Delhi District Court
Kanwal Singh vs . Uoi on 24 April, 2012
LAC. No. 91/10
Kanwal Singh Vs. UOI
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAMTA TAYAL, ADJ:
SOUTH WEST: NEW DELHI
LAC. No. 91/10
Village : Bamnoli
Award No. : 1/2007-2008
In the matter of:-
Sh. Kanwal Singh
S/o Sh. Inder Singh
R/o Village & P.O Bamnoli,
New Delhi
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
South-West District, Kapashera,
New Delhi
2. DDA
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A Market
Delhi
...Respondents
Filed on : 07.12.2010
Reserved on : 28.04.2012
Decided on : 24.04.2012
J U D G M E N T :-
1. This is a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Vide notification under Section 4 of LA Act dated LAC No: 91/10 1 24.04.2012 LAC. No. 91/10 Kanwal Singh Vs. UOI 04.11.2004 and Section 6 of LA Act dated 31.10.2005, 2100 bigha and 06 Biswa of land forming part of village Bamnoli was notified for acquisition for Planned Development of Delhi.
3. The Collector categorized the land in two blocks. In block A, the land was leveled/ low lying upto the depth of 1 meter. In Block B such land was included from which 'top soil' had been excavated beyond 1 meter. Block B comprises of only 50 bigha and 13 biswa of land.
4. For determining the market value of the land with reference to the date of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act, the collector relied upon the indicative price fixed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land in Delhi @ Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre as conveyed by the Dy. Secretary ( L.A) Land Building department vide letter No. F-9 (2000)/ L & B / LA/ 6704-12 dated 09.08.2001. Therefore, market value of the land under acquisition was determined @ Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre in block A and market value of land in block B was fixed @ Rs. 14,13,000 per acre i.e less by 10% of value of land in Block A.
5. Petitioner is bhumidar of land mentioned in statement under Section 19 of LA Act i.e. 11//4/2/2(1-2) full share in village Bamnoli. This statement was admitted as correct by the Counsel for the petitioner. The possession of land in question was taken on 12.09.07. Aggrieved by market value of his land as determined by the collector, petitioner has filed the present reference petition for enhancement of compensation
6. Union of India and DDA filed their written LAC No: 91/10 2 24.04.2012 LAC. No. 91/10 Kanwal Singh Vs. UOI statements opposing any enhancement of compensation.
7. On pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether DLR Act is applicable to the land in question, if yes, its effect? OPD
(ii) What was the market value of the land in question? OPP
(iii) Relief.
8. Six witnesses in all were examined on behalf of petitioner to establish his claim. PW1 is Planning Assistant, Director Planning, Dwarka. He proved the possession plan of 750 Mega Watt gas based power plant and Zonal Development Plan as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 respectively. PW2 is Superintendent, L & DO who proved the schedule of market rates as Ex.PW2/1. Naib Tehsildar, L & DO, as PW3, proved the record of minimum price fixed by Delhi Administration for agricultural land in Delhi. LDC, Institutional Branch, DDA, as PW4, proved the allotment letter in respect of allotment of land for 750 MW power plant as Ex.PW4/A. Halka Patwari, office of SDM Vasant Vihar was summoned to prove Aksizra of village Bamnoli and village Bharthal as Ex.PW5/1 and Ex.PW5/2 respectively. The petitioner examined himself in support of his reference petition as PW6.
9. On behalf of respondent Union of India, Shri J.R. Mathur, advocate from office of LAC had tendered award as Ex. R1, photocopies of certified copy of sale deeds dated 25.10.2004 and 20.04.2004 as Ex. R2 and Ex.R3 respectively towards respondent evidence. RE was closed by UOI. DDA LAC No: 91/10 3 24.04.2012 LAC. No. 91/10 Kanwal Singh Vs. UOI had adopted the evidence led by Union of India.
10. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties at length, perused the entire records and carefully considered the matter.
11. So far as the market value of land in question is concerned, it is noted that the petitioner has himself relied upon the judgment of reference court delivered in another case bearing LAC No. 93/09/08 titled as "Jai Parkash Vs. Union of India" decided by Ld. Predecessor on 25.08.2010. Vide said judgment the market value of land of village Bamnoli, acquired by same award, was held to be Rs. 17,45,000 per acre. It is an undisputed fact that the said judgment was assailed before Hon'ble High Court in LA appeal no. 115/11 by both the land owners as well as Union of India. The appeals emanating from judgment of reference court dated 25.08.2010 were decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 01.02.2012 whereby the compensation awarded by the reference court for Block `A' land as 17,45,000 per acre was upheld. In the light of these settled facts, my findings on above issues are as follows:-
12. ISSUE NO. 1: In view of judgment passed in case of 'Jai Prakash Vs. Union of India and another' by Ld. Predecessor and as affirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
13. ISSUE NO. 2: As noticed herein above, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of LAC No: 91/10 4 24.04.2012 LAC. No. 91/10 Kanwal Singh Vs. UOI Jai Prakash ( Supra). All the evidence which is brought on record in this case is already considered in the case of Jai Prakash (Supra) and there is no new evidence to persuade the Court to take a different view in this reference. No evidence showing that the land of petitioner is better than the land involved in the case of Jai Prakash has been brought on record by the petitioner. Similarly no evidence showing that the land of petitioner is inferior in any aspect than the land referred to in case of Jai Prakash has been adduced by the respondents. Therefore, in the present reference market value of land in question shall be the same as was determined by Ld. Predecessor and as has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court for Block 'A' land as the land of petitioner in reference under Section 18 of LA Act has been reflected as Category A land.
14. ISSUE NO. 3 : Relief -
In view of foregoing discussion, petitioner is held entitled to following reliefs:-
i. Petitioner is entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 17,45,000/- per acre i.e. an increase of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre.
ii. Petitioner is entitled to receive additional amount @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
iii. Petitioner is entitled to receive solatium @ 30% on the enhanced compensation under Section 23 (2) of LA Act.
iv. Petitioner is entitled to receive interest @ 9% per annum for first year from date of possession and @ 15% per annum for subsequent period LAC No: 91/10 5 24.04.2012 LAC. No. 91/10 Kanwal Singh Vs. UOI till payment.
v. Petitioner is entitled to benefit of Sunder vs. Union of India: 93 (2001) DLT 153.
15. The reference is answered accordingly. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the LAC(SW) for information and necessary action. Decree sheet be prepared in terms of judgment and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (MAMTA TAYAL)
on the day of 24th April 2012 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
LAC No: 91/10 6 24.04.2012