices were issued to the petitioners, LAC as well as the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (herein after referred to as the DMRC), the beneficiary of the acquisition.
4. In response to the Court notices, the petitioners, Union of India (hereinafter referred to as the UOI/ LAC) and the DMRC appeared before this Court and filed their responses to the same.
PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES:-
5. In the petition filed before the LAC, the petitioners have contended that the LAC has assessed the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of the lowest rates fixed for leasehold lands which had been prescribed by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Department of Urban Development (Land Division) vide notification dated 16.4.1999 for the period 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2000. It is submitted that the said rates had been prescribed for the purposes of charging lease money and transfer charges. It is submitted that the LAC allowed an increase of 10% and fixed the market value of approved industrial and commercial freehold land at a low rate of Rs.6,450/- per sqmtr., treating the land as residential.
6. In the grounds preferred in the petition, the petitioners have submitted that the LAC failed to take into consideration the potential value of the acquired land and development of the area as well as prevailing market rates. It is submitted that the LAC has failed to consider that minimum rates were fixed about seven years prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act while during this period there was tremendous development and demand for approved industrial lands.
7. It is submitted that the LAC failed to appreciate that the acquired land was situated in an approved industrial cum commercial area where all amenities for running industrial establishments were available much prior to the date of LAC 2/2012 3/9 notification under Section 4 of the Act. These facilities were in the form of grant of license to run a factory, branches of several banks in the area, proximity to a Railway Station, National Highway - 8 i.e. GT Road, availability of regular transport facilities, hospitals, educational institutions, supply of electricity and various forms of communication. It is submitted that the market value of the land if sold in the open market under the prevalent conditions of demand and supply, would not be less than Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per sqmtr. which the petitioners claims to be the fair market value of his land.
8. Written statement to the claim of the petitioners was filed by the LAC. The LAC in its reply made preliminary submissions to the effect that the compensation assessed by the LAC was sufficient and reasonable as the same reflected its true market value prevailing at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is stated that various factors were taken into account while assessing the market value and the petitioner was claiming an excessive and exorbitant market value of the land as well as the structures acquired. It is submitted that the LAC considered the "Schedule of Market Rates" of lands in various localities in Delhi issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Govt of India circulated by notification dated 16.4.1999. It is stated that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by 12.4.2006 but it was found that the schedule of market rates had not been revised with effect from 1.4.1998. The LAC therefore permitted 10% escalation in respect of commercial / industrial rates to the proximate area of Jheel Kuranja and Geeta Colony with effect from 1.4.1998. It is averred that the rates announced for the said areas were Rs.5,865/- and upon escalation by 10% came to Rs.6,450/- per sqmtr (rounded off). It is submitted that the figure of Rs.6,450/-per sqmtr. for the acquired lands was held to be the true market value of the acquired lands, besides statutory benefits.
9. It is further submitted that the LAC assessed the fair market value of the lands after considering its current use, potentiality for future land use and proximity of land in the locality. It is submitted that market value of Rs.6,450/- per sqmtr also LAC 2/2012 4/9 conforms to the land use of the area which was commercial / industrial as per the documents filed by the claimant as well as the DMRC. It is submitted that the structures appurtenant to the land were evaluated by the DMRC which were vetted by the PWD, Govt of NCT of Delhi and the same were accepted by the LAC after due consideration. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement of the compensation as assessed by the LAC.
10. The DMRC also filed its objections to the reference petition. In its preliminary submission, it has been averred that the DMRC is a joint venture of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the Govt. of India for the purposes of construction and implementation of the MRTS project in the National Capital Region. It is submitted that the said project being of immense public importance, the Government was under an obligation to provide land for the implementation of the project. It is submitted that the land in question was acquired for construction of the Shahdara Dilshad Garden Corridor of Phase II of the Project by the Land and Building Department. It is submitted that the LAC after affording opportunity to the claimants and the authorities to adduce evidence in support of their contentions passed the award in accordance with law, taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances. It is submitted that the present petition is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to cover up his lacunae while adducing evidence before the LAC to derive an undue advantage to which he is not entitled. In the reply on merits, the DMRC denied that the LAC had incorrectly assessed the market value on the basis of lowest rates. It is contended that the LAC treated the lands in question as commercial / industrial and not as residential as alleged by the petitioner. The grounds raised by the petitioner have also been denied.
11. The petitioners filed replications to the written statements of the LAC as well as DMRC in which he denied the averments made in the same and reiterated the contentions made by him made in his petition ISSUES:-LAC 2/2012 5/9
12. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties by order dated 19.12.2012:-
1. What was the market value of the property as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any enhancement in the compensation? OPP
3. Relief
13. LAC 1/2009 titled Chandra Pratap Singh Vs. UOI was another reference made to this Court by the LAC. The same has since been decided by this Court on 24.5.2014. In the said matter it was held that the market value of the acquired lands was Rs.21,920/- per sqmtr and the petitioner therein would be entitled to enhancement of compensation by Rs.15,470/- per sqmtr.
