Delhi District Court
Sh. Dharam Singh vs Union Of India on 22 July, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC No. : 171/1/07 AWARD NO : 02/LAC/N/200506
VILLAGE : Burari, Delhi
In the matter of :
1 Sh. Dharam Singh
S/o Sh. Niyadar
2 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh
R/o village Jagatpur, Delhi
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Deepak Khosla )
...Petitioners
Versus
1 Union of India,
through the Land Acquisition
Collector, (District - North), Delhi
2 Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh.Rajesh Raina & Sh.S.S.Mittal )
...Respondents
Reference received on : 17.10.2007
Award reserved on : 15.07.2008
Award announced on : 22.07.2008
A W A R D
REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
1 Vide notification No.F.11(30)/2003/L&B/LA/6600 dt. 18.07.2003
U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act) and declaration was also made vide notification No.F.11(30)/ 03/L&B/LA/23254 dated 08.01.2004 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act, the land including the land of the petitioners situated in the revenue estate of village Burari, Delhi as per statement U/sec. 19 of the LA Act was acquired by the Govt. for Development of BioDiversity Park PhaseII at Burari, Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requirements as provided under the Act, announced the award bearing No.02/LAC/N/200506 on 07.01.2006 and awarded the compensation @ Rs.15.70 lacs per acre (Category A) and Rs.5.05 lacs per acre (Category B). The LAC also awarded the compensation for tree, orchard, well/tubewell, etc. besides statutory benefits.
2 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioners herein filed petition U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value of the acquired land which was sent to the reference court.
3 In this reference petition, the petitioners have sought the enhancement of compensation that the petitioners were the recorded bhumidar in possession of the land in question. The compensation assessed by the LAC is too low, unjust, arbitrary, without any reasonable basis and the same is not acceptable to the petitioners. The land of the petitioners at the time of issuance of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act was well connected with mettled roads from all sides and was having great potential value as residential & commercial site of the on the grounds among others that the petitioners land is levelled land because all sorts of civic amenities such as electricity, water, road, bus service, telephone, school, college, etc were easily available to the land of the petitioners, therefore, the land of the petitioners had great potential being developed as a perfect residential and commercial site. The land of the petitioners is very close to number of developed residential colonies such as Dhirpur, Nirankari Colony, Sant Nagar, Mukherjee Nagar, Timarpur, Hardev Park, Milan Vihar, Jharoda Majra Burari, etc. The land of the petitioners is very fertile and gives three crops in a year i.e. two main crops of Rabi and Kharif & one crop of vegetables also which is sown during the intervening period of reaping Rabi crop and Kharif crop. The land of the petitioners was never under river bed. The land of the petitioners has never been in Yamuna belt which is clearly indicated from the revenue records. During the consolidation proceedings of this very village, the standard value of the land as per consolidation rules was placed at 12 annas for 1 bigha whereas the land which was in the river bed was assessed at 4 annas standard value. Therefore, it clearly indicates that the value of the land of the petitioners which was assessed at 12 annas was much better located than the lands which were in the river bed. The land of the petitioners was a perfect agricultural site and major portion of the land which is subject matter of acquisition was orchard and the lands were never subject to Aviliation Deviolation and the same always remained levelled land and had been used for purposes of agriculture. The land of the petitioners was cultivable and was having proper source of irrigation and was being irrigated by boring pumps by installing diesel engines, wells and electric tubewells. It is further stated that the land of the petitioners is very close and is at the intersection of village Jharoda Majra Burari and its boundaries are touching each other and it is just about one furlong away from village Dhirpur. Village Dhirpur is situated on the eastern/southern side of the lands of village Burari. The land of the petitioners is very close to road No.50 which is a National Highway. The land of the petitioners is approachable by mettled road from main ring road and is also well connected to the adjoining area of the mettled road and as such the entire area which has complete electrification is a fully developed and is perfect site for agricultural as well as commercial/ building site. Therefore, at the relevant time, the value of the land of the petitioners was not less than Rs.10,000/ per sq. yard and the petitioners claim the sum of Rs.10,000/ per sq. yard amount as compensation for the acquired land in this reference petition. Besides the land, the petitioners were maintaining a full fledged orchard which was having the plants, trees, fruit bearing trees, trees of timber value, etc. 4 It is also stated that the LAC erred in placing the land acquired vide above award in two categories and erred in awarding Rs.15,70,000/ per acre for blockA and Rs.5,05,000/ for categoryB. The categorisation of the land as done by the LAC is bad in law. However, all the lands which are subject matter of acquisition have a similar potential and consequently one market value ought to have been awarded for the entire land under acquisition. Moreover, the land of the petitioners was not subject to Aviliation - Deviolation and it was a levelled land which was being used for agricultural purposes. Further, the observation of the LAC as given in the award also indicates that the land of the petitioners was neither in the river bed nor was subject to Aviliation - Deviolation and the same was being used for agricultural purposes so the same ought to have been placed in Acategory and ought to have been paid compensation at least Rs.15,70,000/ per acre (though not conceding Rs.15,70,000/ to be market value of the land at the time of initiation of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act). The another factor which goes to show that the categorisation as done by the LAC is bad in law is that during consolidation proceedings, the land of the petitioners was assessed at a standard value of 12 annas per bigha whereas, the lands which were in river bed or which were subject to Aviliation - Deviolation were put in the standard value of 4 annas per bigha. The difference which has been maintained by consolidation authorities was due to quality of the land and due to the apparent fact of situation of the land is in the category of 4 annas standard value, the land was in the river bed and in the other category of 12 annas was a perfect agricultural site not being in the river bed or not subject to Aviliation - Deviolation. This fact also finds support from the award itself where the LAC himself had visited the land under acquisition and has found that the land is not placed to Burdhi or Baramadi. Despite inspection, the LAC failed to place the land of the petitioners in Acategory.
