Delhi District Court
M/S. Relexo Footwear Ltd vs Union Of India & on 4 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 17/11
New No. LAC - 57/16
Area: Mundka
Award No.: 02/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 01.01.2009
M/s. Relexo Footwear Ltd.
Thorugh it's General Manager
Sh. Satpal Malhotra
R/o 316-319,Alied House,
Indero Chowk,
Rohtak Road, New Delhi ....Petitioner
versus
1. Union of India &
Through Land Acquisition Collector
Distt. West Rampura, Delhi-35.
2. D.M.R.C.
Through its Director
H.O. : (NBCC) Building,
Bhisham Pitamah Marg,
Pragati Vihar, Delhi-110003 .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 13.07.2011
Date of reserving of judgment : 25.01.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.02.2017
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 143 Bigha and 02 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/3291 dated 07.06.2007 also under Section 6 vide LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 1/34 notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/10635 dated 23.10.2003. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/10636 dated 23.10.2007. The land was acquired for the purpose of Construction of Depot, Staff Quarters and TSS of Inderlok- Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II near Senior Secondary School, Mundka and North of NH-10 (Mundka Depot).
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)') passed award no. 2/DC(W)/2008-09 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the agriculture land under acquisition @ Rs.17,58,400/- per acre.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector, petitioners were shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
Item Name of recorded Khasra Total Details
No. of owner and share No. area in of trees/
NM Bigha- Buildings
Biswa / Crops
41 M/s Relexo Footwear 0//1003 0-10 As per
Ltd. Through it's min Award
General manager
Sh. Satpal Malhotra
(Full share)
4. The petitioner filed the reference under Section 18 of the Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Land Acquisition Collector, West has been referred to the reference court.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 2/34
5. In brief the facts stated are that the land of the petitioner comprise Lal-Dora Abadi land/ in Khasra Nos.1003 min (0-10) having full share in the land total measuring area 0 Bigha 10 Biswas situated at Mundka was acquired vide award in question. The notice under Section 9 & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued to the petitioner by the Collector. Except the petitioner no other person has any right, title or interest in the aforesaid land. The petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of Award and the petitioner has not received any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act and the present petition is within limitation as per law.
6. It is stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector does not represent true and correct market value of the land as well as Lal Dora land (village abadi) as on date of notification under Section 4 of the Act on dated 07.06.2007 and the compensation assessed by the Collector is much below to the actual market value of the acquired land and same is assailed, interalia, on the following grounds:
7. It is stated that the market value of the land is not less than Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. The Collector failed to appreciate or apply his mind to determine the proper market value of the acquired land. The Collector failed to consider that the acquired land is adjacent to industrial area situated between main Rohtak Road, National Highway No.10 and Railway Line at Revenue Estate of village Mundka. The Collector further failed to consider 12% appreciation on the compensation from the date of announcement of policy dated 30.08.2005 to 07.06.2007.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 3/34
8. It is stated that the Collector failed to consider the important fact that Government of NCT of Delhi has increased the minimum rate of agricultural land @ Rs.53 lacs per acre vide notification dated 18.12.2007, whereby there is a increase of minimum rate of land up to three times. The Collector also failed to consider that the land situated within the Lal Dora is not having value less than Rs.6900/- per sq. yard. The circle rate as fixed by government does not imply correct and actual market value of the acquired land. It is stated that petitioner's land has great potential and higher value which is supported the fact that on 30.06.2007, DDA had invited the bid in Rohini Vicinity which is situated in vicinity of the acquired land and reserve price was fixed at Rs.85,000/- per sq. yards, whereas the Government has fixed the circle rate in vicinity of the land acquired @ Rs.18,000/- per sq. yards. The Collector failed to appreciate and does not consider the fact that only 34 days prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, government announced the policy of fixing the minimum rate of the land acquired and method adopted for assessing the award No. 2/DCW/1999-2000 has not been adopted in the present award. Further, the Collector has misinterpreted the notification no. RNZ/173 of MCD Delhi dated 24.08.1963, which was published in Gazette on 12.09.1963. According to which factories, warehouses are permissible at the Lal Dora land but Building Bye-laws are applicable. The Collector wrongly interpreted that the boundary wall and structure existing at the Lal Dora (Residential area) land are unauthorized but infact all the structures are legal and boundaries are entitled to structure as well as awarded by the Collector while passing the award no. 2/DCW/1999-2000.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 4/34
9. It is stated that petitioner is also entitled to the compensation for damages for the super-structure for his respective share constructed on the land owned by him because the land is being used for industrial/commercial purpose. The petitioner also made some improvements on the land such as the structure boundary wall around the 500 sq. ft. and LAC assessed the compensation amount in respect of boundary wall existed on the land of petitioner is on lower side and the petition is entitled for compensation amount for boundary wall is must be on higher side.
