Delhi District Court
Sunil Goel vs Union Of India Through on 5 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS :
DELHI
LAC No.96A/09
UID 02404CC0080812009
IN RE :
SUNIL GOEL
S/O SH. BRIJ LAL GOEL
R/O D27, CC COLONY,
OPP. RANA PRATAP BAGH,
DELHI 110007.
...... PETITIONER
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
NORTH WEST,
DELHI.
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VIKAS SADAN, DELHI (DDA)
........RESPONDENTS
Award No. 33/200304
Village HOLAMBI KALAN
Date of Award/ Date of
Announcement of Award 31.03.2004
Notification U/S 4 F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7329
dt. 22.08.2001
Corrigendum F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/5148
dt. 26.06.2002
LAC No.96A/09 Page 1 of 23
Notification U/s 6 F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7910
dt. 26.07.2002
Date of Receipt of Reference : 17.07.2006
Date of Arguments : 18.07.2011
Date of Decision: 05.08.2011
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
J U D G M E N T
1. This reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as LA Act), was sent to the reference court by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred as LAC).
2. A large tract of Land measuring 1094 bigha 17 biswa of village Holambi Kalan, Delhi, was acquired by the Govt. for "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 and corrigendum was issued on 26.06.2002. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 26.07.2002; Thereafter, Award bearing no. 33/200304 was announced by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred LAC No.96A/09 Page 2 of 23 to as LAC) on 31.03.2004. The LAC determined the market price of the acquired land as Rs.15,70,000/ per acre.
3. The brief facts as stated in the reference are that petitioners were the owner/bhumidar of full share in land bearing khasra no. 59//10(416) total measuring 4 Bighas 16 Biswas, situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Holambi Kalan, Delhi (the said land). The said land was acquired by Govt. and LAC has passed the award granting Rs.15,70,000/ per acre as market value to the petitioner. Being dissatisfied to the said value he challanged the award by filing the reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. The petitioner has challenged the said award on the following grounds :
i) that LAC had not adopted the correct method of valuation;
and determined the market value on the basis of policy of the Government of NCT, fixing indicative price of the agricultural land @ Rs.15,70 lac for the purposes of acquisition in the entire Delhi whereas price of land should have been assessed considering the situation and potentiality of land;
ii) that market value of the acquired land cannot be so fixed and should be assessed as per provisions of section 23 and LAC No.96A/09 Page 3 of 23 24 of LA Act, 1984;
iii) that LAC has failed to consider the present physical and existing development in and around the land of the petitioner;
iv) that LAC has failed to consider that land of the petitioner is very fertile and leveled and gives 23 commercial crops in a year;
v) that the land of the petitioner is adjacent to various already developed area and village abadi and all the civic facilities like water, electricity, metalled roads, general market, post office, transport facilities, banking facility, hospitals, Higher Secondary Schools, collage, fire station, telephone exchange, Narela Railway Station, police Station, very near to GTK Road, Khampur Radio Station, Narela Anaj Mandi adjacent to the Narela Township. Thus land of the petitioner has great future potentiality to be used for commercial, industrial or residential purposes ;
vi) that LAC has failed to appreciate that around the land of petitioner many palatial farm houses have been developed and constructed in the revenue estate of village Narela and adjoining villages and cost of such farm houses is not less than Rs.15,000/ per sq. yards.
5. The petitioners have claimed compensation of their land at the LAC No.96A/09 Page 4 of 23 rate of Rs.10,000/ per sq. yards. Besides this he claimed compensation of Rs.5,000/ each for loss and damages sustained by her on account trees, Rs.10,000/ per bigha for damages done to standing crops and Rs.2,00,000/ each for well.
6. The reference petition was contested by Union of India (hereinafter referred to as 'UOI') as well as Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "DDA").