5 It is further stated that there was a fullfledged orchard in the land of the petitioners. The LAC erred in fixing the market price of A category and Bcategory lands on the basis of policy which was effective from 09.08.2001 meaning thereby that the Govt. was willing to pay as on 09.08.2001, the price of Rs.15,70,000/ per acre. According to the petitioners, it is undisputed that in the instant case, the notification u/sec. 4 was issued on 18.07.2003 and the petitioners were entitled to the market value as on 18.07.2003. The LAC erred in not fixing the price which was determined by the Govt. as on 09.08.2001 without giving any escalation for the period from 09.08.2001 to 18.07.2003. The LAC ought to have awarded at least 12% p.a. on Rs.15,70,000/ for arriving at the market value which was being offered by the Govt. On these grounds among others, the petitioners have filed this reference petition claiming Rs.10,000/ per sq. yard for the land besides other statutory benefits and other benefits & also the compensation for trees, superstructure, etc. 6 The UOI, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the ground that the Delhi Land Reform Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The correctness of the khasra nos., their area and the extent of share of the petitioners therein has been admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished U/s 19 of the LA Act. In response to notice issued by the LAC U/sec 9 & 10 of the LA Act, the petitioners have preferred claim. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can only be used for agricultural. There was no standing tree, boundary, well, or tube well on the land in question at the time of publication of notification U/sec. 4 of the LA Act. All other averments made in the reference petition except matter of record have been denied by UOI. Despite opportunities given, DDA has not filed written statement, therefore, the right of filing of written statement by DDA has been closed on 07.04.2008. 7 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on 07.04.2008 which are as under :
1 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act? Onus on parties.
2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 3 Relief
8 The counsel for the petitioners, in support of his case, has tendered in evidence the attested copies of khasra Girdawaries for the year 1996 to 2004 running into 47 pages collectively as Ex.P1 and adopted the same evidence as led in similar reference i.e. LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal Vs UOI. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the photocopy of the registered sale deed dt. 22.05.2003 vide regd. no.2380 in Book No.1, Volume No.765, pages from 162 to 171 as MarkA, the copy of the award No.02/LAC/N/200506 pertaining to village Burari, Delhi as Ex.R1, the photocopy of certified copy of the sale deed for the land measuring 1 bigha in village Burari, Delhi for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ executed by Smt.Bimla Devi in favour of Sh.Birender Yadav vide regd. no.345 in book no.1, volume no.683, pages 75 to 80 on 21.01.2003 as Ex.R/X1, photocopy of certified true copy of sale deed measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas situate at village Burari for a sum of Rs.6,32,000/ executed by Sh.Ram Phal & Ors in favour of Smt.Nisha Tyagi vide regd. no.5996 in book no.1, volume no.906, pages 188 to 197 on 22.11.2003 as Ex.R/X2 and photocopy of certified true copy of sale deed for the land measuring 2 bighas 10 biswas 5 biswansi situate at village Burari, Delhi for a sum of Rs.2,65,651/ executed by Sh.Daya Nand & Ors in favour of Smt.Shobha Tyagi W/o Sh.Tilak Ram Tyagi & Smt.Usha Tyagi W/o Sh.Raj Bal Tyagi vide regd. no.32, book no.1, volume no.937 at pages nos.120 to 127 on 02.01.2004 as Ex.R/X3 (certified copies of the said sale deeds MarkA & Ex.R/X1 to Ex.R/X3 have already been placed on record in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI in LAC No.226/1/07).
9 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire records. My issuewise findings are as under : ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 10 Before deciding these issues, let us examine whether the reference petition has been filed by the petitioners within the limitation period. The award in question was announced on 07.01.2006 and the reference petition has been filed by the petitioners before the LAC vide the diary No.373/ADM/N on 17.02.2006. In this context, a reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs UOI 1988, RLR 224 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that bare knowledge of the award is not enough. Parties must have knowledge of the contents of the award. Further in Rajjan Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Panam project, Godhra and Ors AIR 1995 Gujrat 170, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that Collector has not merely to intimate parties about passing of award but he has to communicate essential contents of award, if not copy of award. The counsel for the respondents have not led any evidence on record that the essential contents of the award were communicated and the petitioners had constructive or actual knowledge of the award at the time of announcement of the award by the LAC and the reference petition is barred by limitation. Therefore, I hold that the reference petition has been filed within the period of limitation. 11 Now, I shall decide the issue nos.1 & 2. Both the issues are inter connected and I shall decide both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners have claimed for enhancement in compensation of the land in question on the aforesaid grounds mentioned in the reference petition which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It has been held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which is sought to be acquired by the government, situation, nature, potential/ user and neighbouring land, etc, is to be considered. In this context, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :
''The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes'' In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam Vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
''In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.'' In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1996) 2 SCC 152 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when on record there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself, then it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
''It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.''
