Delhi District Court
Lac-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. vs . Uoi & Ors. Page 1 Of 29 on 6 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITRI : ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE-02,
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
LAC No. 1588/12
1. Sh. Harbans Singh S/o Sh. Harkesh
2. Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Harkesh
3. Sh. Satpal S/o Sh. Zile Singh,
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a) Sh. Sandeep Kumar
(b) Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
Both Sons of Late Sh.Satpal & residents of WZ-59, Village
Khampur Raya, Opposite West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 22.11.2012)
4. Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Singh
5. Sh. Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Singh
6. Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Singh
7. Sh. Baljeet Singh S/o Sh. Sunehra
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a) Sh. Anil Kumar,
S/o Late Sh.Baljeet Singh,
R/o 2369/1, Opp. Metro Pillar No.215,
West Patel Nagar, Shadi Khampur,
New Delhi-110008.
(b) Sh. Satish Kumar,
S/o Late Sh.Baljeet Singh,
R/o 2369, Mandir wali Gali
Shadi Khampur, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 1 of 29
(c) Smt. Gyan Devi
W/o Sh.Yudhvir Singh
D/o Late Sh.Baljeet Singh
R/o WZ-474, Village Basai Darapur,
New Delhi-110015
d(i) Sh. Ramesh
Husband of Late Smt.Suresh Devi
(Predeceased daughter of Late Sh.Baljeet Singh)
d(ii) Sh. Parveen Kumar Tanwar
S/o Late Smt.Suresh Devi
(Predeceased daughter of Late Sh.Baljeet Singh)
d(iii) Sh. Vipin Tanwar
S/o late Smt.Suresh Devi
(Predeceased daughter of Late Sh.Baljeet Singh)
d(iv) Sh. Nitin Tanwar
S/o Late Smt.Suresh Devi
(Predeceased daughter of Late Sh.Baljeet Singh)
All residents of:-
WZ-147, Naraina Village, New Delhi-110028.
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 30.10.2019)
8. Sh. Babu Lal S/o Sh. Sunehra
9. Sh. Mahender Singh S/o Sh. Sunehra
10. Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Sunehra
11. Sh. Sanjeev S/o Sh. Rajpal
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a) Smt. Neelam Chauhan
Wd/o Late Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
(b) Master Rounak Chauhan
Minor Son of Late Sh.Sanjeev Kumar
(c) Kumari Anshika Chauhan
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 2 of 29
Minor daughter of Late Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
Both Minor Applicants are filing the application through
their mother & natural guardian Smt. Neelam Chauhan.
(d) Smt. Santosh Chauhan
Wd/o Late Sh. Raj Pal &
Mother of Late Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
All residents of:-
H.No.WZ-45, Village Khampur Raya,
Near West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 03.02.2017)
12. Sh. Jitendra S/o Sh. Rajpal
13. Sh. Atma Ram, Through LRs namely:-
(a) Smt. Sumitra Wd/o Late Sh. Atma Ram
(The name of Smt. Sumitra was deleted from the array of parties
vide Order dated 27.09.2018)
(b) Sh. Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Atma Ram
(c) Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Late Sh. Atma Ram
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(i) Smt. Shashi Chauhan
Wd/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar
(ii) Sh. Ashish
S/o Late Sh.Raj Kumar Chauhan
(iii) Sh. Kannu Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Raj Kumar Chauhan
All resident of:-
RZ-660, Gali No.3, Main Sagar Pur,
Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046
(iv) Smt.Ritu Chauhan,
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 3 of 29
D/o Late Sh.Raj Kumar Chauhan
W/o Sh.Dheeraj Chanchal
Old Address:- RZ-660, Gali No.3,
Main Sagar Pur, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046
Present Address:- WZ-H-1/B,
Naraina Village, New Delhi-110028
LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 27.09.2018
(d) Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Late Sh. Atma Ram
(e) Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Late Sh. Atma Ram
(f) Smt. Kanta W/o Sh. Gajraj
D/o Late Sh.Atma Ram
R/o 10996, Library Road,
Azad Market, Delhi.
14. Smt. Sarla Wd/o Sh. Ved Prakash
15. Sh. Vipin Kumar S/o Sh. Ved Prakash
16. Sh. Gagan Kumar S/o Sh. Ved Prakash
17. Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Fathe
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a) Sh. Manish Chauhan,
S/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar,
R/o 2369/1, Mandir Wali Gali
Shadi Khampur, West Patel Nagar
New Delhi-110008.
