Delhi District Court
Shri Jai Bhagwan vs The Director on 16 July, 2014
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014
1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEI:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No.1152/2012 (Old CS No.28/2010 & 35/2010)
UID No.: 02405C0118812010
In the matter of:
Shri Jai Bhagwan,
S/o Shri Ram Chander,
Village Nanak Heri, PO Nanak Heri,
New Delhi110 071.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Director,
GAIL (India) Ltd., Bhikaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi110 068.
2. The Director,
GAIL (India) Ltd., GIT Park Building, Plot No.24,
Sector16A, Noida, District G.B Nagar, UP.
3. Shri K.L Bishnoi,
Competent Officer, GAIL,
Kothi No.215, Sector14, Gurgaon, Haryana.
.....Defendants
(Through Shri Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 04.02.2010
Date of transfer to this Court : 12.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 04.07.2014
Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2014
APPLICATION U/s 10 OF THE PETROLEUM & MINERALS PIPELINES (ACQUISITION
OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 ARISING OUT OF AWARD IN RESPECT OF
VILLAGE NANAKHERI, DELHI FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.1 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014
1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
Civil Suit No.1153/2012 (Old CS No.142/2010)
UID No.: 02405C0122502010
In the matter of:
Shri Ramphal,
S/o Shri Ram Mehar,
R/o Village Nanak Heri,
New Delhi110 071.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Vinod Sehrawat, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Director,
GAIL (India) Ltd., Bhikaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi110 068.
2. Competent Officer, GAIL,
Kothi No.215, Sector14, Gurgaon, Haryana.
.....Defendants
(Through Shri Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 15.07.2010
Date of transfer to this Court : 12.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 04.07.2014
Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2014
APPLICATOIN U/s 10 (2 & 3) OF THE PETROLEUM & MINERALS PIPELINES
(ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 FOR DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND OF THE APPLICANT
SITUATED IN VILLAGE NANAKHERI, DELHI
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.2 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014
1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
Civil Suit No.1155/2012 (Old CS No.145/2010)
UID No.: 02405C0122532010
In the matter of:
Shri Rai Singh,
S/o Shri Roop Ram,
R/o Village Nanak Heri,
New Delhi110 071.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Vinod Sehrawat, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Director,
GAIL (India) Ltd., Bhikaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi110 068.
2. Competent Officer, GAIL,
Kothi No.215, Sector14, Gurgaon, Haryana.
.....Defendants
(Through Shri Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 15.07.2010
Date of transfer to this Court : 12.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 04.07.2014
Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2014
APPLICATOIN U/s 10 (2 & 3) OF THE PETROLEUM & MINERALS PIPELINES
(ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 FOR DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND OF THE APPLICANT
SITUATED IN VILLAGE NANAKHERI, DELHI
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.3 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014
1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
Civil Suit No.1159/2012 (Old CS No.148/2010)
UID No.: 02405C0122572010
In the matter of:
Shri Sri Ram (Through L.Rs)
(i) Shri Om Prakash,
(ii) Shri Ved Prakash,
(iii) Shri Surender
All Sons of Late Shri Sri Ram,
All R/o Village Nanak Heri,
New Delhi110 071.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Vinod Sehrawat, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Director,
GAIL (India) Ltd., Bhikaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi110 068.
2. Competent Officer, GAIL,
Kothi No.215, Sector14, Gurgaon, Haryana.
.....Defendants
(Through Shri Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 15.07.2010
Date of transfer to this Court : 12.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 04.07.2014
Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2014
APPLICATOIN U/s 10 (2 & 3) OF THE PETROLEUM & MINERALS PIPELINES
(ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 FOR DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND OF THE APPLICANT
SITUATED IN VILLAGE NANAKHERI, DELHI
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.4 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014
1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
Civil Suit No.1158/2012 (Old CS No.147/2010)
UID No.: 02405C0122562010
In the matter of:
Shri Ram Chander, S/o Shri Ganga Sahay
(Through L.Rs)
(i) Ms.Aruna,
(ii) Ms.Karuna,
(iii) Ms.Omvati,
(iv) Ms.Sujata
All D/o Late Shri Ram Chander
(v) Smt.Savitri Devi,
Widow of Late Shri Ram Chander
(vi) Shri Manoj Kumar,
(vii) Shri Ashish Kumar
Both sons of Shri Lakhi Ram,
All R/o Village Nanak Heri,
New Delhi110 071.
.....Plaintiffs
(Through Shri Vinod Sehrawat, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Director,
GAIL (India) Ltd., Bhikaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi110 068.
2. Competent Officer, GAIL,
Kothi No.215, Sector14, Gurgaon, Haryana.