12 In the present reference, the LAC, in the award no.2/LAC/N/ 200506 which is Ex.R1, has mentioned that these are the proceedings for determination of compensation u/sec. 11 of the LA Act, 1894 for the agricultural land measuring 1448 bighas 11 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Burari, Delhi for public purpose namely for the ''Development of BioDiversity Park, PhaseII''. The aforesaid land was notified u/sec. 4 of the LA Act, 1894 vide No.F.11(30)/2003/L&B/LA/6600 dt. 18.07.2003. The objections received were heard and a report thereof u/sec. 5A of the LA Act, 1894 was sent along with the original objections to the Secretary, Land & Building Department. The notification u/sec. 6 of the LA Act was also made vide no.F.11(30)/03/L&B/LA/23254 dt. 08.01.2004. The notices u/sec. 9 & 10 of the said Act were issued to all interested persons and claims filed by them has been discussed hereinafter under the head ''Claims & Evidence''. The area under acquisition as given in the declaration u/sec. 6 of the LA Act was measured on the spot by the field staff of land acquisition. Details of the land as found on surveys have been mentioned under the head ''Measurement and True Area'' from page nos.1 to 11 and the details of the 114 interested persons who have claimed compensation of the acquired land have also been mentioned from page nos.11 to 30 in Ex.R 1/ award in question. In the head ''Claims & Evidence'', the LAC has stated that in response to notice under sec. 9 & 10, as many as 114 claims were received. In the claim, no documentary evidence was furnished in support of market price for land claimed except the award of Jharoda Mazra Burari, consolidation report from the office Kanoongo showing the variation in the value of land and khasra Girdawari which has been seen and given due weightage. Except this, the claim are not only exorbitantly high but also not supported by any other credible documentary evidence. Hence such claim do not reflect the true market value of land hence rejected. The report regarding valuation of orchards submitted by Horticulture Department, Govt. of Delhi is accepted for evaluation of orchards. All other unsubstantiated claims are also not accepted.
13 In the head ''Market Value'', the LAC has discussed that the market value of the land under aquisition is to be determined with reference to the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act, 1894 which is 18.07.2003 for determination of the market value of the land under acquisition. On scrutiny, it was found that the total land of 1448.01 bighas under acquisition is ''Do Fasli'' land having agricultural value and having orchards and tube well etc. on it. Although, the land is divided in two categories category ''A'' 12.44 acres and category ''B'' 289.22 acres. Category ''A'' being pure agricultural and Category ''B'' being the land similar to the land acquired under award of Jharoda Majra Burari under award No. 05/LAC/CL/2000 i.e. on the eastern side of forward bunds and not suppose to burdhi or baramadi & the land of rectangle nos.106, 115, 116, 125, 126, 133 & 132 is at the intersection of village Jharoda Majra Burari & Burari. As per the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act forwarded by the LAC, the land bearing khasra nos.126/14 (416), 7/2 (208), 133/3 (416), 4 (416), 126/15 (416), 16/1 (008), 16/2 (113), 17 (416), 6 (414), 127/11 (401), 12/1/2 (117), 20/3 (210 ½), 10/2 (018), 126/16/3 (215) situated in the revenue estate of village Burari, Delhi as per shares of the petitioners in the revenue record has been acquired by the LAC vide the award/ Ex.R1 and the aforesaid land has been placed in 'B' category land.
14 Now, let us first examine whether the LAC has rightly placed the land in question in B category land. The award is no doubt the basis which reveals as to how the LAC considers the materials placed before him while assessing the market value of the acquired land. The entire land including the land in question has been acquired for the purpose of permanent development of BioDiversity Park Phase II at Burari, Delhi vide the award/ Ex.R1. The LAC in award Ex.R1 has specifically discussed that on scrutiny, it was found that the total land of 1448.01 bighas under acquisition is ''Do Fasli'' land having agricultural value and having orchards and tube well etc. on it. The LAC in Ex.R1 has further stated that the land placed in category A is pure agricultural and the land placed in category B is the land similar to the land acquired under award of Jharoda Majra Burari vide the award no.5/LAC/CL/2000 i.e. on the eastern side of forward bundhs and not suppose to Burdhi or Baramadi & the land of Rect. No.106, 115, 116, 125, 126, 133 & 132 is at the intersection of village Jharoda Majra Burari and Burari. The petitioners have adopted the same evidence as led in similar reference i.e. LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal Vs UOI & Anr. This reference court, after having considered all the materials placed on record, has already decided the case of Raj Bal (Supra) on 14.07.2008. Now, I have referred to the award/ judgment dt. 14.07.2008 while deciding this reference. The petitioners, in the case of Raj Bal (Supra), examined Sh.Suraj Bhan, Halka Patwari, village Burari, D/C Office (North), Civil Lines, Delhi as PW2 and deposed that he has seen the land under acquisition. The entire land under acquisition is cultivable land. In some portion of the acquired land, there are orchards and the possession of the same taken over. PW2 further deposed that the entire land under acquisition was Do Fasli (two crops) land. During cross examination, PW2 deposed that there is no Yamuna river in village Burari. As per record, there is no bundh towards the eastern side of the acquired land. River Yamuna is towards east at a distance of about 1 ½ kms from the acquired land and the distance which PW2 stated is from the boundary of village Burari towards Sabhapur. PW3 in Raj Bal case proved on record the report prepared by Dr.Murari Lal, Director, Horticulture on 22.09.2004 as Ex.PW1/1. The petitioners therein also filed the report of the consolidation authorities. On the aspect of consolidation proceedings, the petitioners therein also examined Sh.Rajender Prakash, Office Kanungo, Tehsil Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi as PW4 who proved the field book as Ex.PW4/1 (93 sheets) according to which the lands placed in category A & B were having the same standard value of 12 annas, therefore, having the same potential value i.e. agricultural land. 15 The counsel for the petitioners, in support of his case, has relied upon the same judgments as relied upon by him in Raj Bal case (Supra). In the judgement reported as Sham Krishan Chandiwala & Anr. Vs Union of India (1978) 14 DLT 83, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that :
''In our opinion, the distinction has no relevance because the acquisition was for Planned Development of Delhi and the potentiality of the land would be the same whether it was Aabi or Chahi or Rosli.'' In the reported judgment dt. 03.11.1998 titled as Chander Bhan & Ors Vs UOI IX (1998) SLT 27, a large extent of land in village Rangpuri near Palam Airport was notified for acquisition vide notification dt.