10. It is stated that petitioner shall also be entitled to the compensation for damages for the super-structure of his respective share constructed on the land owned by him because the land is being used for industrial/commercial purpose. The petitioner also made some improvements on the land such as the structure boundary wall around the 1000 sq. ft. and LAC failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is entitled for compensation amount for boundary wall & structure there on.
11. It is stated that the Collector has failed to consider that the amenities and facilities of daily life are available on and near the acquired land such a banks, namely, State Bank of India, Corporation Bank, Delhi Cooperative Bank, Punjab National Bank are situated at main Rohtak Road. Therefore, are in and around the acquired land is much developed and has good potential value and petitioner is entitled to market value of the acquired land not less than Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. Not only this, under notification, the part of the area under notification is also for LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 5/34 the purpose of industrial area in Mundka Udyog Nagar, South of Rohtak Road, Mundka. Same is notified by government vide notification no. F1/C1/Policy/Institu/Firni Road Mundka and Mundka Udyog Nagar/ 2007/20 in Delhi Gazette Notification dated 17.09.2007.
12. The petitioner also referred to the sale deeds i.e.
(i) Gaurav Dua in favour of Relaxo Footwear Limited for the sum of Rs.60,00,000/- dated 12.12.2000 for the area of 10 Biswas only situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi, which is duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sub Distt. IX Janakpuri, Delhi as documents No. 7016 in additional Book No. 1 Volume No.246 on pages No. 31 to 50 dated 12.12.2005; (ii) sale deed of Rs.2 Crore for land measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas situated in Khasra No. 815 in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna, in favour of MEK Developers Pvt. Ltd. by Smt. Gupta W/o Sushil Kumar Gupta executed on 24.11.2006 which is duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division West Distt. Delhi as document No. 6108 in additional Book No. 1, Volume no. 519 at page No. 42 to 105 on dated 24.11.2006; (iii) Sale deed of Rs.5 Crore and 35 lacs for land measuring 16 bighas 11 biswas situated in Khasra no. 663, 667, 773, 813, 780/1 in the village of Hiran Kudna in favour of Mek Developers Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jai lal S/o Chattar Singh executed on 14.11.2006 duly registered with Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh Sub-Division West Distt. Delhi as document no. 6113 in additional Book no.1 volume no. 521 at page Nos. 1-198 dated 14.11.2006;
(iv) sale deed for Rs.5 Crore for land measuring 11 bighas 9 biswas situated in Khasra no. 576 min, 586, 597, 602, 616, 617, 624, 625, 765 min, 766, 769, 770, 772 and 771 in the LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 6/34 revenue estate of village of Hiran Kudna in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jagphool Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh executed on 31.05.2007; (v) sale deed of Rs.3 crores for land measuring 7 bighas 1-1/3 biswas situated in the village Hiran Kudna, in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Gordhan executed on 22.07.2007 duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division West Distt. Delhi as documents No. 2746 in additional Book No.1, Volume no. 691 at page no. 1-80 dated 22.07.2007; (vi) sale deed for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 12.12.2005 for the area of 10 Biswas only situated in Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi executed by Nikhil Dua in favour of M/s. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Which is registered as document no. 7017 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 246 on pages 51 to 66 dated 12.12.2005 for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 12.12.2005; (vii) sale deed for Rs.43,75,000/- for land measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna in favour of Mek Developers Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jagphool S/o Sh. Ram Singh executed on 31.05.2007 registered as document No. 2938 in additional Book No.1 volume No. 699 at page no. 36 to 74 on dated 31.05.2007 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division, West Distt. Delhi.
