Delhi District Court
All Resident Of vs Union Of India on 31 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GARG,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -01,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
LAC No.95/2016
CNR No. DLET01-002304-2016
In the matter of :-
Sh. Dharamvir Singh (Since Deceased)
Through LRs
(a) Smt. Rajesh, Wd/o Late Sh. Dharamvir Singh
(b) Sh. Brijmohan, S/o Late Sh. Dharamvir Singh
(c) Sh. Vijay, S/o Late Sh. Dharamvir Singh
(d) Sh. Shivmohan, S/o Late Sh. Dharamvir Singh
(e) Sh. Ved Prakash, S/o Late Sh. Dharamvir Singh
All resident of:
61/1, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi-110032
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India
Through
Land Acquisition Collector
LML Band, Shastri Park, Shahdara,
Delhi.
2. DMRC, (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation)
Metro Bhavan, Fire Brigade Line,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001
.....Respondents
Award No. 01/1999-2000
Village Chandrawali @ Shahdara
Date of Institution : 03.12.2010
Reserved on : 31.07.2023
Date of Decision : 31.07.2023
LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 1 of 12
Notification U/s 4 : F.7(35)/95-L&B/LA/II/5430 dt.
12.06.1997.
Notification U/s 6 : F.7(35)/95-L&B/II/9064 dt.
28.07.1997
Notification U/s 17 : F.7(35)/95-L&B/LA/II/9064 dt.
28.07.1997
Reference Petition U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:-
1. This judgment shall decide the reference petition no.
24/1/10 preferred by petitioner, Sh. Dharamvir Singh for the enhancement of the compensation against compulsory acquisition of his shop/building bearing No.1/1146 measuring 45 square meters, situated in Chandrawali @ Shahdara, Delhi vide Award No. 01/1999-2000 dated 20.07.1999, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC'), Shahdara, Delhi.
2. To decide the reference U/s 18 L.A. Act r/w statement U/s 19 of the Act sent by the LAC Delhi, the relevant dates and facts which are necessary for adjudication in the present matter are being given herein under:-
i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act : 12.06.1997
ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act : 28.07.1997
iii) Date of award : 20.07.1999
iv) Area of the locality : Chandrawali @ Shahdara
v) Project : MRTS, Delhi
vi) The land use of area as per award : Residential LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 2 of 12
vii) Petition referred to court on : 03.12.2010
3. Background:- The petitioner being owner of property bearing No.1/1146 measuring 45 square meters, situated in the revenue estate of Village Chandrawali @ Shahdara, Delhi, filed the present reference against the award No.1/1999-2000 passed on 20.07.1999, thereby assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.2805/ per sq. yard which is not acceptable to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said Award on the following grounds:-
i. The petitioner was doing business on the said property under the name and style of "Bombay Hair Cutting Saloon and M/s. Vijay Electric Works" for commercial purposes. Other than LRs of deceased petitioner, no other person has any right, title or interest in the shops and only LRs of deceased petitioner are entitled to compensation/enhanced compensation. The petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the LAC, determination of market value of land in question, measurement of land etc. ii. The LAC has mistakenly assessed the market value of land and structures of petitioners at low rates which does not represents the market value of the land on the date of notification U/s 4 of LA, Act.
iii. The acquired property of the petitioner was a commercial property and free hold but the LAC did not consider the said fact.
iv. The LAC has failed to consider that the property in question is located on Main Railway Road Shahdara, which is prestigious and famous market and no land is LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 3 of 12 available for sale in this area and in its vicinity at any price. All facilities and amenities like electricity, water, Road telephones, schools, hospitals, markets, cinema halls, petrol pumps, Railway Station etc. were available prior to the date of notification U/s 4, L.A. Act. v. The market value of the land in this area for commercial properties was not less than Rs. 2 lac per square meter on the Section 4 Notification date.
vi. The market value of the acquired land at the time of notification U/s 4 was Rs.2 lakhs per sq. meter. The petitioners claimed the same for their acquired properties and in addition, petitioners claimed Rs.7,50,000/- for three stories; Rs.50,000/- for furniture; Rs.5 lacs for loss on business; Rs.2 lacs for Good Will and Rs.50,000/- for shifting charges.
In view of the above reasons, this reference was filed by the petitioner before this Court.
4. Notices of the reference petition were issued to the respondents and on completion of service, the respondents had put their appearance/(s), before the Court, through Counsel and had filed their separate written statements, in the matter.