.....Defendants
(Through Shri Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 15.07.2010
Date of transfer to this Court : 12.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 04.07.2014
Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2014
APPLICATOIN U/s 10 (2 & 3) OF THE PETROLEUM & MINERALS PIPELINES
(ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 FOR DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND OF THE APPLICANT
SITUATED IN VILLAGE NANAKHERI, DELHI
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.5 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014
1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
Civil Suit No.1157/2012 (Old CS No.146/2010)
UID No.: 02405C0122552010
In the matter of:
Shri Kali Ram,
S/o Shri Ram Mehar,
R/o Village Nanak Heri,
New Delhi110 071.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Vinod Sehrawat, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Director,
GAIL (India) Ltd., Bhikaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi110 068.
2. Competent Officer, GAIL,
Kothi No.215, Sector14, Gurgaon, Haryana.
.....Defendants
(Through Shri Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 15.07.2010
Date of transfer to this Court : 12.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 04.07.2014
Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2014
APPLICATOIN U/s 10 (2 & 3) OF THE PETROLEUM & MINERALS PIPELINES
(ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 FOR DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND OF THE APPLICANT
SITUATED IN VILLAGE NANAKHERI, DELHI
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.6 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014
1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
Civil Suit No.1156/2012 (Old CS No.143/2010)
UID No.: 02405C0122512010
In the matter of:
Shri Jitender Kumar,
S/o Shri Mukhtiar Singh,
R/o Village Badusari,
New Delhi110 071.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Vinod Sehrawat, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Director,
GAIL (India) Ltd., Bhikaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi110 068.
2. Competent Officer, GAIL,
Kothi No.215, Sector14, Gurgaon, Haryana.
.....Defendants
(Through Shri Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 15.07.2010
Date of transfer to this Court : 12.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 04.07.2014
Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2014
APPLICATOIN U/s 10 (2 & 3) OF THE PETROLEUM & MINERALS PIPELINES
(ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 FOR DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND OF THE APPLICANT
SITUATED IN VILLAGE NANAKHERI, DELHI
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.7 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014
1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
Civil Suit No.1154/2012 (Old CS No.144/2010)
UID No.: 02405C0122522010
In the matter of:
Shri Nanak Ram,
S/o Shri Lekh Ram,
R/o Village Badusarai,
New Delhi110 071.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Vinod Sehrawat, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Director,
GAIL (India) Ltd., Bhikaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi110 068.
2. Competent Officer, GAIL,
Kothi No.215, Sector14, Gurgaon, Haryana.
.....Defendants
(Through Shri Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 15.07.2010
Date of transfer to this Court : 12.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 04.07.2014
Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2014
APPLICATOIN U/s 10 (2 & 3) OF THE PETROLEUM & MINERALS PIPELINES
(ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 FOR DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND OF THE APPLICANT
SITUATED IN VILLAGE BADUSARAI, DELHI
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.8 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014
1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
16.07.2014
J U D G M E N T:
By this judgment, eight petitions filed U/s 10 (2 & 3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipeline Act (Acquisition & Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") which have been filed by various claimants in respect of acquisition of right of user in their lands by Gas Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "GAIL") for redetermination of the amount of compensation for their lands as they are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the Competent Authority under the Act.
2. The claimants in these matters are the recorded bhoomidars of their respective lands, the right of user in respect whereof has been acquired by GAIL for laying down the pipeline for transportation of natural gas through Thamrauli superline from ChainsaJhajjarHissar trunk pipeline project. Notification U/s 3 (1) of the Act in this regard was issued on 22.05.2009, whereby the Central Government declared its intention to acquire right of use of the land, the details whereof were mentioned in the said Notification. In this batch of matters, the land Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.9 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 of two villages namely Nanakheri and Badusarai is in question, the details whereof would be mentioned in succeeding paragraphs. Thereafter, Notification U/s 6 (1) of the Act was published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India on 18.08.2009. The Competent Authority thereafter passed Award dated 30.06.2009 in respect of village Nanak Heri, interalia determining the compensation @ Rs.68,90,000/ (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only) per acre; whereas, in respect of village Badusarai, the Award of the same date was passed, whereby rate of land per acre was held to be Rs.81,60,000/ (Rupees Eighty One Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only). For determining the amount of compensation, the Competent Authority took Rs. 53,00,000/ (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Only) per acre to be the basis on which the market value of the land was assessed. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the said determination and they have sought redetermination of the market value of the land in question @ Rs.4,00,00,000/ (Rupees Four Crores Only) per acre on the ground that the Competent Authority did not take into consideration the sale deeds in respect of adjoining villages namely Chhawla (in Delhi), Dharmpura & Bajghera (both in Gurgaon, District Gurgaon, Haryana).