(b) Sh. Naveet Chauhan,
S/o Late Sh.Satish Kumar,
R/o 2369/1A, Mandir wali Gali
Shadi Khampur, New Delhi-110008.
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 30.10.2019)
18. Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Fathe
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 4 of 29
(a) Smt. Asha
Wd/o Late Sh.Ramesh Kumar
(b) Sh. Puneet
S/o Late Sh.Ramesh Kumar
(c) Smt. Bhawna
D/o Late Sh.Ramesh Kumar
(d) Smt. Shalini
D/o Late Sh.Ramesh Kumar
All residents of:-
H.No.2369/1, Mandir Wali Gali,
Patel Nagar, Shadi Pur, New Delhi-110008.
19. Sh. Vinay Kumar S/o Sh. Fathe
20. Sh. Kamal Singh S/o Sh. Fathe
21. Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Fathe
22. Sh. Pyare S/o Sh. Chhajjoo,
Through LRs namely:-
(a) Sh. Hari Chand S/o Sh. Pyare
(b) Mr. Shri Bhagwan S/o Sh. Pyare
23. Sh. Rich Pal Singh S/o Sh. Sunder Singh
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a) Sh. Raj Kumar,
S/o Late Sh.Rich Pal Singh Singh
(b) Sh. Ashok Kumar,
S/o Late Sh.Rich Pal Singh
Both residents of:-
WZ-87, Village Khampur Raya,
Opposite West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(c) Smt. Usha Rani,
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 5 of 29
W/o Sh. Rajinder Singh,
D/o Late Sh. Rich Pal Singh
R/o A-76, Lohia Nagar,
Gaziabad (UP).
(d) Smt. Asha Chauhan,
W/o Sh.R.P.Singh
D/o Late Sh.Rich Pal Singh
R/o WZ-1598G/1E,
Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 25.07.2013)
24. Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Sunder Singh
25. Sh. Rajender S/o Sh. Sunder Singh
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a) Smt. Savita,
Wd/o Late Sh.Rajender Singh
(b) Sh. Shekhar Chauhan,
S/o Late Sh.Rajender Singh
Both residents of WZ-265, Inder Puri, New Delhi.
(c) Smt. Seema Singh,
W/o Sh.Ajayvir Singh,
D/o Late Sh.Rajender Singh,
R/o G-79, Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi-110028.
(d) Smt. Ritu,
W/o Sh.Lalit Bhalla,
D/o Late Sh.Rajender Singh,
R/o H.No.227, Pkt.6/3,
Nasir Pur, Dwarka, Delhi.
(e) Smt. Shikha Kataria,
W/o Sh.Vijay Kataria,
D/o Late Sh.Rajender Singh,
R/o C-75, East End Appartment,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Exten.
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 6 of 29
Delhi.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 25.07.2013)
26. Sh. Jai Pal Singh S/o Sh. Charnji Lal,
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a) Smt. Kamlesh,
Wd/o Late Sh.Jaipal Singh
(b) Sh. Parag Chauhan,
S/o Late Sh.Jaipal Singh
Both residents of:-
WZ-97, Village Khampur Raya,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 22.11.2012)
27. Sh. Narender S/o Sh. Charnji Lal
28. Sh. Mahipal Singh S/o Sh. Charnji Lal
29. Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Charnji Lal
30. Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Bhoolan Singh
31. Sh. Kishan Pal S/o Sh. Bhoolan Singh
32. Sh. Satpal Singh S/o Sh. Bhoolan Singh
33. Sh. Mahesh Kumar S/o Sh. Bhoolan Singh
34. Sh. Jagpal Singh s/o Sh. Bishamber Singh
35. Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Bishamber Singh
36. Sh. Pramod Kumar S/o Sh. Bishamber Singh
37. Sh. Rajpal singh S/o Sh. Bishamber Singh
38. Sh. Tej Pal S/o Sh. Bishamber Singh
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 7 of 29
All residents of:-
Village Khampur Raya,
Opposite West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
........PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Union of India Through,
Land Acquisition Collector (West),
Old Middle School Building,
Rampura, Delhi
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, New Delhi.
