Delhi District Court
Surajmal vs . Uoi on 16 January, 2007
(1) LAC NO. 50/06
Surajmal Vs. UOI
IN THE COURT OF A.K.MENDIRATTA : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE : DELHI
LAC NO. 50/06
Sh.Surajmal
S/o Sh.Jeet Ram
R/o Village & PO Tikrikalan, Delhi. ..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector (West)
Rampura, Delhi.
2. Delhi Vidyut Board
Now Delhi Transco Ltd.
Through its Chairman, Shakti Sadan, Delhi ...........Respondents
Award No. : 2/DCW/2004-05
Village : Tikrikalan
Notification u/s 4 : 17.12.02
Date of Award : 20.9.04
JUDGMENT :-
1. Petitioner's land situated in village Tikrikalan as referred in statement u/s 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was acquired vide award no. 2/DCW/2004-05 by the Government after adopting due procedure as prescribed under the Act. In total land measuring 480 bighas 12 biswas was notified u/s 4 of the Act on Cont..........
(2) LAC NO. 50/06Surajmal Vs. UOI 17.12.02. The land was acquired for public purpose, namely construction of 400 / 220 KV Grid sub-station at village Tikrikalan. Declaration u/s 6 of the Act was issued vide notification dated 11.12.03. After considering the claims filed by the interested persons, pursuant to the notices issued u/s 9 and 10 of the Act, LAC assessed the market value of the land falling in Block A @ Rs.15,70,000/- per acre. The land falling in Block B ( i.e the land from which the earth had been removed upto 2 - 3 ft. in depth ) was assessed @ Rs.14,00,000/- per acre.
LAC assessed the market value of the land on the basis of policy of Government of Delhi dated 09.8.01, whereby the minimum indicative price of agricultural land was fixed at Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre w.e.f. 01.4.01.
LAC observed that land under acquisition is agricultural and is being used for agricultural as well as bhatta purpose. Further the land was having "ghaddas" (i.e. pits) upto 2-3 feet, as the soil had been removed for making bricks. The LAC further observed that the land owners had already obtained the consideration for removal of earth from their land and the same required to be leveled before it is put to use. He also noted that an amount of Rs. 1.5 to Rs. 2 lacs per acre is paid as consideration for removal of earth upto 2-3 feet. In view of above, land from which earth had been removed upto 2-3 feet was classified in B category and was valued @ Rs. 14,00,000/- per acre after deducting an amount @ Rs. 1.70 lacs per acre from the value of land Cont..........
(3) LAC NO. 50/06Surajmal Vs. UOI classified in A category.
2. Dis-satisfied by the land rates fixed by the LAC, petitioner preferred a reference petition u/s 18 of the Act before the LAC who in turn referred the same to this court for fixing just and fair market value of the land.
The case of the petitioner is that land was yielding about three crops in a year and surrounded by Industrial Houses and Commercial complexes. Further Ghewra Railway Station is stated to be about 2 kms. from the acquired land. The rate of land in village Hirankudna and in vicinity is stated to be much more than assessed by the LAC. The rate of land is accordingly claimed @ Rs.2000/- per sq. yard alongwith compensation on other grounds as detailed in the petition.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of UOI it was submitted that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in question. It was also submitted that the land is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and could be used only for agricultural purposes. The assessment is stated to have been correctly made by the LAC after considering all the relevant factors.
Similar stand was adopted by Delhi Transco Ltd.
Cont..........
(4) LAC NO. 50/06Surajmal Vs. UOI
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
ISSUES
1. What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act?
2. To what enhancement in compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled ?
3. Relief
5. Petitioner tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and the averments made in the reference were reiterated on oath. Petitioner therein also relied upon various sale deeds and awards which are detailed as under:-
Mark A is copy of sale deed dated 23.4.93 executed by Sh.Bimla Kumari in favour of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. with respect to sale of one bigha of land in Village Ghewara for consideration of Rs.3,02,400/-.
Mark B is Masawi index of village Tikrikalan alongiwth English Translation Mark C. Mark C1 is copy of Award no. 20/83-84 village Ghewara.