3. The details of the claimants, actual land use acquired and land in respect of which compensation paid is as under:
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.10 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 S. Name of the Village Chak No./ Khasra No. Land Use Payment made No. plaintiff Khata No. Acquired by for land GAIL (In Acres) (In Acres) acquired by (Details as per GAIL Ex.RW1/E)
(i) Jai Bhagwan Nanakheri 76 (a) 8/21/1 0.0067 0.1834
(b) 9/24/2 0.0900
(c) 25 0.1784 Total > 0.2751
(ii) Ram Phal Nanakheri 78 (a) 8/11 0.0196 0.0723
(b) 20 0.0890 Total > 0.1086
(iii) Rai Singh Nanakheri (a) 77 (a) 3/24/2 0.1190 0.0743
(b) 75 (b) 3/24/1 0.0627 Total > 0.1817
(iv) Sri Ram Nanakheri 109 8/20 0.0889 0.0593 (Thru L.Rs)
(v) Ram Chander Nanakheri 82 (a) 8/3 0.0695 0.0750 (Thru L.Rs) (b) 8 0.0604 Total > 0.1299
(vi) Kali Ram Nanakheri 115 12/3 0.1977 0.0745
(vii) Jitender Kumar Nanakheri 74 12/10/3 0.0820 0.0725
(viii) Nanak Ram Badusarai 114 (a) 32/3 East 0.2019 0.2443
(b) 4 0.1361 Total > 0.3380
4. At the time of hearing final arguments, it was noticed that none of the parties have prosecuted these cases diligently as issues were framed only in one matter, i.e Jai Bhagwan V/s GAIL & Ors. With the assistance of both the learned counsels, I have gone through the record of all the cases and have myself prepared data with regard to the actual acquisition of land and the land in respect of which compensation having being paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The sole issue involved in these cases is as to whether the amount of compensation determined by Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.11 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 the Competent Authority in respect of aforesaid two villages is adequate and if not, what should be the adequate compensation which was required to be determined in respect of lands of two villages in question. In the process, this also needs to be examined by this court as to whether the Competent Authority at the time of going into the process of determination of market value had acted in accordance with the provisions of the "Act" and the rules framed thereunder. Since the cases under the Act are probably new and despite best efforts no precedent from Delhi could be found, whereby adjudication U/s 10 might have taken place in the court of Ld.District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. Before actually going into the provisions of the Act and the rules, the facts of cases which are identical succinctly stated are as under.
5. The Notification U/s 3 (1) of the Act in these batch of matters was issued by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India on 22.05.2009, showing its intention that for the purpose of laying down pipelines for the transportation of natural gas through Bamnauli superline from ChainsaJhajjar Hissar trunk pipeline, it was necessary to acquire right of user in the land under which the said pipeline was proposed to be laid and the same was described in the Schedule annexed to the said Notification. The copy of the said Notification is there in all the cases as Ex.RW1/B. Thereafter, the Notification of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India, U/s 6 (1) of the Act was issued on 18.08.2009, whereby the Central Government proposed to acquire the right of user in the lands mentioned in the Schedule for laying down the aforesaid pipeline. The copy of said Notification is on record as Ex.RW1/C. Thereafter, the Competent Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.12 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 Authority determined the compensation U/s 10 of the Act on the sole basis of Notification of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, bearing No.F. 1(177)/Regn./BR/DIG.com/07/254279, dated 14.03.2008, taking the market value per acre as per minimum indicative price to be Rs.53,00,000/ as well as the revision of rates of allotment of Gaon Sabha land to government agencies in terms of Notification No.FMR(P)/Allotment/Misc./2008/ 48834897, dated 12.02.2008, the copies whereof are on record as Ex.RW1/D (Colly). There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the market value was assessed from the angle of the same being depicted in sale deeds of the adjoining areas. This is also a matter of record that plaintiffs had hardly filed documents/objections before the Competent Authority assisting it in determination of the market value; but can that be the sole ground for the Competent Authority not to consider the market value from the angle of the value being shown in the sale deeds? This would be discussed a little later while discussing the scheme of the Act.
6. Therefore, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority, plaintiffs have challenged the inadequacy of compensation before this court by way of present suits, thereby invoking the provisions of Section 10 (5) of the Act. The general stand of plaintiffs in all the cases has been that the Competent Authority has discriminated in assessing the compensation in respect of land(s) which was acquired in adjoining villages namely Dharampur and Bhajgera in Haryana, where the compensation was given @ Rs. 3,50,00,000/ per ace (village Bhajgera) after considering the market value, as shown in some of the registered sale deeds and in respect of village Dharampur Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.13 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 compensation was assessed @ Rs.2,35,00,000/ per acre, again on the basis of market value being shown in registered sale deeds. In respect of their claim for higher compensation, the plaintiffs have relied upon sale deeds in respect of land in village Chhawla, dated 03.08.2007, bearing Registration No.8576, Book No.I, Volume No.3878, page Nos.1 to 265 (Ex.PW2/1); sale deed of village Chauma dated 18.05.2007, bearing No.4102, Book No.I, Volume No.9753, page No.141 (Ex.PW3/2) and sale deed in respect of land in village Dharampur, dated 22.06.2007, bearing Registration No.6807, Book No.1, Volume No.9925, page No.10 to 42 (Ex.PW3/1).
