Delhi District Court
Mohan Lal Gupta vs Union Of India Through on 15 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No.114A/09
U ID 02404C0078312009
IN RE :
MOHAN LAL GUPTA
S/O SH. SHRI BHAGWAN,
R/O 2116 BAWANA ROAD,
NARELA, DELHI
...... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
NORTH WEST,
DELHI.
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VIKAS SADAN, DELHI (DDA).
........RESPONDENTS
Award No. 03/200405
Village BHORGARH
Date of Award/ Date of
Announcement of Award 07.05.2004
Notification U/S 4 F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7329
dt. 22.08.2001
LAC no. 114A/09 Page 1 of 17
Corrigendum F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/5148
dt.26.02.2002
Notification U/s 6 F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7910
dt.26.07.2002
Date of Receipt of Reference : 27.10.2006
Date of Arguments : 02.07.2011
Date of Decision: 15.07.2011
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
J U D G M E N T
1. Vide this judgment I shall decided the reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act forwarded by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter called as 'LAC') to decide the claim of petitioner for enhancement of compensation of his land which was acquired by LAC along with large part of land, measuring 226 bigha 16 biswas in village Bhorgarh for the plan development of Narela Bawana Phase II under plan development of Delhi.
2. The brief facts as stated in the reference petition are that petitioner is the recorded/bhumidhar of the land bearing khasra nos.61/6 total LAC no. 114A/09 Page 2 of 17 measuring 01 bighas 03 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Bhorgarh, which was acquired for public purpose namely "development of Freight Complex at Narela, under Planned Development of Delhi". Notification under Section 4 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') was issued on 22.08.2001. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 26.07.2002; Thereafter, Award bearing no. 3/200405 was announced by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) on 07.05.2004. The LAC determined the market price of the acquired land as Rs.15,70,000/ per acre for land falling in Block 'A'.
3. Being aggrieved petitioners have challenged the said Award on the following grounds:
a) that LAC has not adopted the correct method of assessment of market value ;
b) that LAC has grossly erred in treating the land as agricultural land inspite of the fact that the land has declared as an urban land vide notification u/s 507 of DMC Act as well as declared as an developed area by Govt. of NCT of Delhi ;
c) that LAC has failed to appreciate and consider the sale deed LAC no. 114A/09 Page 3 of 17 furnished by the petitioner;
d) that the land has been falling on the main mettled road should have been given more watage.
4. The petitioners have demanded the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.10,000/ per sq. yards.
5. In their written statement respondents have stated that land in question was not surrounded by any developed or under developed colony and can only be used for agricultural purpose and there is no structure, tree or tubewell on the land in question. It is further stated that compensation awarded by LAC is adequate and just on the basis of market rate and therefore reference is liable to be dismissed.
6. During the admission denial of documents Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has admitted the statement u/s 19 LA Act.
7. After the completion of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any enhancement in compensation. If so, to what amount ?
LAC no. 114A/09 Page 4 of 17
2. Relief.
8. In support of his claim for enhancement of compensation, petitioner has examined 6 witnesses.
Petitioner has examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit.
PW 2 Sh. Shyambir, Patwari from LAC office has proved the award Ex. PW2/1 PW4 Sh. Om Prakash, LDC from Sub Registrar Office has proved the sale deed dated 24.03.2000 of village Mamurpur as Ex. PW4/1. PW5 Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma, UDC, Land Sales Branch (Residential) DDA has proved the notification dated 09.05.2000 with respect to the predetermined rates in respect of land uses in Dwarka, Narela and Rohini for the year 20002001 Ex.PW5/1 and notification dated 04.04.2002 for the year 200203 Ex.PW5/2 and notification dated 27.02.2003 for the year 200102 Ex.PW5/3.
LAC no. 114A/09 Page 5 of 17 PW6 Sh. Naresh Kumar, LDC from L& DO Office, Nirman Bhawan has filed the copy of the notification no. J22011/4/95LD dated 16.04.1999 Mark A. Sh. M.D. Sharma Halka Patwari Narela, (no PW number given) has also proved the revenue map as Ex. PW7/1 but he was not cross examined and in his place Sh. Jagdip Singh was examined as PW8 and he also proved the map Ex. PW7/1.
9. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent has tendered in evidence the copy of the award as Ex. R1 and tendered the copy of sale deed dated 03.01.2003 and sale deed dated 12.06.2002 as Mark A and B and adopted the evidence led by counsel for UOI in case titled as Raj Singh Vs. UOI LAC No. 15A/09.
10. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record. After going through the case file my issue wise finding are as under:
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1 :
11. There is no mathematical formula to determine the market value of land. LAC no. 114A/09 Page 6 of 17
Various methods has been adopted by the higher courts to determine the market value.