........RESPONDENTS
AWARD NO 04/DC (W)/2005-2006
Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi
REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FOR RE-DETERMINATION OF
THE MARKET VALUE OF THE AWARD NO. 04/DC (W)/2005-2006
Date of institution of the case : 14.02.2012
Date of reserving the judgment : 27.01.2020
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 06.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. The land of the petitioners i.e. their share in revenue record in Shamlat Deh land bearing Khasra No. 754/21/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 min. (Old No.) and New No. 1083-1149/754/21 min., situated within the revenue estate of village Khampur Raya, New Delhi, was acquired by Land Acquisition Collector vide present award, dated 05.04.2006. The total land acquired under this award measured 7 bighas 10½ biswas.
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 8 of 292. Earlier Sections 4 and 6 notifications for acquisition of the above land were issued on 13.11.1959 and in the year 1966, respectively. But, the award was not announced for long period after these notifications. Therefore, as per the provisions of amended act, the notification lapsed as the award was not passed within the statutory period post notifications.
3. The petitioners alongwith the co-villagers filed writ petition before Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondents to take proper steps for acquisition of land under the provisions of the amended Land Acquisition Act vide orders dated 03.12.2001. Consequently, fresh notification u/s 4 was issued on 17.03.2004 and further fresh notification u/s 6 and 17 were issued on 06.04.2004. By way of impugned award dated 05.04.2006, the LAC determined the market value of the land @ Rs. 3500/- per sq. mtr.
4. Another fact that deserves mention here is that after the earlier Section 4 notification dated 13.11.1959, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had already taken possession of the land of petitioners and had even started a school thereon in the month of July 1960 itself. MCD did not even wait for Section 6 notification and the announcement of award in pursuance of the said notification.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the compensation decided by the Collector does not represent the true market value of acquired land as on the date of notification u/s 4 of LA Act, which was issued on 17.03.2004.
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 9 of 296. It is further stated that the land under award was surrounded by thickly populated and well developed colonies such as Prem Nagar, Baljit Nagar, West Patel Nagar etc. The Shadipur DTC Depot, DMS Plant, West Patel Nagar police station and Power House etc. were located within a radial distance of 1 k.m. from the acquired land. Patel Nagar Metro Station and Shadipur Metro Station were also located at stone throw distance. All these factors had considerably enhanced the market value of the land in question. All types of amenities and facilities such as electricity, water supply, transportation, banking, educational and other facilities were available in the surroundings of land under acquisition. A school was being run by MCD at the acquired land itself and this factor must have been considered while granting compensation.
7. The case of the petitioners is that their land was at a very prime location and would have easily fetched around Rs. 1 Lakh per sq. yds., if sold in open market. In the nearby West Patel Nagar, the DDA had auctioned land @ Rs. 41,000/- per sq. yds. way back in the year 1996. In the year 1998 and the same area, DDA auction land @ Rs. 58,000/- per sq. yds. Further the land under award was free from all encumbrances and therefore deserves very high market value. All the land around the acquired area is under residential as well as commercial use, which hugely enhanced the potentiality of land in question. Therefore, the compensation fixed is grossly inadequate.
8. Apart from compensation @ of Rs. 1 Lakh per sq. yds., the petitioners have also sought damages for illegal occupation by LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 10 of 29 MCD of the land in question since the time of occupation.
9. Here it is important to note of the fact that the share of petitioners no-1 to 13, 20 and 31 as per the original section 19 LA Act statement, was objected to by the said petitioners. Thereafter, a revised statement dated 20.11.2012, was filed by the LAC, wherein, necessary corrections were made and the same were accepted by the petitioners.
10. Union of India filed its WS taking a ground that the compensation alleged by LAC is sufficient and reasonable and reflects the true prevailing market value. All the relevant factors were taken into account while assessing the same including the recent bonafide sale deeds and recent awards etc. Further, the land was not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and could be used for agricultural purposes only. The petitioners are demanding an exorbitant rate, which is unreasonable and merits rejection.
11. The Corporation (North DMC) has filed its reply on more or less on the same lines.
12. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 09.08.2012 :-
ISSUES i. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act? OPP LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 11 of 29 ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation in respect of land. If so, at what rate? OPP iii. Relief.
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE
13. Petitioners have examined total 14 witnesses. I am not discussing their evidence serial wise but according to convenience so that the witnesses, who have led connected evidence are grouped together.