7. The stand of defendants in the matter has been that the assessment of compensation by the Competent Authority was as per law; that no objection(s) were filed by the plaintiffs before the Competent Authority with regard to assessment of compensation; that the plaintiffs had received the amount of compensation without any demur or protest and lastly that the objections filed by the plaintiffs are beyond the period of limitation. As regards the claim of plaintiffs with regard to higher value of compensation assessed for other areas, it was stated that the Competent Authority had considered potentiality of that land. It was, however, not denied that the Competent Authority had assessed the value solely as per the Notification of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the market value as shown in sale deed and information was not obtained from other areas to assess the market value.
8. Plaintiffs examined themselves as PW1, whereas on behalf of defendant Shri P.C Gupta, Manager (S&LR) was examined. It is settled position on Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.14 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 record that that the plaintiffs have not challenged the adequacy/inadequacy of compensation in respect of trees, tubewells etc. and as such, this court would confine itself to the market value of the land as such.
9. Before proceeding to adjudicate upon the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the provisions of Act. In case reported as, "AIR 1988 Bombay 408", titled as, "Yeshwant Gajanan Joshi & Ors. V/s The Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. & Anr.", the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has been pleased to hold as under:
xxxxx
5. ..........The Act has been enacted by the Parliament, as the preamble to the Act mentions, to provide for the acquisition of right of user in land for laying petroleum pipelines for the transport of petroleum and minerals and for matters connected therewith. It should be stated that the acquisition contemplated under the Act is not acquisition of the land as such but acquisition of right of user in land for the purpose of laying petroleum pipelines. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to issue a notification of its intention to acquire the right of user in land if it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum or any mineral from one locality to another, pipelines may be laid by the Central Government or by any State Government or by a corporation and that for the purpose of laying such pipelines, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in any land. On the issue of the said notification, any person authorised by the Central Government or by the State Government or by the corporation may Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.15 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 lawfully enter upon the land for the purpose of surveying the same to see if the same is necessary or useful for the stated purpose. Objections to the notification issued under Section 3 can be lodged by any person interested in the land and those objections are to be decided by the Competent Authority and his decision is regarded as final.
6. Where no objection is lodged or where the objections lodged are overruled, the Central Government may issue a declaration under Sub section (1) of Section 6 that the right of the user in the land for laying the pipelines should be acquired and on such declaration being made, the right of user in the land specified therein vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. After such vesting, the Central Government or the State Government or the corporation is entitled to proceed to lay the pipelines as provided for under Section 7 of the Act. Section 8 also authorises any of these three authorities to enter into the land for inspection. Consistent with the purpose for which the land is acquired, there are certain restrictions imposed upon the owner or the occupier of the land. Such owner or occupier is entitled to use the land for the purpose for which such land was put to use immediately before the date of notification of the intention to acquire the right of user under Section 3(1). However, he cannot construct, after the declaration made under Sub section (1) of Section 6, any building or any other structure, nor can he do any excavation for the purpose of any tank, well, reservoir or dam. The owner is also precluded from planting any trees. The owner or the occupier is also enjoined not to do any act or permit any act to be done which will or is likely Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.16 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 to cause any damage in any manner whatsoever to the pipeline. This is the sum and substance of the acquisition proceedings and the effect of the same on the rights of the owner or the occupier of the land.
7. Next comes the provision for compensation for the right so acquired. We have already seen that after the issue of the notification under Section 3, any person authorised is entitled to enter upon the land and make a survey of the same. This would naturally cause some damage to the land. We have also seen that after the issue of the declaration under Section 6, when the right for the user of the land for the stated purpose becomes vested in the Central Government, pipelines can be laid and are laid. This also naturally causes damage to the land. We have also again seen that after the pipelines are laid, the authorised person can under Section 8 of the Act enter upon the land for inspection. This also is likely to cause damage or lessor injury to a person interested in the land. Section 10 of the Act provides that whenever such damage or loss or injury is caused to or sustained by any person interested in the land, as a result of the actions taken under Sections 4. 7 and 8 of the Act, the Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, as the ease may be shall be liable to pay compensation to the person injured for the damage, loss or injury. The amount of such compensation is to be determined by the Competent Authority in the first instance.