7. Both the respondents have filed their written statement, in which they had taken many objections to the claim filed by the petitioners. In its written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI it is stated that land of petitioner was not surrounded by developed or under developed colonies and can only be used for agricultural purpose and Delhi Land Reform Act was applicable to the said land. It is further stated that compensation awarded by LAC is fair, reasonable and adequate on the basis of market rate and petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement in the compensation awarded by the LAC.
8. In WS of Respondent no. 2/DDA, it is denied that land of the petitioner is adjacent to the developed area. It was further denied that at the time of notification u/s 4 market value of the LAC No.96A/09 Page 5 of 23 land in the area was Rs.5,000/ per sq. yards. It is further stated that LAC has awarded the just and adequate compensation after taking into consideration all the facts relevant for determining the compensation and as such petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement in the compensation.
9. During the admissiondenial of documents, petitioners have admitted statement u/s 19 of Land Acquisition Act sent by LAC.
10. 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 ?
2. Relief.
11. In support of his claim for enhancement of compensation, petitioner has examined 6 witnesses. He has examined himself as PW1.
PW2 Sh. M.D. Sharma, Halka Patwari Village Holambi Kalan BDO Office Alipur has proved the shijra of village Holambi Kalan as Ex.PW2/1. He has also proved copy of khasra girdawari for the year from 2002 to 2006 are Ex. PW2/2, true copy of khasra girdawari for the year 19992000 to 200203 are Ex. PW2/3 to Ex. PW2/6, copy of the khatoni regarding the LAC No.96A/09 Page 6 of 23 land out of khasra no. 59/1, 59/10, and 59/11 as Ex.2/7. PW3 Sh. Babu Ram, Record Keeper, Building Headquarter, MCD has proved the letter dated 17.07.2000 vide which record pertaining to the approval of farm houses to petitioner on his land of khasra no. 59//1 10 & 11 of village Holambi Kalan was requisitioned by DDA from MCD along with copy of list of files sent as Ex.PW3/1.
PW4 Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Planning Assistant, Narela Project has proved the file vide which Zonal Development Plan of Narela was approved by Technical Committee, Authority and Ministry of Urban Development as Ex.PW4/1. PW5 was not examined.
PW6 Jagvir Singh, JE, ND9, DDA has prove the head wise consolidation record of expenses incurred on the development of land under Narela Development Scheme as alloted in the year 2000 as Ex. PW6/1. He has also proved the head wise consolidation record of expenses incurred for the development of acquired land vide award no. 33/0304 of village Holambi Kalan, as Ex. PW6/2.
LAC No.96A/09 Page 7 of 23 Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also adopted the evidence led by petitioner in case titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI LAC No. 199A/09.
During final arguments Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has filed the copy of certified copy of judgment passed by this court in case tiled as Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI LAC No. 199A/09 and submitted that judgment be passed in terms of the said judgment.
12. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for respondent has not examined any witness. He has only tendered copy of the award as Ex. R1 and adopted the evidence led by UOI in case titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI LAC No. 199A/09.
13. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record. After going through the case file my issue wise finding are as under:
14. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1 : 14.1 Recently in Special Land Acquisition Office Vs. Karigowda & Ors. 2010 AD (SC) 345 it is observed by 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 LAC No.96A/09 Page 8 of 23 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 is depend upon facts of each case which factor is more suitable to determine the market value. 14.2 Ld. counsel for the petitioner has contended that LAC has determined the market value of the petitioner's land at the rate of Rs.15,70,000/ on the basis of policy of the government policy whereby indicative price of agricultural land at the rate of Rs.15,70,000/ per acre. Petitioner was not satisfied with the said market value fixed by the LAC and he has contended that his land LAC No.96A/09 Page 9 of 23 capable of fetching higher prices.
The onus is on the petitioner to prove that he is entitle to higher market value of his land then what LAC has determined as it was held in in State of UP & Anothers Vs. Rajender Singh AIR 1996 SC 1564, Hon'ble Supreme Court Judge held that "the onus is on the petitioners to prove that their lands are capable of fetching higher compensation then what has been determine by the LAC and that he is entitle for enhance compensation.".