14. PW-14 is an official witness and an MCD Teacher in the same school, which was constructed on the acquired land. He produced the admission register of school Ex PW-14/1, as per which the first child was admitted in the school on 19.07.1960.
15. PW-4 is another witness from Education Department of Corporation, as per which the school was running in sheds and puccah construction was raised only in the year 1997, as per their record. However, the fact remains that MCD started running a school in the year 1960 itself and it is immaterial whether it was being run in sheds or puccah construction was made.
16. PW-1 is another official witness from L&DO. He produced the record regarding scheduled rates of L&DO from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 Ex PW-1/1 (Colly). Perusal of the document reflects that the market rate for residential land in Patel Nagar area have been fixed @ Rs. 11,550/- per sq. mtr. The amount is much LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 12 of 29 higher for the commercial land.
17. PW-5 is another witness from Land & Building Department of Delhi Government. He has proved the standing instructions issued by the department to all the LACs in Delhi, Ex PW-5/1. Perusal of the same reflects that LACs have been directed that while awarding compensation for land forming part of urbanized villages, they shall determine the compensation on the basis of rates fixed for L&DO for urban land in order to avoid unnecessary litigation and the practice of giving agricultural rates for urbanized lands has been criticized.
18. PW-3 is the official witness from DDA, he produced the auction record of two plots (Ex PW-3/1 and Ex PW-3/2) located in West Patel Nagar, which were auctioned by DDA in the year 1996. Perusal of the record reveals that the reserved price for sale of these plots was fixed around Rs. 10,000/- per sq. mtr. by DDA and same were sold for around Rs. 53 Lakhs each approximately and had an area of around 138 sq. mtr. each. Calculating the same the rate for 1 sq. mtr. comes to Rs. 39,000/- per sq. mtr. Approx.
19. PW-6 another official witness from DUSIB has produced the complete record of auction relating to three plots at West Delhi District Centre, Shivaji Place, Raja Garden including the sale/perpetual lease documents of the above plots. Perusal of these documents reflect that :-
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 13 of 29i. Commercial purpose land measuring 10,728 sq. mtr. was auctioned and transferred to the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 71,12,00,000/- (Rs. Seventy-One Crore and Twelve Lakhs only) on 15.05.2006;
ii. Such land measuring 5,832 sq. mtr. was auctioned and transferred to the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 37,71,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty-Seven Crore and Seventy-One Lakhs only) on 08.02.2005;
iii. Another such plot measuring 11,427 sq. mtr. was auctioned and transferred to the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 84,08,00,000/- (Rs. Eighty-Four Crore and Eight Lakhs only) on 30.07.2004.
20. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had filed the record pertaining to commercial plots. Further, he could not say whether there was huge different of rates between the lands of Khampur Raya and Raja Garden.
The above is irrelevant for decision of the present case as the same deals with commercial land transaction, whereas in the present case the petitioners have not taken a stand that the land acquired was authorized for commercial use.
21. PW-7 has brought the record of registration of sale deed dated 27.10.2009. He is a witness from Sub-Registrar Office Basai Darapur. This sale deed is also irrelevant for decision of present case as it pertains to a period much later than the Section 4 Notification dated 17.03.2004.
22. PW-8 is the official witness from office of SDM Patel Nagar, who has produced an RTI application and its reply. Perusal of this document reflects that in response to an RTI application, the office of SDM had replied that Shadipur DTC Depot, DTC LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 14 of 29 Colony, Patel Road Colony and West Patel Nagar were located at the land of village Khampur Raya. The plant of Delhi Milk Scheme was located in village Basai Darapur.
This is an admitted position that the village Basai Darapur abuts the boundaries of village Khampur Raya i.e. where the land in question was located. Otherwise also PW-11, who is an official witness from SDM office, has produced Aks Shijra of village Khampur Raya Ex PW-11/1, which shows Khampur Raya touching the boundaries of Basai Darapur on West side.
23. PW-10 is another official witness from Delhi Archives. He had produced the photocopy of sale deed dated 15.11.1996, Ex PW- 10/1, as per which a property of West Patel Nagar, constructed in three floors (basement, ground floor and first floor) and measuring 800 sq. yds. was sold for Rs. 3,95,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crores and Ninety Five Lakhs only) between private parties.