Recently in Special Land Acquisition Office Vs. Karigowda & Ors. 2010 AD (SC) 345 it is observed by Lordship of Supreme Court that normally following methods are adopted to determine market value such as :
a) Sales Statistics Method : Sales must be genuine and bonafied should have been executed at the time proximate to the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act, the land concerned by sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land. The land covered under the sale instances should have similar potential and occasion as that of acquired land.
b) Capitalization of Net Income method - In this method of determination of market value, capitalization of income method or expert opinion method has been affiliated.
c) Agricultural yeild basis method - Annual agricultural yield of acquired land and keeping in mind the potential and nature of land, wet (irrigated), dry and barren (banjar).
And it depend upon facts of each case which factor is more suitable to determine the market value.
LAC no. 114A/09 Page 7 of 17
12. Petitioner who is PW1 has not deposed about his agricultural income in his evidence led by way of affidavit. In fact petitioner has not based his claim for higher compensation on the basis of agricultural income, hence, market value of petitioner's land cannot be determined on the basis of annual income on agricultural yield.
13. Market value on the basis of sale transactions Petitioner has also relied upon one sale deed of village Mamurpur Ex. PW4/1 by which land measuring 4 bigha 16 biswas sold for Rs.26,75,000/ on 24.03.2000. He placed reliance upon notification no. F2(14)AO(P)96/97/80 dated 09.05.2000 Ex.PW5/1 whereby DDA has fixed provisional rates of various land uses in Dwarka, Narela and Rohini, Phase III for the year 200001, which is as follows :
Besides this petitioner has also relied upon schedule of market rate determined by Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Govt. of India vide notification dated 16th April 1999.
14. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further contended that sale deed Ex.
PW4/1 is of village Mamurpur is of adjacent village, which are at a distance of just few acre from the land of petitioner and court can rely upon the sale deed of adjoining village while determining the market LAC no. 114A/09 Page 8 of 17 value. He has argued that with respect to sale deed of village Mamurpur market value comes around Rs.28,89,000/ per acre after adding the amount of stamp duty. And if 30% deduction is made towards development cost of market price would come to approximate Rs. 20 lacs. Whereas with regard to the sale deeds of Khera Khurd it would be Rs. 56 lac approx per acre, if 30% deduction is made it would be Rs.35 lac approximately. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment titled as Ravinder Narayan & Ors. Vs. UOI AIR 2003 SC 1987.
15. Ld. Counsel for the UOI argued that sale deed Ex. PW4/1 can not be relied upon to determine the market value of different village as petitioner has led no evidence to prove that potentiality of land under sale deed is same as that of petitioner's land. As 'Kanwar Singh Vs. UOI' (1998) 8 SCC 136 where in Supreme Court has held that :
"generally there would be different situation and potentiality of land situated in the different village unless it is prove that the situation and potentiality of land in two different villages are same".
16. There is no doubt that sale transaction if available is best piece of LAC no. 114A/09 Page 9 of 17 evidence to determine market value. I am also agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that sale deed of small piece of land can be relied upon even in case of large scale acquisition. As generally it is impossible to find sale deed of such large area. However, certain tests have been laid down by higher courts, before accepting a exampler sale deed for determining market value. In Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nookala Rajamallu (2003) 12 SCC 334 Supreme Court has held that following conditions are required to be met before accepting a sale deed for the purpose of determining the market value :
a) It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable rates are made :
i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under section 4(1) :
ii) It should be a bonafide transaction
iii) It should be the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired
iv) It should possess similar advantages.
In Ranvir Singh Vs. UOI (2005) 12 SCC 59 in para 34 it is held that:
"it a well settled law that he sale deeds pertains to the LAC no. 114A/09 Page 10 of 17 operation of the land which are subject to close would be the most relevant piece of the evidence for assigning the market value of the land."
Further in Lal Chand Vs. UOI it is held that :
"Mere production of some exemplar deeds without 'connecting' the subject matter of the instrument, to the acquired lands will be of little assistance in determining the market value. Section 51A of the LA Act only exempts the production of the original sale deed and examination of the vendor or vendee."
Let us apply the said test on sale deed relied upon by parties. First test is location of land. The best sale deed is of same land and if same is not available then adjoining land and if that is not available then adjoining village. As we go far from the acquiring land acceptability of exampler sale deed get reduced.
17. It is not in dispute that sale deed relied upon by petitioner is not of same village. Petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that how far land under sale deed Ex. PW4/1 is from Village Bhorgarh. Neither seller nor purchaser has been examined by the petitioner to prove that location, potentiality of the land of sale deed Ex. PW4/1 is similar to acquired land. LAC no. 114A/09 Page 11 of 17 Further on perusal of sale deed Ex. PW4/1, it is apparent that land has been purchased by Radha Swami Satsang, which is a religious Trust. Therefore, purpose of purchasing land definitely is not agricultural as they are not going to cultivate the land. It cannot be ruled out that sale deed Ex. PW4/1 may have situated on better location and higher prices might have been paid as it might have suited purpose of buyer. Considering above facts, I do not find sale deed Ex.PW4/1 much reliable and held that on the basis of solitary sale instance of different village, sale price of petitioner's land cannot be determined.