In order to prove that petitioner is entitle to higher compensation petitioner has examined 7 witnesses. Let testimony of witness be examined on the basis of various method suggested by Supreme Court.
15. Market value on the basis of sale transactions 15.1 Best method to determine the market value is the sale transaction In Special Deputy Collector and Anrs. Vs. Kara Sambasine Rao and Anrs. AIR 1997 SC 2625 it is held that the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would sold over the land and willing purchaser be willing to buy the land as a product land in LAC No.96A/09 Page 10 of 23 normal condition prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired land are situated as on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In UOI Vs. Pramod Gupta 2004 RCR Civil 235 it is held that "the best method as well known would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land in the absence of any direct evidence in the court however, may take recourse to various other methods."
In Ranvir Singh Vs. UOI (Supra) in para 34 it is held that "it a well settled law that he sale deeds pertains to the 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."
15.2 While reverting back to the present case, petitioner has placed reliance upon the evidence led in case titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI LAC No. 199A/09 and has filed copy of certified copy of evidence led in the said case, which he has exhibited as Ex.P1 (Colly). On perusal of the LAC No.96A/09 Page 11 of 23 evidence I found that petitioner Ashok Kumar has relied upon sale deed of village Mamurpur, Khera Khurd & Holambi Kalan itself which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/1, PW1/2, PW4/1 &PW6/1. These sale deed have already been discussed in case Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI decided by this court on 12.01.11, relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below :
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that LAC has wrongly rejected the sale deed of village Mamurpur on filmsy ground. He has pointed out my attention to page 21 para 2 of the award under the heading market value which is reproduce as below :
"The interested persons have generally claimed exorbitant prices of their land by making claims about Rs.2,500.00 per sq. yards to Rs.16,000.00 per sq. yards. Some of the claimant have filed the documentary evidence in the form of certified copy of the sale deed executed on 25.03.2000 for a sum of Rs.26,75,000.00 per acre in respect of one acre of land situated in village Mamoorpur in support of their claim.
It is well established that in determining compensation, the valuation fetched for smaller plot of land cannot be applied to lands covering a very large area. The larger area of land cannot possibly fetch the same rate at which smaller plots are sold. Hence, the sale deed furnished by the claimants/interested persons to ascertain the market value of the land under acquisition cannot be applied to the land under reference. Moreover, this office is in possession of a sale deed executed on 04.12.2001 in respect of land measuring 8 biha 10.½ Biswas and LAC No.96A/09 Page 12 of 23 situated in village Narela for a sum of Rs.22,88,390.00 i.e. Rs.12,89,000 (approx.) per acre. It can clearly be stated that the market value of the land has not increased but has either remained same or has decreased marginally since the financial year 2001. The claims therefore, cannot form the basis for determination of market value.
Ld. counsel has contended that the LAC has rejected the sale deed of village Mamurpur, which was of Rs.26,75,000/ only on the ground that valuation fetch for smaller plot of land cannot be applied to lands covered very large area. Whereas there are number of judgments where in it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the sale price of smaller piece of land can be looked upon while determining the market price of large land. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment titled as Ravinder Narayan & Ors. Vs. UOI AIR 2003 SC 1987, in which it is observed by Supreme Court that:
"It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices"
Ld. Counsel has further contended that LAC could have made necessary deductions from the sale price mentioned in the sale deed of village Mamurpur towards development cost and thereafter he could arrive at just market value. He further contended that sale price as mentioned in sale deed Ex. PW1/2 is Rs.26,75,000/ which after adding stamp duty comes to Rs.28,89,000/ per acre even if 30% deduction is made from the sale price, it would be LAC No.96A/09 Page 13 of 23 around Rs.20 lac per acre.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the sale deed of village Khera Khurd Ex. PW1/1 where in 2 bigha 19 biswas land has been sold @ Rs. 32,40,000/ and sale deed Ex. PW4/1 wherein 10 bigha land has been sold @ Rs. 4 lacs. Average price of sale deed of village Khera Khurd comes to Rs. 50,64,347/ per acre and if 30% deduction is made it comes to Rs. 35,45,073/ per acre and since it is settled that land holder should be given best price of his land, therefore, parties should be given market value presently @ Rs. 35 lacs per acre.