13. It is stated that the acquired land is quite leveled one and fit for residential, commercial and industrial purpose and petitioners are also entitled for alternative business site as per policy of DMRC. As per consistent policy of the government, it does not acquire built up lands and various notifications have been lapsed.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 7/34
14. The petitioner seeks compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards along with statutory benefit as solatium @ 30%, additional amount at the rate of 12% and interest there on at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the enhanced amount is paid. Interest on the compensation amount till payment and compensation amount in respect of structure existed on the land of petitioner.
15. Written statement filed by respondent no.1/ Union of India and taken the preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable as petitioner has failed to furnish any evidence in respect of the relief claimed. The LAC has already assessed the market value of the land in question by taking into consideration the prevailing market rates of the land at the time of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. The petition is time barred. The petition is not maintainable as the land in question is governed by Delhi Land Reforms Act.
16. On merits, all the averments made in the reference petition are denied. The grounds taken by the petitioner are also denied. It is stated that petitioner is not entitled to any relief and reference is liable to be dismissed.
17. Respondent no.2/DMRC also filed written statement and taken preliminary objection that reference petition is liable to be rejected under Section 7 Rule 11 CPC and the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question. It is stated that the petition is barred under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 8/34
18. On merits, again all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied and it is reiterated that the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. It is categorically denied that petitioner is also entitled to alternative business site from DMRC/respondent no.2. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
19. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to written statements filed by respondents.
20. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 29.09.2011 by Ld. Predecessor:
1. What was the market value of the land on the date of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act ? OPP
2. To what enhancement in compensation if any is the petitioner entitled?
3. Relief.
20. In support of his case, petitioner got examined PW1 Sh. Kirshan Beer, Patwari from the SDM office Punjabi Bagh; PW2 Sh. Khem Chand Sharma, Patwari, L & B, Vikas Bhawan; PW3 Sh. Anil Kumar, Reader from the office of Sub-
Registrar II-A (Punjabi Bagh); PW4 Sh. D.S. Rathi, Kanoongo, Office of DMRC; PW5 Sh.Surendran Raman, Inspector, Industries Department; PW6 Sh. Parveen Kumar, Kanoongo from the office of LAC (West); PW7 Sh. M.P.S. Rawat, Naib Tehsildar (Revenue Department), 5, Shamnath Marg, Delhi and PW7 (which should be PW8) Sh.Sushil Batra, AR of LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 9/34 petitioner. Thereafter, as per statement of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, evidence of petitioner was closed on 16.12.2015.
21. From the side of respondent no.1/ Union of India, Sh. S.S. Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered copy of award No. 02/DC (W)/2008-2009 pertaining to Village Mundka as Ex. R1 and photocopies of sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.1 on 10.02.2016.
22. No evidence led on behalf of the respondent no.2/ DMRC despite opportunity given for the same and their evidence was closed vide order dated 10.02.2016.
23. I have heard Sh. D.S. Lakra, Counsel for the petitioner; Sh. S.S. Mittal, Counsel for the respondent no.2/ Union of India; and Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE Nos. 1 & 224. Issue nos. 1 & 2 are taken up together as they are inter connected and onus to prove both the issues is on the petitioner. Before deciding the issues, let us first peruse the evidence led by parties.