24. PW-13 is another official witness, who has proved the certified copy of Jamabandi containing names of petitioners (including petitioner no-24) as owners of their respective shares and also his statement in that regard in another LAC matter bearing LAC No. 14A/10/08, titled UOI Vs. Mam Chand etc. Otherwise also, it is an admitted position that the petitioners are part owners of the acquired land.
25. PW-12 is another official witness from LAC (West) office. He produced the original award no-2/2000-01 of Village Khampur Raya Ex PW-12/1. It is another award relating to the same LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 15 of 29 revenue estate, which was passed prior to the instant award. It is mentioned in this award that village Khampur Raya had been urbanized.
26. PW-2 is another official witness, who has brought the following awards :-
i. Award no. 13/DC(W)/2004-05, of East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, Ex PW-2/1; and ii. Award no. 14/DC(W)/2004-05, of Main Patel Road, Patel Nagar, New Delhi, Ex PW-2/2;
iii. Award no. 01/DC(W)/2001-02, of village Basai Darapur, New Delhi, Ex PW-2/3;
Out of the above, awards mentioned at srl. no. (i) and (ii) deal with properties located in East Patel Nagar and Main Patel Nagar Road, respectively. These awards are not only proximate in terms of location but also in terms of time period to the award in question and hence relevant for just disposal of the present matter.
27. Petitioner No-1 Sh. Harbans Singh has examined himself as PW-9 vide evidence affidavit Ex PW-9/A, which is on the lines of his reference petition.
28. He has relied upon following documents in addition to the documents proved by different PWs :-
i. Ex PW-9/1, certified copy of judgment dated 05.08.2016 in reference petition no. 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act, LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 16 of 29 wherein, the share of petitioners in the land under award was adjudged.
ii. Ex PW-9/2, certified copy of the judgment dated 03.12.2001 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the writ petition filed by petitioners and co-villagers of Khampur Raya.
iii. Ex PW-9/3, certified copy of the above writ petition alongwith memo of parties, reflecting the names of petitioners.
iv. Ex PW-9/4, certified copy of judgment in another LAC case bearing no. 117/2005, titled "Virender Sood Vs. UOI", pertaining to adjoining village Basai Darapur, decided by Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then Ld. ADJ. Perusal of the judgment reflects that relying upon sale deed Ex PW- 10/1, (whereby West Patel Nagar land measuring 800 sq. yds. was sold for Rs. 3.95 Crores) the market value of land of petitioners, which formed part of village Basai Darapur was assessed @ Rs. 37,000/- per sq. mtr. as on 01.04.2004.
It is further mentioned in the evidence affidavit that in appeal filed by petitioner Virender Sood, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court further enhanced the compensation and fixed the market value of the land @ Rs. 52,000/- per sq. mtr.
v. Ex PW-9/5 is the certified copy of judgment dated 15.01.2016 in another LAC case titled "Rai Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors." pertaining to land of the same village LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 17 of 29 acquired by different award no-2/2000-01 and assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 11,550/- per sq. mtr. as on 14.05.1997, the day when Section-4 Notification was issued.
vi. Ex PW-9/6 is the certified copy of judgment dated 18.01.2016 in another LAC case also titled "Rai Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors." pertaining to land of the same village acquired by award no-3/2000-01 and assessed the market value of the land at the same rate i.e. Rs. 11,550/- per sq. mtr. as on 01.06.1998, the day when Section-4 Notification was issued.
29. In this light it has been submitted that the petitioners deserve a much higher price as the Section-4 Notification in the instant award was issued much later i.e. 17.03.2004.
30. During his cross-examination, he denied the knowledge, if the LAC had awarded compensation to the petitioners at a rate, which was much below the L&DO rates. He denied the suggestion that the amount awarded by LAC did not represent the true market value of land under award.
RESPONDENTS' EVIDENCE
31. The counsel for respondent no-1 UOI has tendered only the award in question Ex R-1 in evidence. No other evidence has been led by UOI.
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 18 of 2932. Respondent no-2/North Delhi Municipal Corporation has examined one Sh. Vijender Kumar, official witness posted in Land & Estate Department of North DMC vide evidence affidavit Ex R2W-1/A, wherein the contents of written statement of respondent no-1/UOI have been reiterated and the amount awarded by the LAC has been justified.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS
33. I have heard final arguments and perused the record and written submissions filed by the counsel for petitioner. My issue-wise findings are as follows :-
ISSUE NO-1 What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act? OPP
34. The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. In order to show that the acquired land had a much higher market value than awarded by the Collector, the Ld. Counsel for petitioners have argued that the scheduled rates of L&DO as fixed w.e.f. 01.04.1998 for residential land in Patel Nagar area (the nearest area to the land under award) were @ Rs. 11,550/- per sq. mtr. i.e. which was much higher than the rate awarded by the LAC for the land in question, though the present award was passed much later in point of time.
