Delhi District Court
Sh. Shyam Lal S/O Late Sh. Bhuley vs Union Of India Through on 23 December, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (NORTH)-04 : DELHI
LAC No. : 204/1/08 AWARD No : 02/LAC/N/2005-06
VILLAGE : Burari, Delhi
In the matter of :
Sh. Shyam Lal S/o late Sh. Bhuley
R/o Village Jagatpur, Delhi
( Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Subhash Chander )
...Petitioner
Versus
1 Union of India through
Land Acquisition Collector (North District),
1, Kripa Narain Marg, Delhi
2 Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA Market, New Delhi
( Through Ld. Counsel Sh.Rajesh Raina & Sh.S.S.Mittal )
...Respondents
Reference received on : 22.11.2008
Award reserved on : 23.12.2008
Award announced on : 23.12.2008
AWARD
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) followed by the declaration vide notification No.F.11(30)/03/L&B/LA/23254 dated 08.01.2004 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act, the land situate 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 Bio-Diversity Park Phase-II 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/2005-06 on 07.01.2006 and awarded the 2 compensation @ Rs.15.70 lacs per acre (Category-A) and Rs.5.05 lacs per acre (Category-B) besides statutory benefits. 2 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioner 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 petitioner has sought the enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the petitioner was the absolute owner and in possession of land comprising in khasra no.127/2 (4-16) situated at village Burari, Delhi. The award of the LAC is not acceptable to the petitioner and the petitioner has not accepted the compensation. The market value in respect of the disputed land has been wrongly and meagerly assessed. The compensation assessed by the LAC is grossly inadequate and far below the market value of the land prevailing at the time of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The LAC completely ignored the fact that the land in question has got special adaptability and great potential value for building site for residential as well as commercial and industrial purposes. The LAC also ignored the fact that the suit land is situated near the village Abadi. The LAC ought to have appreciated that the land under acquisition is surrounded by fully developed and approved colonies namely, Sant Nagar, Mukherji Nagar, village Jagatpur and village Burari and National Highway is just adjacent to the acquired land. The land under acquisition could easily fetch the market value @ more than Rs.40,000/.
34 It is further stated that the LAC failed to appreciate that the area and locality in which the acquired land is situated has been rapidly developed into residential and commercial and industrial premises from 1951 onwards and the land in that area is sold for residential and commercial buildings sites and the over increasing organisation and development of Delhi had already encircled the petitioners' land long before the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The land of the petitioners is plain on the spot and most fully developed which used to produce three crops per year to take the crops in the superbe market Azadpur Sabji Mandi, Delhi and the petitioners used to harvest thumping crops of vegetables which could fetch 15 times of more return comprising with the compensation awarded by the LAC. The LAC ignored and ommitted to consider that the civic amenities of life such as water, electricity, telephone, transports, pucca road, schools, parks, garden, hospitals, commercial and industrial market and other facilities like cinema halls, play grounds and easily available because of the close proximity of the well developed colonies and connected through pacca developed roads. The impugned award is, therefore, illegal arbitrary, discriminatory, in excess of jurisdiction which has resulted in substantial loss to the petitioner. The observation and assessment of the market value of the land in question and the other items by the LAC is highly unjust, unreasonable, too low, without any basis and reasons and is based on mere conjectures and surmises & imagination and without the proper application of the mind and the same is unwarranted. The LAC has wrongly discarded the various sales transactions which have taken place at the relevant time. On these grounds among others, the petitioners have filed this reference 4 petition claiming Rs.25,000/- per sq. yard for the land and compensation in respect of the acquired land in accordance with law. 5 The UOI, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the grounds that the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The correctness of the khasra nos., their area and the extent of share of the petitioner 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 petitioner has preferred claim. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or un-developed 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, written statement has not been filed by the counsel for DDA, therefore, the right for filing of the written statement by DDA was closed.
6 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on 15.12.2008 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 petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 3 Relief 7 The counsel for the petitioner has tendered in evidence the photocopy of the certified copy of the judgment dt. 14.07.2008 passed 5 by this reference court in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal & Ors. Vs UOI as Mark-X. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the copy of the award no.02/LAC/N/2005-06 pertaining to village Burari, Delhi as Ex.R-1, photocopies of the sale deeds dt. 21.01.2003, 22.11.2003, 02.01.2004 & 22.05.2003 as Mark-A to Mark-D respectively (certified copies of the same have already been exhibited in similar leading reference in LAC No.226/1/07 titled as Raj Bal Vs UOI).
8 The counsel for the petitioner has not appeared for arguments. However, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents have argued and I have perused the entire records. My issue-wise findings are as under: ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 9 Before deciding these issues, let us examine whether the reference petition has been filed by the petitioner within the limitation period. The award in question was announced on 07.01.2006 and the reference petition has been filed by the petitioner before the LAC vide the diary No.363/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 6 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 petitioner 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. 10 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 petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner has 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 7 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 :8
''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.''
11 The counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case, has relied upon the photocopy of the certified copy of the judgment dt.14.07.2008 passed by this reference court in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal & Ors. Vs UOI which is Mark-X. The counsel for the respondents have proved in evidence the award in question as Ex.R-1, copies of sale deeds Mark-A to Mark-D. In Raj Bal case (supra), the land situate at village Burari, Delhi was acquired vide the same notification dt.18.07.2003 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act, whereby this court thoroughly considered the materials placed on record i.e. the sale deeds relied upon and the evidence led by the parties and held that the petitioners' land is the agricultural land and petitioners therein are entitled to uniform compensation for the land under acquisition at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre i.e. the rate assessed by the LAC for category-A land. It was further held by this reference court in Raj Bal case that the petitioners therein were also 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 therein as per their shares from 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003 which 9 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.
12 It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have held in catena of judgments that same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimants for similarly situated land, same date of notification and same purpose of acquisition of the land. In this context, I would rely upon some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In Nand Ram & Ors Vs State of Haryana JT 1988 (4) SC 260, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the state cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date. In Krapa Rangiah Vs Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (1982) 2 SCC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the selfsame notification for Housing Scheme it seems to us proper that the same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimant herein as was awarded by the High Court in Appeal No.50 of 1970. The Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted to the claimant by Rs. 2 per sq. yard. with consequential increase in solatium and interest. In view of the above judgments, the petitioner herein cannot be dis-entitled for 10 enhancement in compensation of the land in question which is also situate in the same area, location and village i.e. Burari, Delhi. Therefore, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments for enhancement in compensation of the acquired land in dispute in this reference. Thus, the uniform compensation for the land in question is fixed at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre i.e. the rate assessed by the LAC for category-A land and compounded increase @ 11.5% annually is also given on the compensation amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the land in question 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. These issues are answered accordingly. RELIEF 13 In view of my findings on the above issues, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for category A land at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre and the petitioner is also entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually from 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003. Therefore, I fix the market value of the land bearing khasra no.127/2B total measuring 04 bigha 16 biswas 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) as per the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act acquired vide the award no.2/2005-06. The petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid enhancement in compensation according to his full share. Besides it, the petitioner shall also be entitled to get additional amount u/sec. 23 11 (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 petitioner 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner 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 23.12.2008 ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE(NORTH)-04
DELHI
12
LAC No. 204/1/08
23.12.2008 (At 04.00 p.m.)
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 petitioner 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(NORTH)-04/DELHI/23.12.2008