Delhi District Court
) Smt. Rosy vs ) Union Of India on 31 July, 2023
In The Court of Sh. Ajay Garg,
Additional District Judge-01, (East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
LAC No.38/2016
CNR No. DLET01-001057-2016
In the matter of :-
Sh. Amarjit Singh
S/o Sh. Satnam Singh
R/o 70-C/5A, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi
Through LRs
1.) Smt. Rosy
W/o Lt. Sh. Amarjit Singh
2.) Raman Deep Kaur
D/o Lt. Sh. Amarjit Singh
3.) Gurpreet Singh
S/o Lt. Sh. Amarjit Singh
4.) Mandeep Kaur
D/o Lt. Sh. Amarjit Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
1.) Union of India
Through LAC/ADM
Shahdara, Delhi
2.) Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Barakhamba Road
New Delhi
.....Respondents
Award No. 01/1999-2000
Village Chandrawali @ Shahdara
LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 1 of 17
Date of Institution : 10.08.2010
Reserved on : 22.07.2023
Date of Decision : 31.07.2023
Notification U/s 4 : F.7(35)/95-L&B/LA/II/5430 dt.
12.06.1997.
Notification U/s 6 : F.7(35)/84-L&B/LA/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, 1984.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:-
1.) This judgment shall decide the reference petition no.
68/2016 preferred by petitioner, Sh. Amarjeet Singh for the enhancement of the compensation against compulsory acquisition of his shop bearing no.1024/8, admeasuring 104.12 sq.m. in Khasra no.2981/989/449(11), 2676/974/447(112) and 988446(36) in commercial area of Subzi Mandi, Shahdara, Delhi, wherein G.T.Road was on one side and Bhola Nath Nagar was on the other side having covered area of 61.07 sq.mt. 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 LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 2 of 17 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
vii) Petition referred to court on : 10.08.2010 BACKGROUND:-
3.) The petitioner being owner of shop bearing no.1024/8, admeasuring 104.12 sq.m. in Khasra no.2981/989/449(11), 2676/974/447(112) and 988446(36) in commercial area of Subzi Mandi, Shahdara, Delhi, situated in the revenue estate of Village Chandrawali @ Shahdara, Delhi-110032, filed the present reference against the award No.1/19992000 passed on
20.07.1999, thereby assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.2805/ per sq. yard and for covered shop @ Rs.44,641/, which is not acceptable to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said Award on the following grounds:-
i) The LAC has mistakenly treated the said land as residential area whereas the property was situated in the market called subzi mandi and vide notification F.7(77)DAX DT 3/2/77, it was declared commercial area.
ii) The said land was a fully developed commercial area. The main GT Road passes by the north side and Shahdara Railway Station is on the south side.
LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 3 of 17
iii) The said property is assessed to house tax.
Telephone facilities, pucca road, sanitation and drainage are also available. Commercial buildings like Radhu Cinema and Shyam Lal College and well developed colonies are also situated in the nearby area. In view of the above, the market value of the land has been assessed very low.
iv) In order to assess the correct value of the said land, the LAC should have taken into consideration the sale deeds of the area. The rates prevailing in the market were not less than Rs.70000/ per sq. meter, petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- for the covered constructed area.
v) The assessment of land on the basis of government order no. J22O11/4/95-LD dt. 16.04.1999 issued by M/o Urban Development is absolutely wrong and incorrect. This is a notional value for the purpose of levying taxes on mortgage mutation and transfer of government properties by the government and not the correct value for the said land.
vi) In addition, petitioner claims Rs.20,00,000/- for establishing his business at a new place, which was interrupted by acquisition of his land.
vii) The Award was announced by the LAC neither in the presence of petitioner nor he has been served with the notice by the LAC.
In view of the above reasons, this reference was filed by the petitioner before this Court.
4.) The award under reference was challenged on various grounds inter alia that it is not sustainable on admitted facts. LAC failed to appreciate entire revenue estate of Village LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 4 of 17 Chandrawali @ Shahdara which was declared a commercial area. The entire area had developed into a highly congested urban city. The land prices in the locality are astronomical, whereas, compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs.2805/- per sq. meter. LAC ought to have held that prevailing land prices in the locality. LAC failed to appreciate that there had been phenomenal rise in the land prices during last few years in Delhi and particularly in last two years. LAC failed to appreciate that site under acquisition was fully developed and there was already provision of pucca roads, college, sabzi mandi etc. All civic amenities were already available at the site, hence, land rates adopted by LAC were apparently much below prevailing rates/prices. LAC failed to appreciate surroundings of site. The site was surrounded by main GT Road passes by the north side and Shahdara Railway Station on the south side.
5.) The land was valued as per residential rates provided by Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi, which is contrary to law. The alleged land rates were farcical, which cannot be said to be reasonable for determining market value of land in question. This was/is sheer victimization of petitioner. LAC has not made any effort to determine the actual / prevailing market value of land. Award is not based on sound reasonings. The land was acquired for public purposes but was put to disposal of DMRC, so DMRC is effective and necessary party for adjudicating the reference and prayed that he be awarded compensation @ Rs.70,000/- per sq. meter besides solatium and interest along-with all other benefits prescribed under the law.
LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 5 of 17
6.) Vide order dated 20.08.2011, application U/o 1 rule 10 CPC was filed by the petitioner was allowed and DMRC was impleaded as respondent No.2 in the present case, being beneficiary.
7.) 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.
8.) In the written statement, LAC pleaded that the land in question was acquired on the requisition of DMRC, thus, DMRC is a necessary party. It is further averred that the LAC while issuing the award no. 1/1999-2000 for village Chandrawali @ Shahdara had considered the market value of land on the basis of sale deeds of adjoining lands of the area and other documents which were available at that point of time. 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/s 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. Further, the area of land and other amenities/facilities were also taken into consideration by the LAC while issuing the award and the amount awarded is just and legal. Therefore, the reference filed by petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is also averred that petitioner is not admitted to be the owner/bhumidar/interested person in respect of the land and therefore has no locus standi to file the present reference. The correctness of khasra number and LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 6 of 17 share of petitioner are admitted only to the extent as specified by LAC in his statement U/s 19 L.A. Act. The land in question was not surrounded by standing trees, boundary, well or male wall at the time of notification U/s 4 of L.A. Act.
9.) DMRC in their written statement stated that there is no illegality in award no.1/1999-2000 in respect of shop bearing no.1024/8, admeasuring 104.12 sq.m. in Khasra no.2981/989/449(11), 2676/974/447(112) and 988446(36), Chandrawali @ Shahdara and the compensation determined by LAC i.e. Rs.2805/-per sq.m. is entirely in accordance with law & therefore petitioner is not entitled to claim enhanced compensation.
10.) Separate rejoinders to the written statements of respondents have also been filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein facts of the petition have been reiterated and averments made in the written statements have been denied.
11.) During pendency of the case, petitioner expired and an application U/o 22 rule 3 CPC was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 05.03.2016 and LRs of deceased petitioner were impleaded as petitioners in the present case.
ISSUES:-
12.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 05.03.2016:-
LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 7 of 17
a) What was the fair and reasonable market value of the land in question on the day of issuance of notification U/s 4 of L.A. Act? (OPP)
b) Upto what extent, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? (OPP)
c) Whether the petition is barred by limitation?
(OPR-2)
d) Relief.
EVIDENCE:-
13.) In order to substantiate his case, LRs of petitioner has examined six witnesses.
a) PW1- Sh. Sh. K L Jagori, Assistant (Commercial Estate Branch),DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi has been examined as PW1, who has proved demand letter dated 22.12.1997 No.F.3(3)/97/CE/452 issued by DDA as Ex.PW1/A(OSR) in the name of Sh. M.K. Jain, Smt. Rekha Jain and Sardar Amarjeet Singh Juneja, pertaining to auction of shop No.23, between pocket B&E, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, conducted on 22.12.1997, area of which was 10.86 sq. meters and total premium for same shop was Rs.6.05 lacs which was purchased in open auction. He has been exhaustively cross-examined by ld. counsel for Union of India and MCD. Thereafter, PW1 was discharged.
b) PW2- Sh. Tarun Singhal, Assistant Section Engineer/PD from Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, New Delhi has been examined as PW2, who has proved license LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 8 of 17 agreement dated 06.09.2000 executed between DMRC and Sh. Om Prakash along-with letter dated 18.08.2000, as Ex.PW2/A(OSR). He has also proved another license agreement dated 07.09.2000 executed between DMRC, Sh. Om Prakash and Sh. Raj Kumar, as Ex.PW2/B(OSR). He has been thoroughly cross-examined by counsel for Union of India as well as MCD.
c) PW3- Sh. A M Kukreti, Office Executive, APMC, Shahdara, Ghazipur, Delhi has been examined as PW3, who has proved license No.B1721 as Ex.PW3/A(OSR) issued on 24.07.84 to M/s. Amarjit Singh Harjit Singh for shop No.1024/8, Subzi Mandi, Shahdara regarding running the business of fruits and vegetables and deposed that said license was renewed till today and is still continued. During cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that license to run the fruit and vegetable shop is required from MCD as well. He has been exhaustively cross-examined by counsel for Union of India as well as MCD.
d) PW4- Sh. R S Yadav, Civil Engineer, Typist Chamber, Civil Side,Tis Hazari Court, Delhi has been examined as PW4, who has proved his valuation report dated 04.08.2016 as Ex.PW4/A. Along-with this valuation report, he has also relied upon valuation report dated 20.09.1999 prepared by Engineer Ram Niwas Sharma, as mark A. He has been cross examined at length on behalf of respondents.