25. PW1 Sh. Krishan Beer, Patwari deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. Aks Sijra of village Mundka which is in two parts i.e. Northern side and Southern side and the copy of the same is signed by him and is correct LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 10/34 as per original Aks Sijra of village Mundka, which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B respectively. He has also broguht the Aks Sijra of extended abadi/laldora of village Mundka as Ex. PW1/C. The village Mundka is surrounded by other villages i.e. Rasoolpur, Ranikhera, Mubarakpur Dabas in northern side and village Qamruddin Nagar is on Eastern side and village Ranhola is on Eastern-south side, village Bakkarwala is on southern side, village Hirankudna is in Western-South side and village Ghevra is in Western side of village Munda. The Rohtak Road passes through the village Mundka towards Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
26. In the cross-examination PW1 deposed that he cannot tell the width of Rohtak Road which passes through Mundka towards Bahadurgarh. He did not know how far is the land in question situated from Rohtak Road. He was not summoned to produced the field book. He received the summons only for Sijra/masavi. He volunteered that the condition of Sijra is not good. He cannot tell what surrounds the land in question. He did not have any personal knowledge about the land in question. He further deposed that he could not tell whether the aforesaid Rohtak Road is a National Highway or not as such it is not mentioned in his record. He again said that he has not brought the concerned record and it might be or might not be in his Khatauni. He has not brought the Khatauni.
27. PW2 Sh. Khem Chand Sharma, Patwari deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. minimum price of agricultural land in the Union Territory of Delhi w.e.f. 03.05.1990 to 24.01.2008 and the same is Ex. PW2/1.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 11/34
28. In the cross-examination PW2 deposed that he did not have any personal knowledge of the summoned record. He has no personal knowledge about the minimum price of agricultural land situated in Delhi.
29. PW3 Sh. Anil Kumar, Reader deposed that he has brought the summoned record pertaining to the registered sale deed dated 09.12.2005 executed by Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Amir Singh in favour of Smt. Amita Gupta W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar for a piece of land comprised in Khasra No.1019, situated in the Extended Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi which is registered vide registration no. 6960 and certified copy of the same is Ex. PW3/1. He further deposed that registered sale deed dated 12.12.2005 executed by Sh. Gaurav Dua S/o Sh. Ramesh Dua in favour of M/s. Relaxo Footwears Ltd. Through its General manager Sh. Satpal Malhotra for a piece of land comprised in Khasra no. 1003, situated in the Extended Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi which is registered vide registration no.7016 in additional book no. 1, Vol. No. 246 on pages 31 to 50 on dated 12.1.2.2005, certified copy of which is Ex. PW3/2. He further deposed that the registered sale deed dated 12.12.2005 executed by Sh. Nikhil Dua S/o Sh. M.L. Dua in favour of M/s. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Through its authorized signatory Sh. Hans Raj Sapra for a piece of alnd comprised in Khasra No. 1002 situated in Extended lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi which is registered vide registration non 7017 in additional book no.1, Vol. no. 246 on pages 51 to 66 on dated 12.12.2005, certified copy of which is Ex. PW3/3. It is further deposed that the registered sale deed dated 09.12.2005 executed by Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Amir Singh in favour of LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 12/34 Sh. Virender Kumar for a piece of land comprised in Khasra no. 1019, situated in the Extended lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi, which is registered vide registration no. 6959, certified copy of the same is Ex. PW3/4.
30. In the cross-examination PW3 deposed that he has no personal knowledge with respect to the Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. Pw3/4. He did not know the vendor or the vendee of Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/4. He has also not seen the land in question involved in the sale deeds Ex. PW3/1 to PW3/4. His statement is only on the basis of record and he has no personal knowledge of Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/4.