"Competent Authority" means any person or authority authorised by the Central Government to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the Act. One more form of compensation is also payable and that is provided under Subsection (4) of Section 10. Where the right of user of any land has vested in the Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.17 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, as the case may be, additional compensation is payable to the owner and to any other person whose right of enjoyment in the land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such vesting. Compensation is to be calculated at 10 per cent of the market value of that land on the date of the notification under Subsection (1) of Section 3. This, presumably, takes care of the injury or loss sustained by the owner or occupier of the land by the restrictions placed upon the use of the land under Section 9 of the Act.
8. Subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Act ought to be reproduced: "If the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority under Subsection (1) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount of compensation shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, be determined by that District Judge." (Emphasis provided).
It is obvious from the aforesaid provision that there are two parties before the Competent Authority when the latter proceeds to determine the amount of compensation payable under the Act. One party, obviously, is the party whose land is affected by the acquisition proceedings; the other party necessarily is the party who has to pay the compensation. Either of the parties can make an application to the District Judge complaining about the amount of compensation one way or the other. The decision of the District Judge on an application preferred by either of the Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.18 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 parties is made final by Subsection (6) of Section 10. Section 14 provides that no civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Competent Authority is empowered to determine and no injunction will be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act.
9. We will now proceed to take notice of certain rules which have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 17. Rule 4 provides for the period of limitation for the application to be made by any person interested in any land for claiming compensation before the Competent Authority. Claim for compensation for damages sustained by a person by reason of the exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 has to be filed within two months from the date on which the notification under Subsection (1) of Section 3 ceases to have effect if the right has not been acquired. Otherwise, namely when the right is acquired, it has to be claimed within 60 days from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6( 1) of the Act. Application for damages sustained as a result of the action taken under Section 7 has to be made within 60 days from the date of the termination of the operations. Similar period is also provided for damages sustained as a result of the action under Section 8. We have already noticed that apart from the damages that may be caused as a result of the actions taken under Sections 4, 7 and 8, certain damage may also occur to the owner of the land, which is referred to in Section 10(4). Compensation for such damage has to be asked for within 60 days from the date of the publication of Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.19 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 the declaration made under Section 6( 1) of the Act.
10. Subrule (3) of Rule 4 is as follows : "The Competent Authority shall, on receipt of the claim for compensation, make such inquiry as it deems fit and fix the compensation and thereafter inform the parties referred to in Subsections (2) and (5) of Section 10 of the amount of compensation so fixed."
It is provided in Rule 5 that any party aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation may prefer an application to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, not later than 90 days of t he receipt of the intimation from the Competent Authority under Rule 4. There is a provision in Rule 6 that the Central Government or the State Government or the corporation should deposit the compensation, the intimation of which is given under Rule 4, in the treasury specified in that behalf. Rule 7 deals with notice to claimants and reference of disputes to the District Judge and Rule 8 provides for the mode of service of notice.
11. We have thus noted that there are three broad divisions of the Act. One relates to the procedure for acquisition of the right of user in any land and matters incidental thereto, the second relates to the compensation payable to the owner or occupier of land in four different situations; and the third division deals with the authorities which have to determine the amount of compensation.
xxxxx Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.20 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
10. Section 10 Sub Rule4 of the Act contemplates that after vesting of the land with the Government, compensation calculated at 10% of the market value of that land on the date of notification under SubSection 1 of Section 3 has to be paid. Section 12 of the Act vests the Competent Authority with certain powers of Civil Courts with regard to summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, clauses (c), (d) and (e) of the same are reproduced hereunder:
12. Competent Authority to have certain powers of Civil Courts:
The Competent Authority shall have, for the purpose of this Act, all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters namely:
xxxxx
(c) reception of evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record from any court or office;
(e) issuing commission for examination of witnesses.
xxxxx
11. Further, Rule 4(A) of the Act contemplates as under:
4A. While conducting enquiry for granting compensation under subrule (3) of rule 4, the Competent Authority shall follow the following procedure, namely: (1) for compensation of land due to the deprivation in right of enjoyment to any person interested in the land the Competent Authority may enquire the rate of land prevailing in that locality on the date of publication of Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.21 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 the notification under subsection (12) of section 3 of the Act from the following sources, namely:
(a) local registration authority such as the Registrar, SubRegistrar of any Officer of authority for the time being authorized to register the documents under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908);
(b) land acquisition authority, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) if any land has been acquired during such period in the locality and;
(c) Officer or authority of the Government who fixes the reserve price of the land for any purpose under any law for the time being in force;
Provided that any rate taken for consideration shall not be less than the reserve price fixed by such officer or authority.