They have also relied upon the standing instructions to the LACs all over Delhi to award minimum compensation at the rate fixed by L&DO for urbanized village properties. It is admitted LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 19 of 29 position and also fortified by the perusal of award no-2/2000-01 proved by PW-12 with respect to the same village Khampur Raya that this village has been urbanized way back and hence LAC was bound to award compensation at least @ Rs. 11,550/- per sq. mtr.
35. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Bedi Ram Vs. UOI, holding that progressive appreciation of land revenue at the annual rate of 12% p.a. should ideally be awarded. Calculating this appreciation @ 12 % per annum the amount payable for 1 sq. mtr. increases by 72% i.e. from year 1998 to 2004, when the Section 4 Notification was issued. Therefore, alongwith Rs. 11,550/- per sq. mtr., 72% appreciation was also required to be added before fixing market value. Further, it is common knowledge and has been generally observed that the Government fixes the land rates at much lower than the prevailing market price. One reason why it happens is that they rely upon contemporary sale deeds between mostly private parties, which rarely reflect the correct sale price. It's no secret that in order to evade payment of stamp duty to State, the much lesser value of transaction is shown on documents. I find sufficient force in the arguments advanced.
36. There was no sale deed placed on record by the petitioners which could be termed as quite proximate in point of time to the notification for acquisition in the present award. It is not the case of petitioners that the land acquired was the authorized to be used for commercial purposes, therefore, the sale LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 20 of 29 deeds/auctions organized by government authorities and proved by PW-6 are irrelevant for decision of the present case, as already observed.
37. Next, the Ld. Counsel for petitioners has relied upon judgment of "Virender Sood Vs. UOI", pertaining to adjoining village Basai Darapur, decided by Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then Ld. ADJ. Perusal of the judgment reflects that relying upon a sale deed dated 15.11.1996, which was executed by Tanishka Builders & Promotors Pvt. Ltd. in favour of TATA Mc Graw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., for sale of a property of West Patel Nagar, constructed in three floors (basement, ground floor and first floor) and measuring 800 sq. yds. was sold for Rs. 3,95,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crores and Ninety Five Lakhs only), the market value of land of petitioners therein, which formed part of village Basai Darapur was assessed @ Rs. 37,000/- per sq. mtr., as on 01.04.2004 i.e. the date of Section 4 Notification.
Further, in appeal filed by petitioner Virender Sood, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court further enhanced the compensation and fixed the market value of the land @ Rs. 52,000/- per sq. mtr.
38. I am of the view that in the above referred sale deed the aspect of cost of construction has been overlooked while calculating the land rate. Therefore, the same rate as has been assessed in the above referred judgment cannot be allowed to the petitioners as the cost of construction of three floors (including basement) on an 800 sq. yds. plot forms roughly half of the sale consideration amount. Seen in this perspective, the sale price LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 21 of 29 of land comes to around Rs. 24,500/- per sq. mtr. Moreover, the sale deed pertains to a well developed posh area of West Patel Nagar, which is not the case of the land under award.
39. Similar is my view about the auction record of two plots, measuring around 138 sq. mtr. each, proved by DDA witness, located in West Patel Nagar, which were auctioned by DDA in the year 1996 @ of Rs. 39,000/- per sq. mtr. approx.
40. Here another aspect deserves attention. It is that the sale deeds/auction records of the year 1996, though, may not reflect the true value of the land in the year 2004, when the notification was issued, being very old transactions. But, these are relevant for showing that as per the sale deeds/auctions executed much prior in time, the market value of nearby developed land located in posh colonies was much higher than awarded by LAC for the land under award. This award was passed as much as around seven years later (7 years and 4 months precisely) in the year 2004 and the petitioners were awarded compensation at the meager rate of Rs. 3500/- per sq. mtr., which has worked a great injustice to the petitioners. Also, quite naturally, the rates must have fairly appreciated during the gap of eight years w.e.f. 1996 to 2004, if we calculate annual appreciation of land rates @ 12 %.