03.12.1971 issued u/sec. 4 of the LA Act for Planned Development of Delhi. Simultaneously, notifications dt. 03.12.1971 were also issued for acquisition of land in village Nangal Dewat and Shahbad Mohd. Pur.
Some plots of land of village Rangpuri were acquired vide award no.94/197273 dt. 12.03.1973. The LAC while assessing the market value of the acquired land covered by the aforesaid award divided the said land into two blocks and fixed Rs.3,300/ and Rs.2,200/ per bigha for block A & blockB respectively. The claimants being dissatisfied with the offer of compensation preferred reference petitions u/sec. 18 of the LA Act. The Ld. ADJ enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,800/ per bigha in respect of blockA and Rs. 3,200/ in respect of blockB. However, the appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Ld. ADJ preferred appeals before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court assessed the market value of the appellants acquired land at Rs.13,000/ per bigha. Still not satisfied with the rates of compensation determined by the Hon'ble High Court. The Appellants came to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing special writ petitions. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
''The High Court in the said case awarded uniform compensation @ Rs.13,000/ per bigha. In the present case, it was found by the High Court that the acquired land in village Nangal Dewat and the appellants' land are similarly situated, therefore, the rates of compensation should be uniform. Accordingly, the High Court assessed the market value of the land at Rs.13,000/ per bigha. Thus, according to us the judgment of the High Court under appeal is neither perverse nor illegal and does not call for any interference, since it is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and proper application of law to the established facts.'' In the reported judgment dt. 03.02.1995 titled as Rameshwar Solanki & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr. 57 (1995) DLT 410 (DB), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that :
''Counsel for the appellant has stated that in a number of cases, this court has decided that when large scale acquisition is made and the entire village is acquired for planned development, it would be appropriate to take the entirety of the land of the village as one unit, and not determine the market value of the land, of each of the land holders in the entire village. In other words, that the acquisition price for the village has to be at a uniform rate. For this purpose, reference is made to (1997 44 DLT 342 (DB), (Chet Ram and others V. Union of India). We are in agreement with this contention of the appellant that the land in the village having been acquired for planned development of Delhi, should be paid for at the uniform rate.'' In the reported judgment dt. 19.04.1991 titled as Chet Ram & Ors. Vs UOI 44 (1991) DLT 378 (DB), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that :
''Fixing different rates in respect of land situated in the same revenue estate acquired by the same notification is not justified.''
16 In the judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos. in the case entitled as Sh.Mahender Singh Vs UOI & Ors., it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that :
''....The categorisation of land has weighed heavily with the Collector and even the reference Court in providing different market value for the acquired land. In fact the Collector on a wrong assumption has noticed in his award that inferior quality of land relating to alleged pits and gaddas to the depth of 3 fit were there on the land and expenditure was incurred in filling up the same, therefore, the value of category B land has been fixed at a lower rate. The Collector or the Court could arrive at these findings only on the basis of evidence on record. As already noticed, there was no evidence before them on record of the case file. The respondents have failed to support the findings of the Collector in regard to categorisation of land in the revenue estate of village Bawana by any reliable, cogent and admissible evidence.
41 In view of our afore discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment under appeal to some extent suffers from factual and errors or law. As a court of appeal, these errors must be corrected. We hold that the claimants are entitled to the following reliefs:
(a) The order maintaining the categorisation of the acquired land into groups A and B is set aside. All claimants, whose lands have been acquired vide notification dated 15th November, 1996 in the revenue estate of village Bawana would be entitled to uniform rate of compensation.
(b) The claimants would be entitled to increase in the awarded amount of comepnsation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November, 1996 (the date of notification under section 4 under the Act) @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the Reference Court/ Collector that would roughly give them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68 p. Per bigha.....'' In the reported judgment in LPA No.279 of 1984 as Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs Punjab State through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab, PWDB & R, Jullundur & Ors 148 the Punjab Law Reporter (Vol. CI19921), it was held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that :
''The courts of law would generally be disinclined to categorise the land and would be inclined to evaluate the entire land at a flat rate whenever it has got the potentialities for being used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The factum of the land being situated in a compact block is another consideration which must weigh with the court to do away with the belting system. The location of the land in urban area is another factor leading towards the grant of flat rate when the entire land is acquired by one notification. Even suburban properties near or around the Municipal Town can have the same potentilaities until and unless evidence to the contrary is produced.'' Generally, orchard starts to develop at least 10 to 12 years and no evidence has been filed by the respondents that the land under acquisition are low laying. The counsel for the petitioners - herein on the aspect of orchard over the acquired land has also relied upon the judgment reported as Joginder Singh Saini Vs State of Haryana & Anr AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 171.
17 Whereas the counsel for the respondents, in support of their arguments, have also relied upon the same judgments which were relied upon in the case of Raj Bal (Supra). In the judgment dt.19.03.1996 reported as Ludhiana Improvement Trust Vs Brijeshwar Singh Chhal & Anr. (1996) 9 SCC 188, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
''Belting is a fair principle to determine just and adequate compensation lest unjust award would ensure. When a large extent of land is acquired, land abutting the roads or developed area and interior land do not command the same market value. When it is proved that the lands are situated in a lowlying area, obviously the lands situated at a levelled area would command higher market rate than the lands situated in a lowlying area.'' In the reported judgment dt. 25.10.1996 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.14553 of 1996 in the case entitled as Smt.Indira Sohan Lal (dead) by LRs Vs. UOI AIR 1997 SC 1907, it was held that :
''Grant of uniform lower rate for lands in which there are deep pits of an extent of 8 to 10 feet is proper in absence of any compelling material.'' In the reported judgment dt. 25.07.1995 titled as Topandas Kundanmal, since deceased thereafter by his heirs and LRs & Ors. Vs State through the Land Acquisition Officer, Jamnagar & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 336, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
''Burden lies on claimant to prove prevailing market value as on the date of notification. Determination of market value on square foot basis is improper unless it is established that the acquired lands are situated in already highly developed residential or industrial area where regular sales are on square foot basis.'' In the reported judgment dt. 17.08.2007 titled as Gafar & Ors. Vs Moradabad Development Authority & Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 614, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
''Burden is on claimants to establish that compensation awarded to them was not adequate. The use to which the authorities intended to put the land has to be discarded while determining compensation.''