31. PW4 Sh. D.S. Rathi, Kanoongo, Office of DMRC deposed that he has brought the summoned record pertaining to the structural valuation report in respect of Khasra no. 1003, main Rohtak Road, Mundka, Delhi. The said vlauation was conducted on the pretext of DMRC on 14.08.2007. Certified copy of the same is Ex. PW4/1, which is objected to by the Counsel for UOI as the author of the report is not being examined. The valuation pertaining to Ex. PW4/1 was conducted in respect of the acquired property of the petitioners. The contents of the same are true and correct.
32. In the cross-examination, PW4 Sh. D.S. Rathi deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the valuation report Ex. PW4/1. He cannot say whether the valuation report Ex. PW4/1 is very much exaggerated. He volunteered that he has just brought the summoned record from the office of DMRC. He cannot say whether the said report has been LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 13/34 relied upon by any authority while disbursing compensation to the petitioner. He denied the suggestion that the valuation report Ex. PW4/1 is not vetted by the Department of PWD.
33. PW5 Sh. Surendran Raman deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. attested copy of notification no. F-1/C.I./Policy/INSITU/Phirni Road, Mundka and Mundka, Udyog Nagar/2007/20 dated 17.09.2007 along with Maps pertaining to village Mundka and the same is Ex. PW5/A. In the cross-examination he deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge about the framing of notification.
34. PW6 Sh. Parveen Kumar, Kanoongo deposed that he has brought the summoned record pertaining to award no.2/DC/W/1999-2000 and award no.3/DC (W)/2008-09 of village Mundka, copy of which is Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B respectively. In the cross-examination he deposed that he does not have the personal knowledge of the summoned record.
35. PW7 Sh. M.P.S. Rawat, Naib Tehsildar deposed that he has brought all the summoned record. As per order dated 18.07.2007 of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi issued under the signature of the Joitn Secretary (Revenue) vide notification No.F.2 (12)/Fin. (E.1)/Part File/Vol.I (ii)/3548 dated 18.07.2007 and the same is Ex. PW7/A and notification no. F.1(281)/Regn. Br./HQ/Div. Com./09/45 dated 04.02.2011 as Ex. PW7/B. He the cross-examination he deposed that he does not have the personal knowledge of the summoned record.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 14/34
36. PW7 Sh. Sushil Batra (which should be PW8) is the AR of the petitioner as per Resoluition dated 10.05.2014 Ex. PW7/1 and reiterated the averments made in the petition in his affidavit Ex. PW7/A.
37. In the cross-examination PW7 (PW8) Sh.Sushil Batra denied the suggestion that land was exclusively used for agricultural purposes. He did not remember the date of purchase of land in question but same is reflected from the documents only. He had constructed a boundary wall on the land in question. There was no civil amenities on the land in question. He did not remember the name of vendor from which he had purchased the land in question. He had purchased the land in question about ten years ago. He could not bring the sale transactions documents regarding purchase of land in question. He denied the suggestion that he has deliberately not filed the sale transaction documents of purchase of land in question to conceal the actual market value of the land. He also denied the suggestion that the consideration amount mentioned in Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/4 is exaggerate one in order to enhance the market value of the land in question. He did not know whether date of purchase of Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/4 are the same date. He denied the suggestion that all sale transactions from Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/4 are executed on the same date in order to exaggerate the market value of the land. He further deposed that Mundka Railway station is one k.m. away from the land in question. His land is abutted to NH-10. He did not rememebr the date on which he came aware about the announcement of the award. He has not received any notice under Section LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 15/34 12 (2) of LA Act. He denied the suggestion that the building potential of the land situated at Village Mundka, Neelwal, Ghewra, Hiran Kudna etc. was better than the alnd in question. He admitted that village Mundka, Neelwal, Ghewra, Hiran Kudna etc. were better industrially developed land than the land in question. He did not remember as to whether he has filed any sale transaction before th LAC in pursuance to the notices issued to him under Section 9 and 10 of te Act. He denied the suggestion that the LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the land after going through all the facts prevailing at the time of Section 4 notification of the Act. He further deposed that he has never seen the land mentioned in Ex. PW7/1 and Mark D in his affidavit. He denied the suggestion that the building potential of the land in Ex. PW7/1 and Mark D are better than the land in question in the year 2007. He cannot tell about 63 sale transactions as mentioned by the LAC in his award No. 2/DC(W) 2008-09 at page 13 & 14. He denied the suggestion that the LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land after going through all the facts prevailing at the time of issuance of Section 4 notification under the LA Act. He further denied the suggestion that he is seeking exorbitant market value of the land in question in his claim. He denied the suggestion that there was no development in vicinity to the land in question.