Beside this, petitioner has also relied upon sale deed of village Holambi Kalan which was executed on 22.12.06 wherein 47 bigha 10 biswa land has been sold @ Rs. Four crore fifty lacs which comes to @ Rs. 4736/ bigha on Rs.4547368 per acre. 16.3 On the other hand Ld. Counsel for UOI has argued that it is well settled law that when the sale deed of acquired land is available then court cannot look into the sale deed of any other land whether it is adjoining land or land of another village. He has contended that he has proved six sale deed of village Holambi Kalan in which land holder had themselves purchased the land exactly 4 years 5 months back at much lower rate than what the LAC has awarded and even 15% increase is given on the said rate even than the rate awarded by the LAC is 10 times more than at what rate petitioner has himself purchased the land therefore, he is not entitle to any enhancement. I have perused the sale deed Ex.PW2/A to Ex. PW2/F, which was produced in evidence.
Details of sale deed of Holambi Kalan relied upon by the petitioner are as follows:
Exhibit Date Area Amount
(sale price +
stamp duty)
LAC No.96A/09 Page 14 of 23
RW1/A 19.03.1997 7 bigha 13 biswas Rs.2,43,000
RW1/B 19.03.1997 4 bigha 16 biswas Rs.1,62,000
RW1/C 19.03.1997 1 bigha 12 biswas Rs.1,62,000
RW1/D 19.03.1997 4 bigha Rs.3,78,000
RW1/E 19.03.1997 4 bigha 3 biswas Rs.1,62,000
RW1/F 19.03.1997 9 bigha 13 biswas Rs.3,24,000
Ld. Counsel for the UOI has further contended that 577 bigha land was sold @ Rs.14,30,000/ which comes to Rs.2748 per biswa and Rs.2,37,920/ per acre and even after 15% escalation per year from 19.09.1997 till the date of notification u/s 4 LA Act i.e. 22.08.2001(47 months) it comes to Rs.3,77,698/ per acre whereas LAC has awarded Rs.1,57,0000/ per acre which is 5 times higher. Hence, petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement. I have heard the arguments & perused the sale deed. In support of his contention Ld. Counsel for UOI has relied upon Shakuntala Bai & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra 1996(2) SCC 152.
16.4 I have considered the sale deed relied upon by petitioner and respondents. The sale deed relied upon by petitioner is of different village whereas sale deed relied upon by respondents/UOI is of same village and infact pertains to the acquired land. Hence, said sale deed is best piece of evidence as the land has been purchased by petitioner himself. It would be relevant to refer here the judgment of Supreme Court Shakuntalabai (SMT) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra) In this case also the land owner has himself purchased the land at much lower rate then what the Land Acquisition Officer has granted to him. Land Acquisition Officer has granted market value of the front portion of the land ad measuring 4 Acres 18 Guntas at Rs.5,500/ per acre and for remaining land measuring 15 Acres 32 Guntas at the rate of Rs.4,500/ per acre where as reference court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.1.25 per sq. ft. for the front portion of the land at Rs.one per sq. ft. for rest of the land, which was set aside by the High Court and High Court confirmed the rate given by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land LAC No.96A/09 Page 15 of 23 holders filed appeal in the Supreme Court and Lordship of Supreme Court in para 4 has held that :
"that the High Court had not committed any manifest error of law or omitted to apply any correct principle of law. 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. As stated earlier 38 and 44 might command different market value to the land situated in approved layouts, since the appellant himself had purchased the self same acquired lands in 1857 at Rs.10,000 for the entire 20 acres of land, the High Court was right in its view to consider the very same evidence to determine the compensation to the acquired land. On the assessment of the increase in the value by 10 times, the High Court had accepted that assessment of the appellant himself as PW9 and upheld the award of the Land Acquisition Collector since it reflects the same price as granted in the award under Section 11."LAC No.96A/09 Page 16 of 23