12. A joint reading of Rule 4A with Section 10 (4) & Section 12 of the Act shows that at the time of determining the compensation payable to the claimants, the Competent Authority having power of the Civil Court would make every endeavour to ascertain the market value of the land as on the date of Notification U/s 3 (1) of the Act, as clearly as possible and for that purpose the Competent Authority has been conferred with the powers of Civil Court in summoning and production of any document and enquiry would be made by the Competent Authority from the local registration authority, land acquisition authority or any other office or authority of the Government in addition to any other Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.22 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 documentary evidence produced by the claimants at that stage. Here, in the present case, the Competent Authority admittedly considered only the notification of Delhi Government and did not bother to check up the market value of the land from the local registration authority such as, Registrar, SubRegistrar or any other office or authority, authorized to register the documents under the Indian Registration Act. Even any officer or authority of the Government who fixes the reserve price of the land for any purpose under any law was not at all considered. Even the plaintiffs were not invited to produce documentary evidence and as such, the Competent Authority failed to conduct proper enquiry with regard to the market value of the land. The analysis of the provisions of the Act clearly shows that the Competent Authority does not merely discharge administrative functions; on the other hand it clearly discharges quasijudicial functions when it proceeds to determine the compensation payable by the acquiring body.
13. A perusal of the documentary evidence filed on record by the respondent itself goes on to show that the Government took possession of the land in excess of what in respect of which the compensation was paid. The same has been set out in last two columns of Table in paragraph 3 on page 11 of this judgment.
14. The aforesaid factual error can always be corrected by the Government after carrying out the measurements of acquired land afresh by associating the plaintiffs therein.
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.23 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
15. Now, I will proceed to analyse the sale instances produced on record by the plaintiffs and its relevance in reaching to reasonable and just conclusion in the case.
16. In order to prove on record that the land of villages Chhawla, Dharampur and Chauma is situated in the vicinity of the land of villages Nanakheri and Badusarai, the plaintiffs have proved on record the map of village Chhawla as Ex.PW5/1, map of village Nanakheri as Ex.PW5/2, map of village Badusarai as Ex.PW5/3, map of village Dharampur as Ex.PW4/1 and map of village Bajghera has been proved on record as Ex.PW4/2. A perusal of all the maps collectively clearly and unerringly shows that the villages are contiguous to each other and at one point or the other there boundaries coincide. Therefore, the market value of the land and potentiality thereof cannot be materially different from the land in question in the case. The analysis of the sale instances relied upon by the plaintiffs are as under:
Valuation as per Sale Deeds:
(A) Ex.PW2/1 : Village Chhawla
Dated 03.08.2007
Area 11 Bigha 19 Biswa
Value : Rs.7,96,66,667/
1 Biswa = 50 Sq.Yds.
1 Bigha = 1000 Sq.Yds. = 20 Biswa
Area in sq.yds = 11x1000+19x50 = 11,950 sq.yds
Rate as per sq.yds = Rs.6,667/
Total Area = 11950 / 4840 = 2.469 Acre
Rate per Acre = sq.yds. in 1 Acre x Rate per sq.yd.
= 4840 sq.yds x Rs.6,667/
= Rs.3,22,66,667/
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.24 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 (B) Ex.PW3/1 : Dharampur Dated 22.06.2007 Area 55 Kanal 16 Marle Value Rs.16,39,12,500/ 1 Kanal : 20 Marle 1 Marle : 30 sq.yds Area in sq.yds : 55x20x30+16x30 = 33,480 sq.yds.
Rate per sq.yds : Rs.4,895/
Total Area : 33480 / 4840 = 6.9173 Acre
Rate per Acre : sq.yds in 1 Acre x Rate per sq.yd.
= 4840 sq.yds x Rs.4,895/
= Rs.2,36,95,833/ per Acre
(C) Ex.PW3/2 : Chauma
Dated 18.05.2007
Area 26 Kanal 19 Marle
Value Rs.10,78,00,000/
Area in sq.yds : = 26x20x30+19x30
= 15600 + 570 = 16170 sq.yds.
Rate per sq.yds : Rs.6,666/
Total Area : 16170 / 4840 = 3.340 Acre
Rate per Acre : sq.yds in 1 Acre x Rate per sq.yd.
= 4840 sq.yds x Rs.6,666/
= Rs.3,22,66,667/ per Acre
17. After the final arguments were concluded, the plaintiffs have placed on record list of documents obtained by them from defendants, exercising their right under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is in the form of Award in respect of village Bajghera and Dharampur (Gurgaon, Haryana). In respect of village Bajghera, the defendants had ascertained the market value of land as Rs.
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.25 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 3,50,00,000/ (Rupees Three Crores Fifty Lakhs Only) per acre as on 20.07.2009. At the time of determination of compensation amount, the Competent Authority had considered the registered sale documents in respect of land in the adjoining villages. Similarly, in respect of village Dharampur, the market rate of land was fixed at Rs. 2,35,00,000/ (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Only) per acre, again on the basis of consideration of sale deeds of the adjoining areas. Here in this case, strangely the defendants have chosen to close their eyes to the sale instances, as if there were no sale instances at or around that period, which according to me is the abdication of powers by the Competent Authority.