Mark D is copy of award no. 45/82-83 village Ghewara. Mark E is copy of Award no. 91/83-84 village Ghewara. Mark F is copy of Award No. Cont..........(5) LAC NO. 50/06
Surajmal Vs. UOI 4/DCW/98-99 village Tikrikalan. Mark G is schedule of market rates dated 11.2.92. Mark H is copy of judgment passed in RFA No. 185/89 entitled Ganpat Vs. UOI. Mark I is copy of judgment passed in RFA No. 751/99 entitled Jasrath Vs. UOI.
6. Respondent UOI in support of its case tendered in evidence Award alongwith policy of Government of Delhi dated 09.8.01 whereby minimum price of agricultural land was fixed @ Rs.15,70,000/- per acre w.e.f. 01.4.01. Same are exhibited as Ex. R1 & R2 with the consent of the parties.
7. I have heard Counsel for the petitioner, respondents and perused the record carefully. My issue wise findings are as under :-
8. ISSUE NO. 1 & 2 :- Before I proceed to consider the contention on merits it may be appropriate to mention that while disposing LAC NO. 51/04 entitled Pratap Singh vs. UOI decided on 22.12.05 pertaining to award no. 2/97-98 village Tikrikalan, I had taken note of the fact that various awards within a short duration of time have been passed in village Tikrikalan. The details of various awards passed and the rates of land assessed by the LAC may be relevant to show that considerable land in village Tikrikalan is under acquisition. The details of various awards pending consideration before this court and the market value assessed therein may be Cont..........
(6) LAC NO. 50/06
Surajmal Vs. UOI detailed as under :-
S. No Awd No Dt of notf. Market Value of Land Enh. by ref. court
1. 2/97-98 24.07.95/22.8.95 Rs. 8,06,400/- per acre No enhancement
2. 17/97-98 16.11.95 Rs. 8,06,400/- per acre Rs.8,30,592/-per acre
3. 18/97-98 16.11.95 Rs. 8,06,400/- per acre Rs.8,30,592/-per acre
4. 1/98-99 24.07.95 Rs. 8,06,400/- per acre No enhancement
5. 3/98-99 12.08.97 Rs. 10 lacs per acre for A Block & Rs.10,43,397/- per acre for Block A. Rs. 8.8 lacs per acre for B Block Rs. 9,18,189/- per acre for Block B
6. 4/98-99 11.06.96 Rs. 8,06,400/- per acre for A Block Rs.8,83,814/- per acre Rs. 6,86,400/- per acre for B Block Rs.7,63,814/- per acre
7. 3/99-00 17.02.98 Rs. 10 lacs per acre Rs.11,05,863/- per acre
8. 17/2000-01 07.09.98 Rs. 10 lacs per acre
9. 1/DCW/02-03 24.08.99 Rs. 12.16 lacs per acre
9. The rate of land in Award no. 2/97-98 village Tikrikalan wherein land was notified u/s 4 of the Act on 22.8.95 was assessed by LAC @ Rs. 8,06,400/- per acre or Rs. 1,68,000/- per bigha for the land falling in Block A (i.e. leveled land) and @ Rs.6,06,432/- per acre or Rs. 1,26,340/- per bigha for the land falling in Block B (i.e the land from which the land had been removed). The assessment had been made by the LAC on the basis of policy dated 03.5.90 whereby minimum rate of agricultural land was fixed at Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre and he further granted an enhancement at the rate of 11.5% compounded from 27.4.90 till 31.3.95. No further enhancement over the rate of land awarded by the LAC was granted by this court.
The land in the award no. 18/97-98 village Tikrikalan was notified u/s 4 of the Act on 16.11.95. The rate of land in the aforesaid case was also assessed by the LAC @ Rs.8,06,400/- per acre relying upon the rate Cont..........
(7) LAC NO. 50/06Surajmal Vs. UOI assessed in Award no. 2/97-98 referred to above. However the rate of land has been enhanced by this court vide a detailed judgment passed in LAC No. 340/04 entitled Jai lal vs. UOI decided on 18.4.06 after granting an increase @ 12% from 22.8.95 (i.e date of notification u/s 4 in Award No. 2/97-98) till 16.11.95. The rate of land has been assessed at Rs. 8,30,592/- per acre or Rs. 1,73,040/- per bigha.