Further in Kanwar Singh & Others Vs. UOI 1998 VIII ADSC 93 it is held that instances of adjoining villages cannot be taken to be of great evidentary value. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that sale deed Ex. PW2/A to Ex. PW2/F cannot be relied upon as there is a gap of more than 4 years, but I do not find any force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that since sale deed of petitioner is of 4 years and 5 months back and since than lots of change has taken place in and around the petitioner's land and potentiality of the petitioner's land has increased to the great extent therefore, this sale deed cannot be relied upon rather I am in completely agreement with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the UOI, Sh. Diwan, that sale deed upto 4 or 5 years prior to acquisition can be relied upon to determine market value. I found support of my this view in judgment titled as Oil and Industrial Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anrs. III (2008) CCT 317 SC wherein Lordhship has held that :
"the said method is reasonably safe where the relied on sale transactions /acquisitions proceeds the subject acquisition by only a few years i.e. Upto 45 years."
The sale deed relied upon by UOI pertain to the land of village Holambi Kalan itself which was acquired through the same notification. Hence, in view of the above I held that sale deed of village Khera Khurd and Mamurpur cannot be relied to decide market value in this case and since value of sale deed relied upon by UOI is much less than what LAC has awarded.
16.5 As far as sale Ex. PW6/1 is concerned same is of dated 22.12.2006. Though the said sale deed pertained to the village Holambi Kalan itself, but since same has been executed after almost five years of the acquisition of land. It cannot be denied that due to acquisition of land lot of development has taken place in these five years which might have increase the value of the land. Therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon the said sale deed to LAC No.96A/09 Page 17 of 23 determine the market value of the land which was acquired way back in the year 2001.
16.6 In view of the above, I held that petitioner has failed to prove that he is entitle to enhancement in compensation on the basis of sale transactions. Therefore, in view of the above, in this case also, I held that petitioner has failed to prove that he is entitle for enhancement in compensation on the basis of sale transaction.
16. Land rate on the basis of location, potentiality and surrounding of land 16.1 Ld. counsel for the petitioner has contended that the LAC has not taken into account the potentiality of the land, that same is fit for residential/commercial purpose and is very closed to the developed area of Narela and Bawana where DDA and DSIDC has developed residential colony and Industrial area respectively. To prove the location of land Ld. Counsel has relied upon testimony of PW3 Sh. M.D. Sharma, Halka Patwari who has proved Aks Sizra of Village Holambi Kalan Ex.PW2/5. He has deposed that as per sizra in North of village Holambi kalan are Shahpurgarhi, Bhorgarh, Sanoth and Rajapur kalan, in south of village Holambi Kalan are Holambi Khurd, in the east of village Holambi kalan are Alipur and in the west of LAC No.96A/09 Page 18 of 23 village Holambi Kalan are Bawana. The Narela Road and Ambala Railway Line touches boundary of village Holambi kalan. Village Holambi Kalan is connected to village Narela by a mettalled road. Earlier there were number of farm houses in village Holambi Kalan but now there are only few.
16.2 Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that land of petitioner was abutting on G T Road/Alipur road. This location was better then other land. Further there was a farm house of the land of petitioner. Therefore, considering this petitioner should get at least 25% additional market value than the other land acquire through the same award.