18. Now, I will deal with the objections of defendants that the suits filed by the plaintiffs are barred by limitation, as the suits in most of the cases were filed in the month of February' 2010, whereas, the Award in the matter was passed on 30.06.2009 and as per Rule 5 of the Act, same should have been filed not later than 90 days of the receipt of intimation from the Competent Authority under Rule 4 (3) of the Act. As per Rule 4 (3) of the Act, the Competent Authority on receipt of the claim for compensation has to make such enquiry, as provided in Rule 4A and fix the compensation and thereafter inform the parties of the same, but there is nothing on record that the compliance of the provisions of Rule 4(3) was ever made by the defendants and as such, the time period did not start to run to file the present petition. Even otherwise, what to talk of informing the plaintiffs about the fixing of compensation amount, no enquiry worth the name under Rule 4A was ever conducted by the Competent Authority. Even otherwise, Rule 5 is not couched in mandatory terminology and the court can always condone the delay, if any, in filing Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.26 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 the petition seeking enhancing of the compensation by the claimants. We have to bear in mind that this is not ordinary adverserial litigation, but is a litigation under a beneficial legislation, the object whereof is to acquire the right of usage of the land of land owner by the Government under its eminent domain, subject to paying them adequate, just and reasonable compensation under the Act. It is not the intention of legislature that with all the disabilities attached to the land owner with regard to the land usage, as contemplated U/s 9 of the Act, the claimant would not have right after certain period of time to seek just and reasonable compensation from the court of District Judge, particularly when as per the Act the court of District Judge is supposed to be the court of final arbitor as far as determination of compensation amount is concerned. Therefore, firstly I do not find any delay by the plaintiffs in approaching the court and secondly even if the claimant(s) did not approach the court within time, considering the nature of litigation, the delay in filing the claim petition stands condoned.
19. In Jai Bhagwan's case, following issues were framed by this court vide order dated 26.05.2010:
(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable without serving statutory service U/s 18 (c) of CPC? OPD.
(ii) Whether the respondent has followed requisite procedure for computation/evaluation of the compensation with respect to land in question etc.? OPD.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has concealed true material facts, if yes, its effect? OPD.
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.27 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation on market value of the land @ Rs.1,30,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs) per acre? OPP.
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh) for the market value of tube well? OPP.
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation on market value of the trees of the acquired area worth Rs.50,000/? OPP.
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation for loss of three crops Rs.2,32,287/? OPP.
(viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive solatium U/s 23 (2), interest U/s 28 and 34 of L.A Act and additional relief U/s 23 (1A) of L.A Act? OPP.
(ix) Relief.
20. In order to discharge the onus of these issues, plaintiff (Jai Bhagwan) examined himself as PW1, whereas no evidence was led on behalf of defendants despite opportunity. From the evidence of plaintiff and defendants, it is apparent that issues No.(iii), (v), (vi) and (vii) were never pressed during litigation and even evidence was not led thereupon. Therefore, said issues are treated as abandoned by the parties on whom the onus to prove said issues was there. The findings on the remaining issues are as under.
21. Issue No.(i): Whether the suit is not maintainable without serving statutory service U/s 18 (c) of CPC? OPD.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The defendants have not led any positive evidence to prove this issue. Even otherwise, in this type Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.28 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 of statutory litigation, the petition cannot be said to be bad for want of service of Notice U/s 80 CPC. The issue is accordingly decided against the defendant.
22. Issue No.(ii):Whether the respondent has followed requisite procedure for computation/evaluation of the compensation with respect to land in question etc.? OPD.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. In all the other cases, except the case of Jai Bhagwan, the defendants have led evidence and in crossexamination of the witness of defendants it has been categorically admitted that the basis for fixing the compensation amount was the market value assessed by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The witness clearly avoided the answers to the question that the pipeline had to pass through villages Bajghera and Dharampur, whereas the court can always take judicial notice of the fact that in respect of two villages even Awards were passed by the Competent Authority fixing the higher compensation amount then what was done in this case. The witness further pleaded ignorance about the amount of compensation given in respect of acquisition of right to use of the land in aforesaid two villages. The witness of the defendants further pleaded ignorance about the proximity of land in question to Dwarka Expressway as well as Jaipur Highway. As already held herein above, that the Competent Authority was required to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 4(A) while determining the compensation amount, but has miserably failed to do so. Therefore, the defendants have not followed the requisite procedure. As such, the issue is decided against the defendants.