It may also be mentioned that about 502 bighas and 3 biswas of land in village Tikrikalan was acquired vide Award no. 17/97-98 and the same was also notified u/s 4 of the Act on 16.11.95. The land in aforesaid Award was acquired for settlement of PVC dealers of Jawala Puri under planned development of Delhi. The rate of land in the aforesaid award has been also assessed in LAC no. 274/04 entitled Tej Singh Vs. UOI decided on 06.3.06 @ Rs.8.30,592/- per acre or Rs.1,73,040/- per bigha after granting enhancement @ 12% p.a. from 22.8.95 (i.e date of notification u/s 4 in Award No. 2/97-98) till 16.11.95.
I have also decided award no. 3/DCW/98-99 Village Tikrikalan vide LAC No. 396/04 entitled Surender Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. wherein land was notified u/s 4 of the Act on 12.8.97. The rate of land in the aforesaid case was assessed by the LAC at the rate of Rs. 10 Lacs per acre or Rs. 2,08,333/- per bigha for land falling in Block A on the basis of policy of Cont..........
(8) LAC NO. 50/06Surajmal Vs. UOI Government of Delhi w.e.f. 1.4.97 whereby minimum price of agricultural land was fixed at aforesaid rates. The land falling in Block B was assessed at Rs.8,80,000/- per acre or Rs. 1,83,333/- per bigha (i.e the land from which the earth had been removed upto 3-4 ft. in depth). The rate of land was enhanced by this court to Rs. 10,43,397/- per acre or Rs. 2,17,374/- per bigha for the land falling in Block A after granting enhancement @ 12% p.a. from 1.4.97 till 12.8.97 (i.e date of notification u/s 4 in aforesaid case). The rate of land for Block B was assessed at Rs. 9,18,189/- per acre or Rs. 1,91,289/- per bigha.
I have also decided Award no. 3/DCW/99-00 Village Tikrikalan vide LAC No. 412/04 entitled Renu Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. on 08.5.06 wherein land was notified u/s 4 of the Act on 17.2.98. The rate of land in the aforesaid case was assessed by the LAC at the rate of Rs. 10 Lacs per acre or Rs. 2,08,333/- per bigha on the basis of policy of Government of Delhi w.e.f. 1.4.97 whereby minimum price of agricultural land was fixed at aforesaid rates. The rate of land was enhanced by this court to Rs. 11,05,863/- per acre or Rs. 2,30,388/- per bigha after granting enhancement @ 12% p.a. from 01.4.97 till 17.2.98 (i.e date of notification u/s 4 in aforesaid case).
10. Before the arguments are considered by me in detail, it may be observed that when large scale acquisition is made and substantial area is required for planned development it would be appropriate to Cont..........
(9) LAC NO. 50/06
Surajmal Vs. UOI take the entire acquired area as one unit and not to determine the value of the land of each of the land holders in the entire village. When the compensation is being worked out for a large area it is possible that some areas have greater advantage while some of the areas may be less beneficial. In such eventuality it has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court to determine compensation for the entire land. However the differentiation in the value of the land can be maintained wherein earth has been removed for bhatta purposes as the land owners already stand compensated for the sale of earth with respect to the said land. Further expenses are also required to be incurred by the acquiring department for purpose of leveling the land.
11. Now I proceed to consider the sale deeds relied by the parties for purpose of determination of the price of land on the date of notification u/s 4.
The sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner are represented below in chart for proper appreciation of the value of land.
S.No. Exhibits Date Village Land Consideration Stamp Total Land Cost
of SD involved of sale deed Duty Cost Per bigha
1. Mark A 23.4.93 Ghevra 1 Big. 3,02,400/- 24,210/- 3,26,610/- 3,26,610/-
12. In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1996) 2 SCC 152, their Lordships have Cont..........
( 10 ) LAC NO. 50/06Surajmal Vs. UOI categorically observed 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 said 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.'' Since the instances of sale in land in village Tikrikalan are available the sale prices of the land in village Ghewara is not required to be looked into. Further it has not been proved on record incase the potentiality and quality of land in village Ghevra is the same as that of village Tikrikalan and as such the sale deeds pertaining to village Ghevra Mark A cannot be relied upon to assess the market value in village Tikrikalan. In view of above the rate of land in village Ghewara need not be adverted to and the rate of land is required to be assessed on the basis of sale deeds executed in village Tikrikalan itself.