14. The lands which were the subject matter of the reference of LAC 01/2009 were in khasra no. 1183/20/1 village Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi. The lands which are the subject matter of the present reference are also in the same village i.e. Jhilmil Tahirpur. The date of notifications under the Act in LAC No. 01/2009 as well as the present reference are the same.
15. Counsel for the petitioners Ms.Dimple Dhamija tendered in evidence copy of the award passed in LAC 1/2009 titled Chandra Pratap Singh versus UOI & DMRC as Ex.PW-1/A and deposed that the lands acquired under this reference were identical in all respects when compared to the lands which were the subject matter of the LAC 1/2009. She further deposed that the date of notification issued under the Act as well as date of taking possession were the same and thus the petitioner would be entitled to enhancement of compensation as awarded in LAC 1/2009.
16. Counsel for the UOI, Sh. Sachin Nawani Advocate tendered in evidence copy of the award No.2/2007-08 passed by the LAC and gave a statement that he adopted the evidence tendered by UOI in the matter being LAC 1/2009.
17. Counsel for the DMRC gave a statement that he adopted the in evidence adduced by the UOI in the matter being LAC 1/2009.
18. Arguments of the counsel for the parties were heard. I have heard the LAC 2/2012 6/9 counsel for the parties and perused the record. My findings issue-wise are as under:-ISSUE Nos.1 AND 2
19. The lands which are the subject matter of this reference have been acquired under the same notification issued under the Act in respect of the lands which were the subject matter of LAC 1/2009. The petitioners have tendered the award passed by this Court in LAC 1/2009 and has relied on the evidence led in the said reference. The UOI has also relied on the award of the LAC and evidence led by it in LAC 1/2009. The DMRC has adopted the evidence led by the UOI. Thus it is admitted by the parties that the lands which are the subject matter of this reference are identical in all respects to the lands which were the subject matter of LAC 1/2009 decided by this Court on 24.5.2014.
20. In the case of Krapa Rangiah versus Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition reported in (1982) 2 SCC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that where similar lands are acquired under the same notification, the same rate of compensation should be awarded for other lands acquired under the same notification. In the case of Bhag Singh & Others versus Uniono Territory of Chandigarh reported in (1992) 4 SCC 692 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that a judgment of a Court in a Land Acquisition Case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired land even though not inter partes could be admitted in evidence as an instance from which the market value could be inferred. It was further observed that there would be no difficulty in accepting such judgment as one furnishing the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land if the opposite parties do not genuinely dispute the position that the judgment relied upon could be accepted as the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land. In the case of Goa Housing Board versus Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar reported in (2011) 10 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to reiterate that similarly situated land in the same area having the same advantages and acquired under the same notification should be awarded the same compensation.
21. In the present matter, the LAC itself in his award has found that the LAC 2/2012 7/9 acquired lands are having commercial as well as industrial user. The lands under the present reference have been acquired under the same notification as in LAC No.1/2009. It is the admitted case of the parties that the acquired land under the present reference are identical in terms of potentiality, location and user as in LAC No.1/2009. Hence in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to herein above, the petitioners will be entitled to the same compensation as assessed in LAC No.1/2009.
22. The relevant portion of the award in LAC No.1/2009 is reproduced as under :
"89. Hence for the foregoing reasons recorded above, this Court deems it proper to place reliance on the circle rates notified by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 18.7.2007 under the provisions of the Delhi Stamps (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 2007. As per the same, the circle rates for category "G" in respect of lands with Industrial use has been prescribed to be Rs.27,400/- per sqmtr. As the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act is 12.4.2006 while the circle rates were notified on 18.7.2007, I deem it proper to deduct 20% from the prescribed rate of Rs.27,400/- per sqmtr. Hence the market rate of the acquired lands comes to Rs.21,920/- per sqmtr.
90. The LAC has awarded an amount of Rs.6,450/- per sqmtr. As the market value of the acquired lands has been found to be Rs.21,920/- per sqmtr, the petitioner will be entitled to enhancement of compensation by Rs.15,470/- per sqmtr."
23. Hence for the reasons recorded above, it is held that the petitioners shall be entitled to enhancement of compensation by Rs.15,470/- per sqmtr. Issues No.1 and 2 are decided accordingly.
RELIEF
24. In view of the findings on issue no. 1 and 2, the petitioners are held entitled to enhancement of compensation by Rs.15,470/- per sqmtr. In addition, the petitioners would also be entitled to all statutory benefits, being 30% solatium on the market value in view of the compulsory nature of acquisition as per section 23 (2) of the Act and an additional amount of 12% per annum on the market value as provided under Section 23 (1A) from the date of notification till the date of possession or award whichever is earlier. They would also be entitled to interest on LAC 2/2012 8/9 the enhanced compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of dispossession till expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment.
25. Reference is answered accordingly. Statement under Section 19, which is duly admitted by the petitioners be annexed along with the same. Copy of the award be sent to the LAC North-East, Delhi for information and necessary compliance within three months. As the acquired land has been placed at the disposal of Delhi Metro Railway Corporation as the ultimate beneficiary the liability of both the respondents would be joint and several. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced and dictated to the steno in open court today i.e. 31.5.2014 (REETESH SINGH) Addl. Distt. Judge-01 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi LAC 2/2012 9/9