38. Before examining the issue of determination of market value of the acquired land, firstly I would like to refer to relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act which are Section 23 and 24 which are reproduced hereunder :-
Section 23. Matters to be considered in determining LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 16/34 compensation -
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration----
first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1).
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any), bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
(1A)...............................................................
(2).................................................................
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 17/34 Section 24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. -- But the Court shall take into consideration----
first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition;
secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit;
fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of, the land acquired commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section 1; eighthly, any increase to the value of the the land on account of its being part to any use which is forbidden by land or opposed to public policy.
39. The determination of market value of acquired land shall be keeping in view the settled principles of law in evaluating market value in compulsory acquisition on the hypothesis of a willing Vendor and a willing Vendee.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 18/34 Therefore, let us glance through the settled principles of law in this regard.
40. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Narayan Gajapati Raju Vs. Revenue Divisional officer, AIR 1939 PC 98 held that :
"compensation for compulsory acquisition governed by Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Act "what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser".
41. The function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the evaluation may be as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Adinarayana Setty AIR 1959 SC 429 where the Supreme Court laid down the following principles :
"(1) Opinion of experts; (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the land acquired or the land adjacent to the acquired land and possessing similar advantages; (3) Number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately perspective profits of the land acquired."
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 19/34
42. In Tribeni Devi Vs. Collector of Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 1417, the Supreme Court held that :
"for determining compensation payable to the owner of the land, the market value is to be determined by reference to the price which may be reasonable obtained from willing purchasers but since it may not be possible to ascertain this with any amount of precision the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. While reiterating the three tests laid down in S.L.A. Officer's case, it was further emphasized that these methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive at as nearly as possible at an estimate of the market value. In arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may be necessary to take even two or all these methods into account inasmuch as the exact evaluation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which the valuation can be accurately determined.
43. In P. Ram Reddy and Others Versus Land Acquisition Officer (1995) 2 SCC 305, the Supreme Court held that :
"An acquired land could be regarded as that which has a building potentiality, if such land although LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 20/34 was used on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act for agricultural or horticultural or other like purposes or was on that date even barren or waste, had the possibility of being used immediately or in the near future as land for putting up residential, commercial, industrial or other buildings. However, the fact that the acquired land had been acquired for building purposes, cannot be sufficient circumstance to regard it as a land with building potentiality, in that, under clause (4) of Section 24 of the LA Act that any increase to the value of land likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired, is required to be excluded. Therefore, wherever, there is a possibility of the acquired land not used for building purposes on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act, of being used for putting up buildings either immediately or in the near future but not in the distant future, then such acquired land would be regarded as that which has a building potentiality. Even so, when can it be said that there is the possibility of the acquired land being used in the immediate or near future for putting up buildings, would be the real question. Such possibility of user of the acquired land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it should be a matter of inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on record to establish such possibility. Material so placed on LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 21/34 record or made available must necessarily relate to the matters such as :
(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;
(ii)the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;
(iii)possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put upon that land;
(iv)absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes;
(v)existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;
(vi)benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 22/34
(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.
The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentiary value for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."
44. In Shaji Kuriakose Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001) 7SCC 650, the Supreme Court held that :
"3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalization of net income method or LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 23/34 expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 24/34 shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land that what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land."
45. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 the Supreme Court held that :
"18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
The amount of compensation cannot be
ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A
comparable instance has to be identified having LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 25/34 regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under :
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area.