Cont..........( 11 ) LAC NO. 50/06
Surajmal Vs. UOI
13. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High court in RFA No. 185/89 entitled Ganpat Vs. UOI (Mark H) pertains to fixation of market value of land in village Nangloi Jat notified u/s 4 on 22.8.73 at the rate of Rs. 27,000/- per bigha. The aforesaid judgment is also not of much help to the petitioner as village Nangloi Jat is situated at a far times advantageous location on NH 10. The value in the aforesaid case was assessed on the basis of the sale instances of smaller plots which also kept in consideration the fact that 2 colonies had come in settlement in the near by area resulting in considerable increase in prices. The said judgment as such is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Mark I is the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in RFA No. 751/94 entitled Jasrath vs. UOI pertaining to fixation of market value of land in village Rithala. The rate of land assessed with respect to village Rithala is not relevant for assessment of value of land in village Tikrikalan as the sale deeds and awards pertaining this village itself are available for consideration and have been referred in earlier awards and references by this Court.
14. The counsel for petitioner has urged that the land in village Tikrikalan has been continuously under acquisition as per various Awards detailed above for purpose of settlement of PVC market and as Cont..........
( 12 ) LAC NO. 50/06Surajmal Vs. UOI such there was continuous rise in prices in the area. It is also urged that the LAC failed to grant any increase in prices of land from 01.4.2001 till 17.12.2002 for a period of about 20 months and 17 days and assessed the value of land merely on basis of policy of Government of Delhi fixing indicative price w.e.f. 01.4.01.
On the other hand counsel for the respondent UOI, has contended that increase @ 12% p.a cannot be permitted from 01.4.01 till 17.12.02, as no evidence has been led by the petitioners to show if there was any increase in price of land during the intervening period.
15. The price of land has been fixed by the LAC @ Rs.15,70,000/- per acre on the basis of policy of government of Delhi w.e.f. 01.4.01, whereby the minimum indicative price of agricultural land was fixed. The LAC has failed to grant appreciation from 01.4.01 to 17.12.02 (i.e the date of notification u/s 4 for a period of 20 months and 16 days) and no reasons have been disclosed for the same. Further appreciation of prices for the subsequent period cannot be denied, merely on a bald assertion that the appreciation of the prices cannot be presumed. Rather keeping in view the development on account of acquisition the prices were likely to rise rather than decline or remain consistent. This would also be contrary to the principle which has been adopted by the government to fix the minimum prices of land as per policies dated 03.5.90 (w.e.f. 274.90 @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre), 25.7.97 Cont..........
( 13 ) LAC NO. 50/06Surajmal Vs. UOI (w.e.f. 01.4.97 @ Rs.10 lacs per acre), 24.9.98 (w.e.f. 01.4.98 @ Rs.11.20 lacs per acre), 10.9.01 (w.e.f. 01.4.99 to 31.3.01 @ Rs. 12.16 lacs and 13.82 lacs per acre), 09.8.01 (w.e.f. 01.4.01 @ Rs.15,70,000/- per acre), 30.8.05 (w.e.f. 30.8.05 @ Rs.17,58,400/- per acre) keeping in view the trend of rising prices. The rate of land appears to have been fixed by the Government even for the subsequent years after granting an appreciation @ of 10 to 12% per annum.
The observations of Hon'ble High Court in 2002 (VI) AD (DELHI) 315 entitled Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese Vs. Union of India and another in para 12 may be beneficially reproduced to appreciate the trend of rising prices in Delhi.
"Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there has been rise in market prices of the lands in and around Delhi ever- since the land came to be acquired by successive notifications issued for development of Delhi. In fact prices started rising immediately after partition of the country because of the influx of refugees, who wanted to settled in India. The first acquisition in large scale took place when notification itself for Planned Development of Delhi had the effect of rise in market values of the land. Delhi thereafter had been expanding resultantly putting more and more pressure on lands, which still remained un-acquired. Thereafter there have been series of notifications issued. Prices increased by leaps and bounds. In the absence of any other material as regards sale instances of similar lands, this Court adopted various principles to arrive at fair market value for a subsequent period when for earlier period market value is already determined finally either by this Court or by the Supreme Court. Earlier principle followed was to allow an increase at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per years. Discarding the said principle, appreciation was allowed in subsequent judgments on percentage basis ranging from 6% to 12% p.a. Choice at which rate increase is to be allowed depends upon number of circumstances including the locality where the land is acquired, the period of acquisition etc. Considering the locality and its importance, we are of the view that an increase at the 12% per year over the base rate of Rs.19,000/-
Cont..........( 14 ) LAC NO. 50/06
Surajmal Vs. UOI per bigha as on 13.11.1959, fair market value can be worked out for the lands, which were acquired through the two notifications issued on 4.4.1964. Allowing such an increase in the absence of any other material, is an established method, which has also been followed even by Supreme Court in Gokal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1992 S.C. 150 wherein increase by 50% was allowed for a period of three years. Allowing an increase of 12% p.a. From the market value of Okhla land as on 13.11.1959, we are of the view that fair market value as on the date of the two notifications i.e. 4.4.1994 and 6.4.1994 for the land situate in Okhla will be Rs.29,025/- per bigha".
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an increase in appreciation of prices of land at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.4.01 till 17.12.02. The same can be rounded off to 20 months in place of 20 months and 16 days. Reference in this regard may also be made to Rameshwar Solanki & Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. 57, (1195) DLT 410, Bedi Ram Vs. UOI &Anr. 93 (2001) DLT 150 (DB). The price of land after enhancement for a period of 20 months is accordingly fixed at Rs. 18,84,000/- per acre, for the land falling in Block A. As far as the land falling in Block B is concerned the LAC appears to have further reduced the value by Rs. 1,70,000/- per acre on the ground that the land owners already stood compensated and had derived benefit by sale of earth upto 2-3 ft. in depth. No evidence to the contrary has been brought on record. It has been observed by LAC that it had come to his notice that for removing earth upto 2-3 ft. an amount of Rs.1.50 Lac to Rs.2.00 lacs per acre is paid as lease consideration. Further the land also Cont..........
( 15 ) LAC NO. 50/06Surajmal Vs. UOI requires leveling before it can be put to use. I find no infirmity in the principle adopted by LAC for categorizing the land in Block A and B and reducing the cost of land in Block B, on aforesaid basis. The value of the land in Block B after giving appreciation @ 12% for 20 months is accordingly assessed @ Rs.16,80,000/- per acre.
I have already assessed the market value of the land at aforesaid rates in LAC No. 47/06 entitled Dev Vert Vs. UOI decided on 23.11.06 and find no grounds to differ from the same.
16. RELIEF: In view of findings on issue no. 1 & 2 above the petitioner is entitled to compensation @ Rs. 18,84,000/- per acre for the land falling in block A and at Rs. 16,80,000/- per acre for the land falling in Block B. The petitioner is also entitled to 30% solatium on the market value of land fixed by this court. Petitioner shall be further entitled to additional amount of 12% on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23-1(A) of the Act from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act to the date of dis- possession or award whichever is earlier. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the market value of the land fixed by this Court u/s 28 of the Act at 9% per annum from the date of dis-possession till the expiry of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till payment.
Petitioner is further entitled to interest on solatium and additional Cont..........
( 16 ) LAC NO. 50/06Surajmal Vs. UOI amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court entitled Sunder vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. No orders as to costs.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for information and to make arrangement to remit the decreetal amount in court within the stipulated period. The Reference petition stands disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (A.K.MENDIRATTA)
Dated : 16.1.07 Additional District Judge,
Delhi
Cont..........
( 17 ) LAC NO. 50/06
Surajmal Vs. UOI
16.1.07
Present : Sh.Narender Singh, Proxy Cl. for Sh.Subey Singh, Adv for the petitioner.
Sh.S.K.Puri, Adv. for UOI.
Ms. Pooja Gambhir, Proxy Cl. for Ms. Renu Gupta, Adv for DDA Arguments heard. Vide separate judgment reference is disposed off. File be consigned to Record Room.
A.K.MENDIRATTA ADJ, Delhi /16.1.07 Cont..........