e) PW5- LRs of petitioner, Sh. Gurpreet Singh has examined himself as PW5 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW5/A, who has reiterated the contents of the LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 9 of 17 petition therein. He has relied upon the documents viz. Certified copy of the judgment dated 19.05.2008 passed by the court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Delhi Ex.PW5/1, photocopy of receipt No.092 dated 14.01.1997 of Rs.1121 mark A, photocopy of receipt No.003 dated 23.04.1999 of Rs.1/ mark B, photocopy of receipt No.095 dated 25.03.2000 of Rs.951/ mark C, photocopy of license agreements Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B, photocopy of demand letter Ex.PW1/A. He has been cross examined at length by the ld. counsel for the respondent No.1/UOI
f) PW6- Sh. Bakhtawar Singh, Civil Nazir attached to this court has been examined as PW6, who has proved certified copy of the judgment dated 19.05.2008 passed by the court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, already exhibited as Ex.PW5/1 by summoning the record of case file bearing LAC No.46/06 titled as Union of India v. Gopal Pandit and deposed that name of Sh. Amarjit Singh has been appearing at S.No.12 as IP No.400 at page No.17 in Ex.PW5/1.
No other witness has been examined by the petitioner. Therefore, vide separate statement dated 16.12.2016 petitioner's evidence stands closed.
14.) In order to substantiate its case, respondent no.1- Union of India has tendered the copy of Award No.1/19992000 pertaining to Village Chandrawali as Ex.R1 and statement U/s 19 of LA Act as Ex.R2 in evidence.
No other witness has been examined on behalf of respondent No.1/UOI and DMRC i.e. respondent No.2 has not LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 10 of 17 led any evidence. Accordingly, its evidence was closed vide order dated 13.01.2017.
15.) After conclusion of evidence, final arguments were heard and the judgment dated 20.01.2017 was passed by my Ld. Predecessor. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble High Court, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by this Court. Upon which the Hon'ble High Court, vide its order, dated 22.12.2017, set aside the impugned judgment of this Court and remanded back the matter to this Court, for recording of additional evidence and for passing order afresh, in accordance with law.
16.) In view of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, Sh. Vijay Kumar, Sr. Legal Assistant, DMRC (R2W1) has relied upon Ex.R2W1/1 (Letter dt. 20.05.2018), Ex.R2W1/2 (Letter dt. 27.07.2018) and Ex.R2W1/3 to Ex.R2W1/12 (Sale Deeds). Vide separate statement dated 19.07.2019, DMRC closed the respondent's evidence.
17.) Arguments heard at length. Heard. Record perused. Considered. Accordingly, Issue-wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS:-
(I) What was the fair and reasonable market value of the land in question on the day of issuance of notification U/s 4 of L.A. Act? (OPP) LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 11 of 17
a) 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.
b) 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 the Hon'ble High Court in case titled as 'Union of India Vs. M.L. Gupta' LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 12 of 17 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.
c) 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.
(II) Upto what extent, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? (OPP)
a) The onus of prove this issue is upon the petitioner. The petitioner in his evidence has relied upon the judgment passed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ dated 19.05.2008 vide Ex.PW5/1, wherein the extent of the share of the petitioner in respect of the land in question has been fixed at 38 sq.mt. vide S.No.12 as IP LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 13 of 17 No.400. Even otherwise, the extent of share of the petitioner fixed vide reference judgment U/s 30-31, L.A. Act dated 19.05.2008 is neither disputed nor challenged, thus attained finality.
b) In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation in respect of 38 sq.mt. out of the land in question.
(III) Whether the petition is barred by limitation? (OPR-2)
a) 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. On the other hand the petitioner in his petition as well as in his evidence has categorically stated that neither he was present at the time of announcement of award nor any notice U/s 12(2), L.A. Act was served upon him, thus the petition is within the time. His testimony has gone unassailed since he was not cross-examined on the aspect of limitation.
b) The proviso to Section 18 of L.A. Act provides for 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 LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 14 of 17 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".
c) Therefore, in view of the Section 18(2)(b) of L.A. Act, 1894 which provides that in case the claimant was neither present nor represented before the Collector at the time of passing of award nor received any notice U/s 12(2), L.A. Act from the Collector, the limitation to file the petition for enhancement of the compensation would be six months from the date of Collector's award. In the instant case, the Collector's award came to be passed on 20.07.1999 and the instant reference petition U/s 18, L.A. Act was filed before the Ld. LAC on 02.11.1999 which is within the period of 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.
d) Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no.2.
(IV) Relief.
a) 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.70,000/- per sq.mt., which is now LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 15 of 17 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. 38 sq.mtrs. as per the judgment in reference U/s 30- 31, L.A. Act vide Ex.PW5/1.
b) 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.
c) 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.
d) 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 deposited 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.
LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 16 of 17
e) During the course of arguments, it is submitted that the respondent no.2- DMRC has already deposited the enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs.5865/- per sq.mt. and therefore the balance amount, if any, after payment of the decreetal amount to the petitioner, be sent back to respondent no.2. However, if any additional amount requires to be deposited by respondent no.2 in terms of the present judgment, the same be remitted by respondent no.2 with immediate effect.
f) 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.
g) 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.
Announced in the open Court on 31.07.2023 (Ajay Garg) Additional District Judge-01 (East)/KKD/Delhi LAC No.38/16 Amarjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Pg No. 17 of 17