18 The LAC has himself admitted in the award Ex.R1 that the entire land is agricultural land i.e. Do Fasli which has not been contradicted by any evidence on behalf of the respondents. The LAC has not distinguished as to how the land was purely agricultural and semi agricultural and no reasons & basis have been mentioned by the LAC in the award for placing the land in category A & B. The LAC has simply placed the land under acquisition in category A & B on the basis of the award pertaining to Jharoda Majra Burari. Even otherwise, the land placed in category B is the low laying is the creation of the counsel for the respondents. The respondents have not examined any witness showing the truthness of the award/ Ex.R1. Further, no land under acquisition is recorded in the revenue record as Burdhi or Baramadi and no basis has been discussed by the LAC in the award Ex.R1 as to how the aforesaid land is at the intersection of village Jharoda Majra Burari and Burari. The report of the Horticulture Department, Govt. of Delhi Ex.PW1/1 in LAC No.226/1/07 has been considered by the LAC in the award Ex.R1 and the Horticulture Department has itself mentioned in its report that the land situate in this belt is very fertile with best soils for agriculture in Delhi and the orchards have trees of kikkar, neem, mango, ber, popular sehtoot, Jamun, shisham, Guava, etc. meaning thereby, the orchard land is better placed and existence of orchard itself shows that there was never Aviliation - Deviolation, therefore, the land with orchard are not prone to floods. The petitioners herein have proved on record the khasra girdawaries for the year 1996 to 2004 as Ex.P1 collectively which also reveals that the land in question was under
cultivation. PW2 further proved that the entire land under acquisition was Do Fasli (two crops) land and PW2 admitted that there is no Yamuna river in village Burari. PW2 also admitted that as per record, there is no bundh towards the eastern side of the acquired land. River Yamuna is towards east at a distance of about 1 ½ kms from the boundary of village Burari towards Sabhapur. It reveals from the testimony of the aforesaid PW2 that the acquired land was neither prone to floods nor to Aviliation - Deviolation. PW4 in LAC No.226/1/07 entitled Raj Bal Vs UOI proved the field book as Ex.PW4/1 (93 sheets) according to which the lands placed in category A & B were having the same standard value of 12 annas, therefore, having the same potential value i.e. agricultural land. Therefore, in view of the above detailed discussion, evidence led and also the judgments relied upon by the parties in the present reference as well as the similar reference in LAC No. 226/1/07 Raj Bal Vs UOI & Anr., I am of the considered opinion that the standard value and potential of the land placed in B category was also of the Acategory as similarly situate land in Raj Bal case on the date of acquisition u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. Thus, I hold that the petitioner' land is the agricultural land and the petitioners herein are entitled to uniform compensation for the land in question at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre i.e. the rate assessed by the LAC for categoryA land.
19 Now, let us further examine whether the LAC has rightly, sufficiently & reasonably assessed the true market value of the land in question prevailing at the time of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The LAC followed two methods of valuation of land. In one method, the transaction of sales of similar land in nearby vicinity was taken into consideration and it was found that no data as to comparable sales is available making the method inheritant. In the second method, the indicating price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land as Rs.15.70 lacs per acre conveyed by letter No.F9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6704 12 dt. 09.08.2001 was taken into consideration and is taken as the basis for arriving at the market value for different block of land based on Base the indicative price of land agricultural land fixed by Govt. of Delhi. As Rs.15.70 lacs per acre has been taken as the market value of land for category A. For category B, the value of land between forward bunds has been fixed by Delhi Govt. is Rs.5,05,000/ is given.
20 The petitioners herein have adopted in their evidence the same certified copy of the sale deed dt. 09.12.1993 executed by Sh.Ram Kumar S/o Sh.Tara Chand and Sh.Rajesh Kumar in favour of the Motor & General Finance Ltd. which was proved as Ex.PW1/1 in Raj Bal case wherein the agricultural land measuring 5 bighas 7 biswas owned by Sh.Ram Kumar S/o Sh.Tara Chand r/o village Burari, Delhi and the agricultural land measuring 2 bighas 8 biswas owned by Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Kumar r/o village Burari, Delhi total measuring 7 bighas 15 biswas bearing Mustvatil No.19, Killa No.26 situated in the area of village Burari, Delhi was sold to the M/s Motor and General Finance Ltd., a company limited by shares and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 17B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi through its Director Sh.Rajiv Gupta S/o Sh.Ved Prakash Gupta R/o B16, Greater KailashI, New Delhi in consideration of the sum of Rs.39,17,000/. The counsel for the petitioners, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the reported judgment dt. 19.01.1998 titled as Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor Vs L.Kamalamma (Smt) Dead by LRs & Ors K.Krishnamachari & Ors (1998) 2 SCC 385, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
''When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and for away from the main road and may be willing to pay a reasonably higher price for that site. One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the land as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and therefore classification of the same into different categories does not stand to reason.'' 21 In the similar reference in LAC No.226/1/07 titled as Raj Bal Vs UOI, this reference court has also placed a reliance upon the judgment reported in Rani of Vuyyur Vs Collector of Madras, 1969 1, Mad LJ (SC) 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the highest value of sale should be preferred to the rest, unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In State of Rajasthan Vs Jeo Raj & Anr. AIR 1990 Rajasthan 90, sale deeds in respect of comparable lands were considered and it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan that sale deed fetching highest value to be preferred and no reason was given by the authorities for taking into consideration the sale fetching minimum price, therefore, compensation was enhanced. In Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. B.Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that any party supporting or objecting to a transaction recorded in a sale deed whose certified copy has been accepted as evidence by court is free to adduce other evidence to substantiate his stand in respect of the transaction. In the judgment dt. 25.05.2006 in LAAPP No.18991/2006 & CM 4033/2006 titled Jai Singh & Ors Vs UOI & Anr and also in other LAAPP numbers passed by the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi wherein the sale deeds as well as price indicated in the policy of the Govt. have been considered. The relevant part of the aforesaid judgment for fixing the fair market value of the land in question herein reads as under:
''The claimants have also claimed enhancement on the price indicated in the sale instances or even in the policy of the Government as they are quite prior to the issuance of the Notification under section 4 of the Act. They claim 12% increase per annum on the consideration referred to in these documents for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. To support their claim of 12% increase annually, they have relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Rameshwar Solanki & Another Vs. Union of India & Another 57 (1995) DLT 410 (DB). Ex.R2 is the policy declared by the Government on 30.04.1990 fixing the minimum price for acquisition of agricultural land. This price is uniformally applicable to the entire Delhi without exception. Needless to note that is the minimum price and not the fair market value of the acquired land as contemplated under section 23 of the Act.