18. Petitioner has also relied upon the rates at which DDA has decided to allot various plots in Dwarka, Rohini and Narela. From the allotment letter Ex.PW5/1 and Ex. PW5/2, it is evident that DDA has determined rates of allotted plot & flats in Dwarka, Narela and Rohini residential area for the year 2000 to 2002 at much higher rates then what LAC has awarded to petitioner on which DDA might have spent considerable sum and cost of plot would also has included cost of development. Thus, I am agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for UOI that there can not be any comparison between petitioner land which is purely agricultural land and land allotted by DDA & DSIDC which has been allotted after LAC no. 114A/09 Page 12 of 17 development. In this regard I rely upon Lal Chand Vs. UOI VII (2009) SLT 439 decided on 12.08.2009 has held that "7. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by Development Authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within Urbana. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of th buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of th eland loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of free hold land, whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA Brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors.
In Ranvir Singh Vs. UOI (2005) 12 (SCC) 59 Hon'ble Judge has observed that the judgment of Ranvir Singh culled out the principles as follows:
a) Market value of the acquired land has to be assessed not only having regard to the comparable sales method but also having regard to the size of the land or other features thereof and several other relevant factors. LAC no. 114A/09 Page 13 of 17
b) The market value of fully developed land cannot be compared with a wholly undeveloped land and even when they are adjoining or situated at a little distance.
In the light of above said judgment, I held that land rate at which was fixed by DDA allotted plot cannot be a good exampler to determine market price of undeveloped agricultural land. Hence, I held that petitioners have failed to prove that he is entitle to higher market value on the basis of sale transaction with respect to the schedule of market rates determine by the Ministry of Urban Affairs, Govt. of India, these rates are not with respect to the commercial and residential area whereas petitioner's land is agricultural land, hence, same cannot be relied upon to determine rate of agricultural land. In this regard I rely upon Lal Chand Vs. UOI (supra).
19. Petitioners has also relied upon judgment of Raj Singh Vs. UOI LAC No. 15A/09. The said judgment pertain to the Bhorgarh land. But pertain to different awards and different notification u/s 4 LA Act. In that case notification u/s 4 was issued on 27.01.2003 where as in the present case notification u/s 4 was issued on 22.08.2001. However, in that case, I had determined the market value by giving increase @ 12% for the intervening period from the dated of govt. policy till date of notification u/s 4 LA Act. LAC no. 114A/09 Page 14 of 17 Since this case also has been decided on the basis of same Govt. policy dated 09.08.2001, which is made effective from 01.04.2001. Therefore, in my view in this case, petitioner is entitle to increase for intervening period. But what should be increase for the intervening period. LAC has determined the market value on the basis of govt. policy of fixing minimum rate of agriculture land @ Rs.15,70,000/ which was made effective from 01.04.2001, where as notification u/s 4 was issued on 22.08.2001 but the LAC has not granted any increase for the intervening period 01.04.2001 to 22.08.2001 Ld. Counsel has contended that considering the potentiality of the land at least 15% increase should be given for the intervening period.
20. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for respondent has argued that since petitioner has failed to prove that there is any increase in market value from 01.04.01 to 22.08.01, therefore petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement.
21. There are numerous judgment in this regard. In Karigowda case (Supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded 15 percent enhancement for intervening period between 2 sale deeds.
LAC no. 114A/09 Page 15 of 17
22. Recently in Chiranji Lal Vs. UOI LA Appl. no.489/2008 Hon'ble Justice Pradeep Nandraj while determined the rates of Ghevra village has held that up till year 1996 increase was 12%, thereafter it was 10%. Therefore, I grant increase of 10% from the date of effectiveness of the govt. policy i.e. 01.09.2001 till date of notification u/s 4 i.e. 22.08.2003 (143 days), which comes to Rs.16,31,509/ per acre, which is round off to Rs.16,31,500/ per acre. Hence, I determine the market value @ Rs.16,31,500/ per acre, thus petitioner getting an enhancement of Rs.61,500/ per acre. Besides this petitioner should be entitle to 12% additional amount u/s 23(1)A and 30% Solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act. He should also be entitle to 9% interest per annum as the enhancement compensation for the first year and thereafter 15% per annum till the realization of last enhanced compensation as per Section 28 of LA Act.
23. Since petitioner has not evidence to prove that he has suffered loss of standing crops or trees due to acquisition therefore he is not entitle to any compensation for it. This claim for loss of crops and standing trees is hereby rejected.
Issue no. 1 decided accordingly.
24. Issue No. 2 - Relief 24.1 In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to the LAC no. 114A/09 Page 16 of 17 following reliefs:
a) Petitioner shall be entitled to market value @ of Rs.16,31,500/ per acre thus getting an enhancement of Rs.61,500/ per acre.
b) additional amount u/s 23 (1A) @ 12% p.a., on the market value from the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
c) solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation ;
d) interest under Section 28 of L.A Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till its payment.
25. Reference is disposed of accordingly. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. A copy of the judgment be sent to LAC for necessary action. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (SANJEEV KUMAR)
ON 15.07.11 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:01
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
LAC no. 114A/09 Page 17 of 17