Delhi District Court
Poonam Virmani vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms Savitri
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
LAC No. 07/13
New LAC No. 117/16
Area: Property No. 69/6A Patel Road ( Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-15
Award No.: 02/DC (W)/2006-07 dated 30.08.2006
Poonam Virmani
S-71, Greater Kailash Part-I,
New Delhi-110048 .... Petitioner
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
District (West), Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 15.01.2013
Date of conclusion of arguments : 17.08.2019
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.08.2019
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 11785.82 sq. meters under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9174 dated 03.09.2003. Notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9375 under Section 6 of said Act was issued on 02.09.2004. The land was notified under Section 17(1) vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9376 dated 02.09.2004. Such land had been LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 1 of 10 acquired for the purpose of construction of Grade/Flyover at Najafgarh Road & Patel Road Intersection near Moti Nagar.
2. Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 02/DC (W)/2006-2007 dated 30.08.2006 (Ex. R-1) under Section 11 of said Act. He determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.20,900/- per square meter for industrial land under acquisition. The structure was valued as per the valuation report submitted by MCD.
3. According to the statement of Section 19 of said Act filed by the Collector, the petitioner was shown as recorded owner of the acquired land as per following particulars: -
Name of Property Total Kind Detail of recorded owner No. Area in of soil Buildings &share Sqm. Smt. Poonam 69/6A 55.20 Nil As per award Virmani W/o Harish Virmani ( 1/3rd share)
Note: The reference petitioners are not recorded owners as per the award and compensation sent to ADJ court u/s 30-31 of LA Act, 1894 being dispute.
Date of Possession is 25.10.2005.
4. The petitioner filed application under Section 18 of said Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by Collector.
5. In brief, the facts averred in the petition are that petitioner is owner of 1/3rd of the acquired land. She is owner of 1/3rd share by virtue of Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney from Shri Kapil Virmani and also by virtue of Registered Sale Deed. She is an interested person and entitled to the payment of entire compensation.
LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 2 of 106. The petitioner does not accept the findings and determination of the LAC. It is stated that LAC has grossly erred in awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per sq. meter which on the lowest side in the area. The LAC has awarded very compensation in respect of structures. It is stated that the market value of land is not less than Rupees One lakh per square Meter. The land is commercial being surrounded by roads and commercial shops. Survey report itself indicates that commercial shops existed on the acquired land.
7. Respondent no.1 / Union of India filed written statement. In the preliminary objections, it was stated that the Collector, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, had correctly and legally assessed the market value of the land in question and the same was adequate and just. It is stated that the compensation of the acquired land has already been paid by the LAC to the petitioner. The claim of petitioner is highly excessive, unjustified and denied.
8. On merits, the averments made in the petition were denied as wrong and incorrect.
9. Reply / objections were filed on behalf of respondent no.2 / MCD (North) as well. It was claimed therein that the present petition was not maintainable and the grounds taken for the enhancement of compensation were not sustainable in the eyes of law.
10. Respondent no.2 also highlighted about various previous aspects related to land in question. According to MCD, the Delhi LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 3 of 10 Improvement Trust (now known as DDA) had sanctioned a plan of industrial area of in question. Plot No. 69 was eventually purchased by Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani. He and others submitted a proposal for sub- division of Plot No. 69 for approval by MCD in the year 1973. Such proposal was put up before the Standing Committee and was approved vide resolution dated 31.05.1973. It was also approved by the Standing Committee that the land required for widening of Najafgarh Road, Patel Road and intersection of these two roads shall be left, as per approved alignment land, free of cost. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner submitted the layout plan indicating the land to be surrendered for the purpose of road widening and sought sub-division of plot No. 69 into six parts. Accordingly, the land was sub-divided into six parts. Five plots after sub-division were retained by Virmani family and one bigger size plot i.e. 69/1-A was sold to M/s. India Export Pvt. Ltd. MCD claimed that Virmani family had taken full benefit of the resolution passed by MCD and got the land sub-divided but the other conditions which were in favour of MCD or general public were not fulfilled. Therefore, the resolution passed in the year 1973 stood lapsed and therefore, such resolution came to an end and consequently, the sub-division of the plot into six plots and transfer of sub-division to different persons became illegal and therefore, the entire plot was required to be dealt as one single plot and the construction raised thereupon individually and separately by such various owners was also required to be dealt with as per the provisions of DMC Act. It has been claimed that such occupants of sub-divided plots were not permitted to take any benefit.
11. On merits, it was claimed that the petitioner was not entitled for further enhancement in compensation. It was agitated that rather compensation amount paid by MCD or LAC was required to be revoked in the light of resolution of MCD of the year 1973 and 1996.
LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 4 of 1012. No replication was filed by petitioner.
13. My Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 22.11.2013, framed the following issues:
1. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
3. Relief.
14. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Deepak Khosla, tendered the copy of judgment dated 09.10.2009 passed by Sh. Ashwani Sarpal, Ld. ADJ who was predecessor of this court, in LAC No. 46/09/07 titled as ' Hemant Jain vs. UOI & Anr.' as Ex.P-1 and closed petitioner's evidence on 28.03.2014.