If claimants are to be given some increase may be 12% per annum then the claimants would be entitled to nearly Rs.1,59,284/ per bigha as the intervening period between the date of notification and the policy of the Government is more than 3 years. It has not been disputed that this policy was subsequently amended and the minimum price of agricultural land has been fixed at Rs.10 lakhs per acre with effect from 01.04.1997, which has already been noticed in a recent judgment of this court in the case of Sh.Mahender Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (LA Appl. No.866/2005 decided on 11.05.2006). The amount stated in this policy only indicates general prevalent price of agricultural land in the opinion of the Government but it necessarily need not be enforced against the Government because it is for the parties to lead evidence in support of their claims and when they led evidence, they have to abide by the result thereof. Sale deeds relating to the acquired land or of the same village is the best piece of evidence where a willing buyer and a willing seller enters into a sale transaction, which otherwise is genuine and is of a reasonable time prior to the acquisition can safely be lodestar for analyzation of the complex issue of determination of fair market value of the land. Besides the judgment referred above, even in the case of Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Vishakapatnam Vs. Smt.A.Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 SC 666 the Supreme Court indicated that the sale transaction of acquired land within a reasonable time would be the best piece of evidence. It is also settled principle of law that reliance upon awards, judgments and even the policy of the Government would be made by the court only in absence of such best evidence. The first and primary method for computation of fair market value of land is relatable to the sale instances of land in the same village. It is also the settled principle that 1/3 market value should be deducted for developments of the land. Even in the cases of A. Mangla Gauri and Rameshwar Solanki (Supra) relied upon by the claimants, 1/3 deduction was held to be just and fair. Ex.P 3 in our opinion could not have been ignored by the Ld. Reference Court. Golden Rule of Averages could have been safely applied by the Reference Court for determining the fair market value of the land. Ex.R4 indicates the value of the agricultural land in village Mundaka @ Rs.1 lakh per bigha. This sale deed was executed on 14.03.1994 i.e. nearly 6 months subsequent to the date of notification dt.
15.10.1993 issued under section 4 of the Act while Ex.P3 was executed on 27.02.1990 whereby the land in village Mundaka was sold for Rs.1,25,000/ per bigha. Giving a reasonable increase on the value reflected in Ex.P3 for the intervening period of 3 years, the amount would come to nearly Rs.1,70,000/ per bigha while reducing the amount of R4 at the same rate for the intervening period of 6 months, the amount would come to Rs.94,000/ per bigha and average of both of them would give market value of Rs.1,32,000/ per bigha.'' 22 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid case of Jai Singh & Ors (Supra) has held that the sale deeds relating to the acquired land or of the same village are the best piece of evidence which should be of the reasonable time prior to the acquisition but the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner herein is of the year 1993 which is much prior to the date of notification i.e. 18.07.2003. As per the said judgment in the case of Rani of Vuyyur (Supra), there are the strong circumstances justifying a different course in the present reference i.e. indicative price fixed by the Govt. vide letter dt. 09.08.2001 which are within a reasonable time of the notification dt. 18.07.2003 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act in this reference. Therefore, the said sale deed executed on 09.12.1993 proved as Ex.PW1/1 in Raj Bal case, in my considered opinion & in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, cannot be considered as the genuine sale transaction for fixing the fair market value of the acquired land in question as on 18.07.2003.