5. In the written statement, Land Acquisition Collector(Shahdara)/respondent No.1 that notification U/s 4 of the Act was issued on 12.06.1997 for acquisition of 41 bigha land. The declaration U/s 6 & 17 of the Act were issued on 28.07.1997. The land has been acquired for the public purpose namely Mass Rapid Transit System Project. Notices U/s 9 & 10 were issued to the land owners/interested persons, inviting claims LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 4 of 12 of the affected properties and in pursuance thereof, number of claims were filed by the affected persons, claiming different value of the land and properties. Necessary demarcation was carried out at the spot and it was revealed that total area was 39 bigha and 10 biswas instead of 41 bigha, as shown in notification U/ 4 & 6 of Act. There was difference of 1 bigha and 10 biswa, as the actual area of khasra No. was 12 bigha and 6 biswa. After considering all the claims, LAC had made and announced the award U/s 11 of LA Act bearing No.1/1999-2000 on 20.07.1999.
The claim of the petitioner with respect to measurements, apportionment and compensation of land is admitted to the extent of section 19 statement of LAC. The compensation assessed by LAC is sufficient and reasonable and it reflects the true market value prevailing at the time of notification issued U/s 4 of Act. Various factors were taken into account while assessing the market value, previous award of the same village and also gave due appreciation to assess the market value of the land for the corresponding period. LAC has assessed fair market value of the land @ Rs.2850 per sq. meter besides other statutory benefits. The petitioners have claimed excessive and exorbitant market value of the land and structures. The LAC has considered the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification U/s 4 of Act i.e. 12.06.1997. The Slum Area Improvement and Clearance Act is applicable to the land in dispute. None of the parties had filed any evidence to support their claim and after denying other averments, it has prayed for dismissal of the reference petition with heavy costs.
6. It is averred in the written statement filed on behalf LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 5 of 12 of DMRC Ltd. i.e. respondent No.2 that compensation has been correctly assessed by the LAC. Petitioner is not entitled for enhanced compensation on the land in question. LAC has taken into consideration all the factors including location and potentiality of the land while assessing the market value of the land. The present reference petition is filed beyond the period of limitation and therefore, liable to be dismissed with cost.
7. During pendency of the case, petitioner expired and an application U/o 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 08.03.2016 and the LRs of deceased petitioner were impleaded as petitioners in the present case.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 06.08.2016:-
1. What was the reasonable and fair market value of the land in question on the day when Notification u/s 4 of the L.A Act was issued? OPP.
2. Whether the petition is barred by limitation? OPD2
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE:-
9. In order to substantiate the case, one of the LR's of deceased petitioner namely Sh. Shiv Mohan examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon the certified copy of judgment titled as Union of India Vs. Shri Chotu Ram as Ex.PW1/1 and another certified copy of judgment titled as Jawand Singh Vs. UOI and Anr. as Ex.PW1/2.
LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 6 of 12 This witness was exhaustively cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for Union of India.
10. No other witness was examined by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed vide order dated 04.05.2018 and the matter was listed for respondent's evidence.
11. The respondent no.1/UOI did not examine any witness.
12. In order to substantiate the case, the respondent no.2-DMRC examined its Senior Legal Assistant Sh. Vijay Kumar as RW1, who tendered the copy of Award No.1/1999- 2000 pertaining to Village Chandrawali as Ex.R1 and corrigendum dated 26.07.1999 as Ex.R2.
Thereafter, inadvertently, said Sh. Vijay Kumar was again examined as R2W1 and he tendered in evidence letters dated 20.05.2019 & 27.07.2018 as Ex.R2W1/1 & Ex.R2W1/2 respectively. He also tendered sale deeds bearing registration Nos. 1328, 1352, 1360, 1241, 449, 473, 1234, 1235, 1236 and 1238 as Ex.R2W1/3 to Ex.R2W1/12 respectively.
Opportunity to cross-examine the said witness was given to the petitioner, but the same was not availed. Thereafter, respondent's evidence was closed on 16.08.2019.
13. Final arguments heard at length. Record perused. Considered. Accordingly, my issue-wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1:
"What was the reasonable and fair market value of the land in question on the day when Notification u/s 4 of LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 7 of 12 the LA Act was issued? OPP"
14. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. However, no arguments were addressed by the petitioner despite several opportunities. During the course of argument, counsel for respondent no.2 has apprised this Court that the market value with respect to the land acquired vide the same notification and same award has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 07.06.2019 passed in the case titled as "Union of India Vs. M.L. Gupta & Ors.' in which the Hon'ble High Court has fixed the market value of the properties acquired vide the same notification and same award @ Rs.4692/- per sq.mtr. along-with statutory benefits. The Hon'ble High Court has assessed the said market value after allowing a reduction of 20% @ Rs.5865/- per sq.mtr. which was previously determined by my Ld. Predecessor in the said case.