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.29 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012
23. Issue No.(viii): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive solatium U/s 23 (2), interest U/s 28 and 34 of L.A Act and additional relief U/s 23 (1A) of L.A Act? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Rule 10 Sub Rule 4 of the Act provides for grant of only 10% of the market value of the land, but the entire Act does not speak of payment of solatium/interest akin to the one being provided U/s 23 (2), 23 (1)(A), 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the said solatium/interest cannot be given to plaintiffs and the issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiffs.
24. Issue No.(iv): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation on market value of the land @ Rs.1,30,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs) per acre? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Although, the plaintiff (Jai Bhagwan) has claimed compensation amount @ Rs.1,50,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs Only) per acre, but in these cases, the other claimants have claimed compensation @ Rs.4,00,00,000/ (Rupee Four Crore Only) per acre. The land of plaintiff in this case and the land of other plaintiffs is similarly placed, therefore, whatever compensation amount is liable to be decided in the cases of other plaintiffs would be applicable to the case of plaintiff in Jai Bhagwan's case as well and claiming lesser amount will not come in his way of getting the enhanced compensation, if any. In this regard, reference could be had to Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.30 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 the law laid down by the Hon'ble High of Madhya Pradesh in case reported as, "2005 Legal Eagle (MP) 1087", titled as, "Babu & Anr. V/s Progressive Engineering Construction Ltd. & Ors.". The said case was a case under Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, wherein the claimants had claimed less amount, but they were held entitled to more amount. The Hon'ble High Court decided the issue as under.
xxxxx
17. So far as question (c) is concerned, in view of the aforesaid it is apparent that the appellants are illiterate rustic villagers and due to this inadvertence the claim was not properly initiated but in any circumstances the court or Claims Tribunal to award the just compensation may award more than that which has been prayed in claim petition. My aforesaid view is fully supported by the precedent of Apex Court in the matter of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, in which it was held as under (paras 7, 10):
(7) Firstly, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act'), there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo isit should be 'just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act.
Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.31 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to Subsection (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Other important part of the said section is Subsection (4) which provides that 'the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Subsection (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act'. Hence, Claims Tribunal in appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed.
(10) Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to 'make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just'.
Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be 'just'. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.
18. This question was also answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Vijay Kumar Arya v. Ashok Rathore, in which it was held as under:
(5) The claimant has claimed compensation Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.32 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 of Rs. 1,42,550. In our opinion, in the circumstances narrated above, the claimant's claim is on the lower side. Therefore, we award compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 (rupees one lakh fifty thousand) payable with interest at the rate of 9 per cent on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of application till payment. Joint and several liabilities of owner and driver of the vehicle, payable by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Betul with which the vehicle was insured.
19. It was again decided by the other Division Bench of this Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hari Kishan , which says as under:
(3) Thus, there is no ambiguity that to meet the ends of justice, so also to arrive at the 'just' compensation, the court is empowered to award an amount exceeding the amount claimed.
xxxxx Therefore, there is no impediment in the way of this court in considering the entitlement of Jai Bhagwan for enhancement of compensation in terms of entitlement of other plaintiffs, as the land in both the cases is similar.
25. By considering the Awards of village Bajghera and Dharampur and the sale deeds Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW3/1 and Ex.PW3/2, the mean/average amount of market value of land shown in all the aforesaid documents (Rs.3.22 Cr + Rs.2.36 Cr + Rs.3.22 Cr + Rs.3.50 Cr + Rs.2.35 Cr) / 5 would come to Rs.2.93 Crore per acre. Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.33 of 34 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"
CS Nos.: 1152/2012; 1153/2012; 1155/2012; 1159/2012; DOD: 16.07.2014 1158/2012; 1157/2012; 1156/2012 & 1154/2012 The aforesaid value depicts just reasonable compensation which is liable to be awarded to the plaintiffs. The issue stands decided accordingly.
26. Relief:
Accordingly, market value of the land of villages Nanak Heri and Badusarai is assessed at Rs.2,93,00,000/ (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Three Lakhs Only) per acre as on the date of Notification U/s 3 (1) of the Act. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to compensation at the aforesaid rate subject to the adjustment of amount already received by them as per the Award alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of suits till the actual receipt of the amount. The defendants are further directed to pay the difference of the Award amount to all the plaintiffs as per actual land acquired, as given in para 3 herein above after conducting a survey of the land by associating the plaintiff/his L.Rs/successors, if any.
27. In the facts and circumstances of the case no orders as to cost.
28. Decree Sheets be prepared accordingly.
29. A copy of this judgment be placed in each case file.
30. Files be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 16.07.2014 Addl. District JudgeI/SouthWest
Dwarka District Courts: New Delhi
Applications U/s 10 (2&3) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Page No.34 of 34
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962: "All petitions Decreed"