23 The petitioners in the case of Raj Bal also proved the sale deed dt. 15.09.2006 as Ex.PW1/3 thereby the land measuring 3 bighas 3 biswas i.e. 1/8th share of the land measuring 25 bighas 5 biswas out of khasra nos.22/10 (416), 11 (416), 19/2 (209), 20 (416), 21 (504) & 22/2 (304) situate in the revenue estate of village Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi was sold to Ram Avtar S/o Sh.Chaman Lal R/o H63, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi by Sh.Ramesh Malik S/o late Sh.Jhanda Ram R/o 662/1, ward No.21, Gurgaon, Haryana for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/. The petitioners in Raj Bal case further proved the registered sale deed dt. 03.09.2007 as Ex.PW1/4 executed by (1) Sh.Ram Kumar S/o late Sh. Chand Kiran (2) Sh.Dharambir Singh & (3) Sh. Sukhbir Singh - both sons of late Sh.Sohan Lal (¾ share) (4) Sh. Bal Kishore & (5) Sh.Manoj Kumar - both sons of late Sh.Tara Chand (¼ share) - all residents of village & Post office Burari, Delhi in favour of Sh.Ripudaman Tyagi S/o late Sh.Ram Nath Tyagi R/o A805, Shastri Nagar, Delhi52 thereby the land measuring 4 bigha 16 biswas bearing Khasra No.36/2 (416) situate in the revenue estate of village Burari, Delhi was sold for a sum of Rs.90,00,000/. The petitioners in Raj Bal case also proved the registered sale deed dt. 03.09.2007 as Ex.PW1/5 executed by (1) Sh.Ram Kumar S/o late Sh. Chand Kiran (2) Sh.Dharambir Singh & (3) Sh. Sukhbir Singh - both sons of late Sh.Sohan Lal (¾ share) (4) Sh. Bal Kishore & (5) Sh.Manoj Kumar - both sons of late Sh.Tara Chand (¼ share) - all residents of village & Post office Burari, Delhi in favour of Sh.Ripudaman Tyagi S/o late Sh.Ram Nath Tyagi R/o A805, Shastri Nagar, Delhi52 thereby the land measuring 3 bigha 7 biswas bearing Khasra No.21/22/1 (307) situate in the revenue estate of village Burari, Delhi was sold for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/. Since the aforesaid sale deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5 pertains to the years 2006 & 2007 respectively which have been executed after the land in question acquired on 18.07.2003, therefore, the aforesaid sale deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5 which are of subsequent years have not been considered for fixing the fair market value as on 18.07.2003 in Raj Bal case, therefore, the same are also not considered for the land in question which is similarly situated in the present reference.
24 The petitioner in the case of Raj Bal (Supra) further proved the certified copies of the agreement to sell & purchase and the statements filed & recorded in evidence respectively in LAC No.140/1/06 entitled Sh.Ramesh Chand Vs UOI as Ex.PW1/6 (colly) which pertains to the issue involved therein for enhancement in compensation of the acquired land situate at Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi vide the award no.5/2000. The agreement to sell and purchase markA & B in Ex.PW1/6 (colly) which were filed in the above said reference are the photocopies and the same are unregistered. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of J.C. Mehra (Supra) has held that sale transactions are different from mere agreement to sell since such transactions are accompanied with other documents including GPA, SPA, Will, Affidavits and full consideration is paid. Whereas, in the said reference i.e. LAC No.140/1/06 only the agreement to sell markA & B were executed which cannot be treated as sale transaction. Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of J.C. Mehra (Supra), I hold that the above said agreement to sell and purchase dt. 15.10.1999 i.e. MarkA & B which is also exhibited in the present reference as Ex.PW1/2 cannot also be taken into consideration as the basis for fixing the fair market value of the land acquired as on 18.07.2003.
25 Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have filed in evidence the photocopy of the registered sale deed dt. 22.05.2003 vide regd. no.2380 in Book no.1, volume no.765, pages from 162 to 171 as MarkA. In MarkA, the land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas out of khasra no.1/17 (014), 14/5 (016) situate in the area of village Kamalpur Majra Burari, Delhi as per revenue records was sold for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,000/ only. The sale deed MarkA pertains to different village, therefore, it cannot be considered for fixing the fair market value of the land in question. The counsel for the respondents in Raj Bal case have also proved on record the certified copy of the sale deed for the land measuring 1 bigha (1000 sq. yards) of village Burari, Delhi for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ executed by Smt.Bimla Devi W/o Sh.Sukhbir Singh in favour of Sh.Birender Yadav S/o Sh.Bishwanath Yadav vide regd. no.345 in book no.1, volume no.683 entered in page nos. 75 to 80 on 21.01.2003 as Ex.R/X1. The certified copy of sale deed for the land measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas out of khasra no.53/2/2 (115) & 53/3 (404) situate at village Burari for a sum of Rs.6,32,000/ executed by Sh.Ram Phal & Ors in favour of Smt.Nisha Tyagi W/o Sh.Hariom Tyagi vide regd. no.5996 in book no.1, volume no.906, at page nos. 188 to 197 on 22.11.2003 as Ex.R/X2 and certified copy of sale deed for the land measuring 2 bighas 10 biswas 5 biswansi vide khasra no.116/15/2 (116) & 115/10 (01405) situate in village Burari, Delhi for a sum of Rs.2,65,651/ executed by Sh.Daya Nand & Ors in favour of Smt.Shobha Tyagi W/o Sh.Tilak Ram Tyagi & Smt.Usha Tyagi W/o Sh.Raj Bal Tyagi vide regd. no.32, book no.1, volume no.937 at page nos.120 to 127 on 02.01.2004 as Ex.R/X3. The photocopies of the aforesaid sale deeds have also been filed on record and exhibited as Ex.R/X1 to Ex.R/X3 in the present reference. Ex.R/X1 pertains to the same village i.e. Burari which was executed prior to the acquisition of the land in question. So far as Ex.R/X2 & Ex.R/X3 are concerned, these sale deeds were executed after the acquisition of the land in question. It is pertinent to mention here that the Joint Secretary (L&B), Delhi Administration, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi vide the letter dt. 03.05.1990 addressed to the ADM (LA), Tis Hazari, Delhi regarding fixation of minimum price of agricultural land in the Union Territory of Delhi has also considered and observed that it has been noticed that the LACs while determining the rates of compensation for lands being acquired under the LA Act determine the rate of compensation primarily on the basis of the average of sale deeds registered. Since there is a serious problem of undervaluation of land for the purpose of registration of sale deeds, the compensation received by the farmers/ landowners from the LACs for lands being acquired for public purposes is much below the market price. In the present reference, the LAC fixed the market value of the category A land at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre vide the award in question and I have already held above that the land in question is of category A land, meaning thereby, the fair market value of the land in question was at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre as on 18.07.2003, therefore, the above mentioned sale deeds proved by the respondents can not also be considered which are at lower side than the rates fixed by the LAC for category A land.