Since there is an authoritative pronouncement on the fair market value of the similar land placed in similar circumstances, location and topography and acquired vide the same award, this Court need not to delve further in this regard. Even otherwise, two equals cannot be treated unequally. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment titled as 'Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. Vs. State of J&K' reported in AIR 2017 SC 1518 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it is held that "when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons". In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to go into any evidences or judgments relied upon by the parties to the instant petition in view of the judgment passed by LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 8 of 12 the Hon'ble High Court in case titled as 'Union of India Vs. M.L. Gupta' wherein the market value for the properties acquired vide the same notification and same award have already been assessed @ Rs.4692/- per sq.mtrs. as on the date of notification i.e. 12.06.1997. Even otherwise, nothing substantial has been brought on record by either side to differ from the market value assessed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in one of the matters arising out of the same award and pertaining to the identical land.
15. Though respondent no.2- DMRC further argued that the SLP against the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the determination of market value, however from the perusal of the record, it is observed that SLP filed by the respondents has already been dismissed, however, SLP filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. M.L. Gupta is still pending adjudication. Thus, market value assessed by the Hon'ble High Court has reached finality qua the respondents. Therefore, in the totality of circumstances, it is held that market value of the land in question acquired vide the same notification and same award is fixed @ Rs.4692/- per sq.mtr. on the date of notification i.e. 12.06.1997 along-with statutory benefits.
ISSUE NO.2:
"Whether the petition is barred by limitation? OPD2"
16. The onus to prove this issue is upon the respondent no.2- DMRC. However, apart from mere bald averments, neither any evidence has been led nor argued in this regard.
The proviso to Section 18 of L.A. Act provides for LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 9 of 12 period of limitation during which an application for reference to the Court can be made to the Collector. The same reads as under:-
"Section 18. Reference to Court:-
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made.
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award.
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, which period shall first expire".
17. In the instant case, award was pronounced on 20.07.1999 whereas reference petition u/s 18 of L.A Act was filed before LAC on 27.08.1999 as per the diary entry vide No.5/27.08.1999 as mentioned on the copy of reference petition sent to this court u/s 18 of L.A Act by the LAC. Meaning thereby, it has been filed within six weeks from the date of award and thus, within limitation. Even otherwise, nothing substantial is brought on record on behalf of the respondent no.2 to show how the present reference is barred by limitation. Even in the written submissions filed on behalf of respondent no.2, no objection as to the limitation has been taken. Thus, the respondent no.2 fails to discharge the onus to prove this issue.
LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 10 of 12 Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no.2.
ISSUE NO.3 (Relief):
18. In view of the findings on issue no.1, the petition/ reference filed U/s 18 of L.A. Act, is allowed. The petitioner had claimed compensation of Rs.2 Lacs per sq. meter., which is now fixed and allowed @ Rs.4692/- per sq.mt. The LRs of petitioner is entitled to the market value @ Rs.4692/- per sq.mt. as on 12.06.1997 with respect to their share determined in the land acquired i.e. 28 X 10 feet (26.013 Sq. meter) as per the judgment in reference U/s 30-31, L.A. Act vide Ex.PW1/1.
According to the award, solatium was allowed @ 30%. Accordingly, the solatium is also allowed @ 30% on the market value, as determined above, as per provisions of L.A. Act, 1894.
The petitioner has also claimed interest, as per law. According to the award, 12% interest was allowed on the market value, fixed by the LAC U/s 23(1)A of LA Act, 1894 from the date of notification U/s 4 of Act (12.06.1997) till the date of possession i.e. 20.07.1999. Accordingly, the same is also allowed on the present market value, fixed as above.
According to the award, interest U/s 34 of LA Act, 1894 was also allowed observing that DMRC had taken the land on 12.06.1997 and as such petitioner is entitled to interest on the balance amount, as per section 34 of LA Act, 1894 @ 9% per annum from the date of possession i.e. 20.07.1999 till expiry of one year and thereafter, @ 15% per annum till payment or its LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 11 of 12 deposition into the Court. The same is also allowed on the enhanced market value of the land in question, as determined above. The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation as determined hereinabove to the petitioner/ LRs of petitioner.
19. The above reliefs are subject to the deductions of compensation / solatium / additional benefits / interest U/s 34 of LA Act, 1894, which have already been received by the petitioner/ LRs of petitioner, as were fixed by the LAC vide Award No. 01/1999-2000 dated 20.07.1999.
20. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Both the parties will bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
A copy of this judgment be sent to LAC concerned to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today.
No order as to cost.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (AJAY GARG)
on 31.07.2023 Additional District Judge01
East/KKD Courts/New Delhi
LAC No.95/16 Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Pg No. 12 of 12