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the
interior at a distance
from the road.
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land
with very small frontage
compared to depth.
(iv) nearness to (iv) lower level requiring
developed areas depressed portion to be
filled up.
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from
developed locality
acquisition
(vi) level vis-a-vis land (vi) some special
under acquisition disadvantageous factors
which would deter a
purchaser
(vii) special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it
may have some very
special advantage.
46. In a case Union of India Versus Pramod
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 26/34
Gupta (Dead) by LRs. and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Supreme Court considered the two methods laying down the principles for determining the market value. Firstly, what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser. Secondly, comparison of sale deeds. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. The area of land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the land. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages.
47. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Aakash Parashar submitted that the Collector (West) has erred in determining the fair market value of the acquired land in question. He submitted that the sale deed Ex. PW3/1 to PW3/4 also placed before the Collector (West) but same were not considered. He submitted that the sale deeds are pertaining to year 2005 and one of the transaction is of the petitioner, therefore, it is the best evidence to determine the fair market value. He relied on judgment AIR 1997 SC 2625. He further pointed out that the copy of Aks Sizra map of village Mundka proved on record in order to establish the location abutted at National Highway 10, Rohtak Road. In order to establish the good potential value of the acquired land as it is developed, a notification No. F.3(6) Lit./02/LJ/07/5633 dated 17.09.2007 also proved on record. He further submitted that in the case of Jayant Juneja (Supra), LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 27/34 DMRC paid the compensation amount of agricultural land including the structural value of 832 sq. yds. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per notification dated 18.07.2007, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi has fixed the minimum circle rates of Lal Dora land and minimum rate has been fixed of 'H' category i.e. Rs.6900/- per sq. meter and the Collector (West) ignored the important piece of evidence and fixed the market value at very low rate at Rs.1210/- per sq. meter. In case from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and notification of circle rate off loading @ 10% is given then only Rs.76/- per sq. meter is to be deducted.
48. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in Award Ex. R1, the Collector (West) has adopted the wrong method and ignored the notification of minimum circle rate, which was notified only after about 40 days of notification under Section 4 of the Act. He further pointed out that in later award, the Collector (West) also relied the minimum circle rate for determining the fair market value. He pointed out that various notifications wherein the Govt. of NCT fixed the market value of land pertaining to Lal Dora extended time to time in very short period which accelerate in the following manner:
Date of notification Rate of Lal Dora in square meter 18.07.2007 Rs.6,900/-
18.02.2011 Rs.13,800/-
16.11.2011 Rs.15,870/-
05.12.2012 Rs.19,400/-
Ld. Counsel further submitted that all the above notifications show that value of Lal Dora increased by the Government LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 28/34 time to time and court may take judicial notice in this regard and the list of Rule village Abadi which shows that village Mundka comes under 'H' category and there are many unauthorized colonies falls under the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi, which comes under 'G' Category and the petitioners claims the 'H' category as well as 'G' Category.
49. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Village Mundka as per circle rate shown in category 'G'. The Collector (West) also not granted compensation for the structures. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is an additional advantage of the acquired land which is not available in other neighbouring villages such as Bakkarwala as there is a Railway Station and boundaries are abutting National Highway which is proved by site plan Ex. PW5/A. He relied on judgments Union of India vs. Mangat 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 815; Municipal Committee vs. Balwant Singh 1995 (3) R.R.R. 294; and V. Hanumantha Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Collector 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 496.
50. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the compensation may be awarded @ Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards i.e. Rs.16,720/- per sq. meter along with all statutory benefits and interest.