26 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners herein has relied upon the same arguments which were addressed by him in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioners in their evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioners, for fixing the market value of the acquired land and the reference court agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioners are entitled to increase @ 11.5% per annum on the compensation amount assessed by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for petitioners has relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos. in the case entitled as Sh.Mahender Singh Vs UOI & Ors. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also referred its own judgment dt.27.04.2006 in LAAPP No.91/2005 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Gajraj Singh Vs UOI & Anr wherein it was held that:
''In view of the absence of any documentary evidence on record to the contrary, I find Rs.10.00 lakhs per acre to be the most reasonable price for best kind i.e. the land falling in 'A' block as on 1.4.97. Since originally, it was proposed to increase the price of land @ 10% per annum on and above the price of Rs.4.65 lakhs per acre (fixed by previous decision of govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi which came into effect from 27.04.90) but finally decision was taken to round if off to Rs.10.00 lakhs per acre which effectively gives an increase of about 11.5% per annum compounded. Since the notification under section 4 was issued on 15.11.96 and the price of the land is to be determined on the date of notification under section 4 itself therefore, I have given a compounded increase of about 11.5% per annum upto the financial year 199697 and I, accordingly, determine the market value of the 'A' Block land @ Rs.8,95,200/ per acre or Rs.1,86,500/ per bigha.
As far as assessment of land falling in 'B" block is concerned, attention is required to be paid to the quality of the land. As stated earlier, this land has 'Gadhas' and 'Bhatta Crund''. From this land earth has been taken out for making bricks. It is the general practice to lease out the land to the Bhatta owners who removes earth from the land for making bricks, for a consideration. Thus the landowners have already got some compensation for their land, which has now become of inferior quality. For the assessment of this inferior land, it would be appropriate here that landowners should not be given the amount which they have already received in consideration of removal of earth from their land.
For arriving at this amount, inquiries were made and it came to my notice that for removing earth up 34 feet Rs.1.20 lakh to 1.30 lakh per acre is paid as lease consideration. In a recent award No.1/9798 of village Bawana announced by the undersigned on 4.7.97, I have given a deduction of Rs.1.20 lakh per acre in the market value of 'B' Block land from that of 'A' Block land. As such, I assess the market value of 'A' block land @ Rs.7,75,200/ per acre or Rs.1,61,500/ per bigha. In addition to the market value fixed above, land owner will be entitled to all other benefits as per the provision of the Act.
This also had the approval of the reference court. The apparent defect in the award is that while giving benefit by adding the value of the land @ 11.5% per annum, no benefit has been given to the claimants for the period from 1.4.96 to 15.11.96, the date of acquisition of their land. Seven to eight months is a material period for considering the benefit to be given on an immovable property in the case of compulsive acquisition. The reference court as well as the Collector have accepted that the claimants would be entitled to the advantage in increase of price of their lands@ 11.5% compounded annually as the original price under the old policy was fixed @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre w.e.f. 1.4.90. While, it was raised to Rs.10 lacs per acre w.e.f. 1.4.96. This error is manifest in the impugned judgment and in the award of the Collector. The claimants have been given compensation @ Rs.8,95,200/ per acre while they should have given compensation at the rate computed as per the Collector's award even if maintained @ Rs.9,49,173/ per acre. In terms of the judgments of the High Court and as approved by the Supreme Court in Om Prakash's case (Supra) and by the High Court in Jai Lal's case, the claimants would certainly be entitled to higher compensation than the one awarded by the reference court.'' 27 Since, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid cases i.e. Mahender Singh & Gajraj Singh (Supra) has given compounded increase @ 11.5% annually on the compensation awarded, therefore, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the award/ judgment dt. 14.07.2008 passed by this reference in LAC No.226/1/07 entitled Raj Bal Vs UOI & Anr. Thus, I hold that the petitioners herein are entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually on the compensation amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the land in question as per their shares from the date i.e. 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003 which roughly comes to the total enhanced compensation of Rs.19,20,568/ per acre (total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/ per acre Rs.5,05,000/ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/ per acre enhanced) as on 18.07.2003. The petitioners have not led any evidence for other claims as averred in the reference petition, therefore, they are not entitled for the same. These issues are answered accordingly.
RELIEF 28 In view of my findings on the above issues, the petitioners are entitled to compensation for category A land as per their shares at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre and the petitioners are also entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually from the date i.e. 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003. Therefore, I fix the market value at Rs.19,20,568/ per acre as on 18.07.2003 (i.e. total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/ per acre Rs.5,05,000/ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/ per acre enhanced) of the land bearing khasra nos.126/14 (416), 7/2 (208), 133/3 (416), 4 (416), 126/15 (416), 16/1 (008), 16/2 (113), 17 (416), 6 (414), 127/11 (401), 12/1/2 (117), 20/3 (210 ½), 10/2 (018), 126/16/3 (215) situate at village Burari, Delhi as per the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act vide the award no.2/200506. Besides it, the petitioners shall also be entitled to get additional amount u/sec. 23 (1A) of LA Act @ 12% per annum on the said increase from the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier. The petitioners shall also get solatium u/sec. 23 (2) of LA Act @ 30% on the said increase in compensation and interest u/sec. 28 of LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation i.e. increase awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex court titled Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. This reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 22.07.2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
LAC No. 171/1/07
22.07.2008
Present None
Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/22.07.2008