15. Respondent no.1/ UOI examined Sh. Prashant Diwan, Ld. Counsel who tendered the copy of Award No. 02/DC(W)/2006-07 as Ex. R-1.
16. Respondent no.2/MCD adopted the evidence led by ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1-UOI and closed evidence on behalf of respondent no. 2 on 23.07.2014.
LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 5 of 1017. It is reiterated that in Section 19 Statement, it was mentioned that the reference petitioner was not recorded owner as per the award and compensation amount was, therefore, being sent to ADJ court u/s 30-31 of LA Act, 1894, there being dispute about entitled person.
18. The reference petition under Section 30-31 of the LA Act bearing LAC No. 10A/10/07 titled 'Union of India vs. Harish Virmani & Others' has already been decided by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on 14.12.2017.
19. Thus, in LAC No. 10A/10/07 titled Union of India Vs Harish Virmani & Ors. the share percentage of petitioner i.e. IP No. 2, inter alia, was adjudicated. Such decision was given on 14.12.2017 and against such order, one Sh. Ashok Virmani had filed a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court which came to be registered as WP (C) 1453/2018. However, it is admitted by both the sides that such Writ Petition has now been dismissed as withdrawn, copy of the same has been placed on record. Thus, as of now, even as per both the sides, there is no embargo or impediment in considering and deciding the present reference petition in terms of decision of reference court given on 14.12.2017 in relation to petition under Section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act.
20. I have heard Sh. Deepak Khosla, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
21. My issue wise findings are as under:
1. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 6 of 10
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
22. Both these issues are inter-connected and inter-woven and, therefore, these are being taken up together. The contention of petitioner is very simple and precise. It has been contended that as per judgment given by reference Court in case of M/s. India Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI, bearing LAC No. 49/08, this court has already determined the fair market value of the land acquired vide Award No. 02/DC(W)/2006-07 i.e award in question. Admittedly, the land of the petitioner herein is also part of the same award and, therefore, same yardstick needs to be applied. The petitioner has also relied upon various other judgments passed by this court with respect to same award i.e. Award No. 02/DC (W)/2006-07 dated 30.08.2006 in cases bearing LAC No. 106/11 titled 'Smt. Rajinder Kaur vs. Union of India & Anr.' dated 05.01.2016, LAC No. 105/11 Sh. Virender Pal Arora Vs Union of India & Others dated 04.01.2016 and LAC No. 2/13 (New No. 67/18) Ms Divya Jain Vs Union of India dated 10.10.2018.
23. On the other hand, Union of India has relied upon the award Ex. R-1 passed by the Collector. MCD has not examined any witness and only adopted the evidence led by respondent no. 1/UOI.
24. Since the reference court has already given decision with respect to the land falling under the same notification and same award, this court does not find any requirement of entering into said controversy all over again.
LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 7 of 1025. Law is well settled. Once the market value is determined by reference Court, the same market value is applicable to the other cases as well falling under the same notification and same Award. Reliance is placed on 'Nand Ram & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana' JT 1988 (4) SC 260. Reference be also made to 'Goa Housing Board vs. Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar & Anr.' AIR 2012 SC 193 wherein also it has been observed that there can be no doubt that similarly situated land in the same area, having the same advantages and acquired under the same notification should be awarded the same compensation.
26. Hence, in view of the above observation and discussion, the petitioner is entitled to fair market value of the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.28,438.53 per square meter with statutory interest and solatium as already decided in earlier reference petitions.
27. Accordingly, issue nos. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF
28. Accordingly, the reference is disposed of by holding that the compensation awarded to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.20,900/- per sq. meter by LAC was inadequate and unreasonable.
1. Petitioner is awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.28,438.53 (Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred thirty eight and paisa fifty three only) per square meter. Petitioner is thus entitled LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 8 of 10 to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,538.53 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred thirty eight and paisa fifty three only) along with 30% solatium.
2. Petitioner is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification till the date of possession i.e. 03.09.2003 to 25.10.2005 as per provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per Section 28 of the Act.
29. Needless to emphasize that the compensation payable to the petitioner would be as per share percentage adjudicated in Reference Petition pertaining to sec 30-31 of said Act. In this context it would be pertinent to mention the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by my ld. Predecessor Judge on application filed under Section 151,152 & 153 CPC which was inter alia filed by the petitioner herein. As per the said order para 198A was introduced in the main judgment which reads as under:-
"IP Nos1, 2 ( petitioner herein) and 46 are entitled to the share as per settlement with IP nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31,32,34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 41, 43, 44 and 45 as per settlement".LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 9 of 10
30. Apart from the above, the petitioner is also entitled to enhancement qua her un-disputedly owned land of 55.20 sq. meters as has been mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of the L.A Act.
31. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
32. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
33. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed SAVITRI by SAVITRI CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY ATTRI ATTRI Date: 2019.08.27 12:56:04 +0530 Announced in the open court on 21st August, 2019.
(Savitri) Addl. District Judge-02 West/Delhi Note: (The above judgment has been dictated directly on computer and shorthand dictation was not given to the stenographer).
LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 10 of 10 LAC117/16 Poonam Virmani Vs. UOI & Anr Page 11 of 10