51. Written arguments filed on behalf of respondent no.2/ DMRC perused. Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer submitted that the present reference is barred by time and petitioner has taken four years to complete the evidence, therefore, they may not be awarded 15% interest on account of delay on the enhanced amount. He submitted that the sale deeds filed by LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 29/34 the petitioner are created artificially and doctored in order to impress upon the court to award the compensation as per the purchase value of the petitioner's land. The sale deeds are of exorbitantly high rates because they compare to acquired land for MRTS Project, therefore, sale deeds of the petitioner are not reliable and bonafide. The formal communication of acquisition of the land in question was sent by Delhi Government on 16.11.2005 well before the sale deeds were executed. Therefore, the sale transactions are not bonafide. He further submitted that market value of the acquired land in question has correctly and fairly determined by the Collector (West) because he has considered in total 60 sale deeds. LAC (West) had ignored the very low value sale deeds and very high value sale deeds and taken the appropriate consistent value of sale deeds to arrive at fair market value. He further submitted that circle rate notification is not applicable because it was of later date. He further submitted that the land acquired is for public purpose to provide transportation system to the public at large, therefore, the fair market value has been determined and petitioner is not entitled to enhancement and petition is liable to be dismissed.
52. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/ UOI adopted the written arguments filed by respondent no.2/ DMRC. He submitted that the Collector (West) has appropriately and rightly determined the fair market value and there is no error committed by him. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 30/34
53. I have considered the respective submissions of the parties and perused the evidence led by them. I have also gone through the above stated principles of law to determine the fair market value of the acquired land in question.
54. The first method is to consider the sale deeds proved on record. The petitioners have proved the sale deeds Ex. PW3/A to PW3/D. The details are mentioned herein above. The sale deeds are executed by the petitioner and other persons whose land has been acquired. It is pertinent to mention here that the project must have been announced in the year 2005 even a letter referred by Law officer of DMRC shows that the project must have conceived and publicized much prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has proved only four sale deeds of all interested persons, which are much higher values to the normal 59 sale deeds considered by the LAC (West). On the other hand, respondents also proved sale deeds Ex. R-2 to R-6. They show the average price of the sale at very low. In my considered opinion, the sale deeds are fluctuating from very low to very high. Therefore, they cannot be fair indicator to determine the fair market value of the acquired land in question. The method of consideration of sale deed in my considered opinion is not a fair and correct indicator in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
55. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on judgment of Jayant Juneja (Supra), which is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case and the valuation report does not pertain to Lal Dora.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 31/34
56. Now coming to the submissions with regard to the fixing of the circle rate by the Government of NCT on 18.07.2007, which is just after 40 days of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. I have perused the notification. It categorize all the colonies, localities and areas of Delhi. The notification deals with the properties in Lal Dora as Class -VI. It is based upon definite parameters and formula while arriving at the minimum circle rate. The acquired land in question is of Lal Dora which is used for residential purposes and the circle rates are also notified with regard to the residential lands. The Mundka Extension at Sl. No. 1088 shown in 'G' category. In my considered opinion, the Collector (West) fall in error while not considering the circle rates when the sale deeds were not found to be correct indicator of the fair market value because the award was pronounced on 01.01.2009 after about two years of Section 4 notification. Therefore, the acquired land in question has potential to be used as land for residential purposes and the fair market value can be arrived while considering the minimum circle rates fixed by Govt. of NCT. The petitioner relied the Lal Dora circle rate to the tune of Rs. 6900/- per sq. meter. In order to came fair, just market valuation on the date of notification under Section 4 of L.A Act development charges required to be deducted to the tune of 25%. Hence the fair market value is determined @ Rs. 5175/- per sq. meter by giving enhancement of Rs. 3965 per sq. meter.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
57. In view of my findings on Issue nos. 1 & 2, the fair market value of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.5175/- per sq. meter after enhancement @ Rs.3965/- per sq. meter.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 32/34 Besides this the petitioners are also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
58. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
59. The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
60. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
61. The interest on compensation for the period of delay due to impleading of LRs or stay of High Court or any other court may also be deducted.
62. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 33/34
63. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
64. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 4th February, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 04.02.2017 LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 57/16) Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. 34/34