16.3 I have perused the khasra girdawari of year 19992000 Ex.
PW2/3. As far as acquired land in this award i.e. Khasra no. 59/10 crops of wheat has been shown, whereas in the khasra girdawari for the year 200102 Ex.PW2/5, crops of dhan (rice) has been shown in 3 bigha 16 biswa and crop of jwar in 1 bigha in kharif crops & wheat in rabi crops, whereas in the khasra girdawari of the year 200001 Ex. PW2/4 and year 200203 Ex. PW2/6, no crops has been shown. In the khatoni, Kothi and Park has been shown in LAC No.96A/09 Page 19 of 23 khasra no. 59/1 and Garden in khasra no. 59/11. Further no sanction order of farm house on the acquired land by any authority has been placed. Hence, it is not proved that there was farm house on acquired land. Further with respect to the other contention that it was abutting to road, on perusal of Aks Shizra Ex. PW2/1 I did not find it is abutting to any road. Therefore, I do not find it is abutting to any road. Therefore, I do not find that petitioner's land has better location or potentiality then other land acquired through the same award.
16.4 As I have already decided the market value of the land of village Holambikalan in Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI (supra) in which all the other evidence led by petitioner in this was also led I had discussed the evidence relied upon by petitioner in this case in detail including evidence of plot and flats allotted by DDA and DSIDC while rejecting them, determine the market value @ Rs.16,43,811/ on the basis of giving 12% increase for the intervening period between two notifications i.e. Date of govt. policy and date of notification u/s 4 LA Act. Relevant para of judgment is reproduced below:
Thus from the perusal of award it is apparent that minimum rates of agricultural land made applicable from 01.04.2001, whereas in case notification u/s 4 LAC No.96A/09 Page 20 of 23 was issued on 22.08.2001. I found force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that atleast petitioner is entitle to escalation for the intervening period i.e. from the date when the Government policy become effective till the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 01.04.2001 to 22.08.2001. There are numerous judgment which fortify my this view, in Mahinder Singh Vs. UOI Hon'ble High Court has awarded 11.5% compound interest for the intervening period between two notification where as in recently in Partap Singh Vs. UOI LA Appeal no. 780/2008 dated 19.12.2008 Hon'ble High Court has granted 12% increase for the intervening period between two sale deed since gap was about 10 months approx. Similarly in Bedi Ram & Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors. 93(2001) DLT 150, 12% increase has been given by the High Court.
Considering all these judgment I am of the view that it would be justified to give increase @ 12% for the intervening period between the date of government policy & notification u/s 4 of LA Act (i.e. 01.04.2001 to 22.08.2001 = 143 days) it comes to Rs.16,43,811/ per acre. Thus petitioner get an enhancement of Rs.73,811 per acre 16.5 Therefore, as stated above that I do not find petitioner's land any better location having better potentiality. Hence, I do not find any reason to differ from the judgment Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI, which pertain to same village and same award. Therefore, determine the same value of petitioner's land i.e. Rs.16,43,811/ per acre.
17. Besides above, petitioners shall be entitled to other statutory benefit i.e 12% Addl. Amount as per section 23 (1) A & 30% solatium u/s 23 (2) & will be entitle to interest on the market LAC No.96A/09 Page 21 of 23 value @ 9% per annum for the first year & 15% for subsequent year till the making of payment of enhanced compensation by LAC as per provision of Section 28 of the Act.
18. As far as compensation for standing trees, standing crops and well/tubewell is concerned, no independent evidence has been led by petitioner to prove that there were standing trees, crops and well/tubewell in his land, hence, I held that petitioner has failed to prove that there were any standing trees, crops or well/tubewell in his land. Hence, he is not entitle to any compensation on this account.
Issue no. 1 decided accordingly.
19. Findings on Issue No.2 - RELIEF 19.1 In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to the following reliefs:
a) enhancement in compensation from Rs.15,70,000 per acre to Rs.16,43,811 per acre i.e. enhancement @ Rs.73,811/ per acre for the land as per statement u/s 19 LA Act ;
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, LAC No.96A/09 Page 22 of 23 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 ; 19.2 Reference is disposed of accordingly. 19.3 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. A copy of the judgment be sent to LAC for necessary action. 19.4 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Sanjeev Kumar) today i.e. 05.08.2011 Additional District Judge01, Rohini Courts, Delhi LAC No.96A/09 Page 23 of 23