41. Comparison of sale deeds is an established norm for determining the market value; the other relevant factors being the area, nature, advantages/disadvantages, soil quality, demand for land, availability of land for development in area and LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 22 of 29 nature of development in surrounding area thereof.
42. Here I would like to make mention of the following judgments :-
i. Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. UOI, 176 (2011) DLT 361;
ii. Sri Ram M. Vijayalakshamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of Madras C.A. No. 410 of 1962, decided on 24.04.1963, by Hon'ble Supreme Court; and iii. Pratap Singh, through LRs. Vs. UOI & Ors. LA Appeal No. 193/2006 alongwith many other LA appeals, decided on 19.12.2008.
43. All these judgments have observed that sale deeds of the highest market value must be considered for determining market value unless there are strong reasons for deviation. These judgments also held that deductions up to 1/3 rd of the highest sale deed may be made on account of largeness of the land acquired and secondly, due to the fact that the land in question was still not developed though the surroundings, where the other sales took place, were somewhat developed.
44. In this light, it is clear that as per the settled law, the deduction of around 1/3rd amount may be made while fixing compensation payable, on account of difference in level of development between the area acquired and the neighbouring area, the sale deed of which is relied for comparison, in order to make out a case for enhancement of compensation. Even if we do that, the compensation awarded by the Ld. LAC is still on much lower side.
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 23 of 2945. Not only this, even in the other awards with respect to the same village much higher compensation has been awarded as is reflected from perusal of the following awards viz. :-
i. Award No. 13/DC (W)/2004-05, dated 02.02.2005, whereby the land of East and West Patel Nagar was acquired @ Rs. 13,280/- per sq. mtr. The Section 4 Notification was issued on 10.02.2003.
ii. Award No. 14/DC (W)/2004-05, dated 28.01.2005, whereby the land of Patel Nagar was acquired @ Rs. 13,280/- per sq. mtr. The Section 4 Notification was issued on 01.06.2004.
iii. Award No. 01/DC (W)/2001-02, dated 24.04.2001 whereby the land of Basai Darapur was acquired @ Rs. 6,930/- per sq. mtr. The Section 4 Notification was issued on 05.04.1999.
46. Bare perusal of the above in comparison with the award in question shows that LAC has indeed awarded a very low amount of compensation than was paid for acquisition of land located in near vicinity to the land of the petitioners. The fact that these areas are in the vicinity stands proved by the response to RTI application of the petitioners, as per which the office of SDM had replied that Shadipur DTC Depot, DTC Colony, Patel Road Colony and West Patel Nagar were located at the land of village Khampur Raya and the plant of Delhi Milk Scheme was located in adjoining village Basai Darapur.
Awards mentioned in (i) and (ii) were passed almost around the same time when the award in question was passed.
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 24 of 29No factors are sufficient to justify this broad disparity, which has been effected arbitrarily.
47. Interestingly, though there was no issue of limitation framed in the present matter nor any such defence was taken by either of the respondents in their WS, the questions relating to limitation have been asked to the petitioner no-1 during his cross- examination. Otherwise also, as per the settled law in LAC matters, it is the Government, which is required to set up and prove by documents available on record, if any claim/reference was barred by limitation. The respondents have failed to adduce any evidence to that effect. Otherwise also, the facts clearly show that there was no issue of limitation involved in the present matter. Rather, the petitioners have been quite vigilant in pursuing their interest and had even filed a writ petitioner before Hon'ble Delhi High Court seeking direction to the LAC to take steps towards formal acquisition of their land. Secondly, the Ld. Counsel for respondents have tried to justify the quantum of compensation awarded to petitioners but have miserably failed in their attempt because in many awards passed around the same time and even prior period, much higher rates of compensation had been awarded for acquisition of the land forming part of same village/revenue estate i.e. Khampur Raya. Therefore, I discard both the grounds of the respondents.
48. Considering the overall circumstances, I am of the view that the market value of land in question at the time of Section 4 Notification can be safely fixed by having reference to the sale LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 25 of 29 deed dated 15.11.1996, which was executed by Tanishka Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in favour of TATA Mc Graw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., for sale of a property of West Patel Nagar, constructed in three floors (basement, ground floor and first floor) and measuring 800 sq. yds. was sold for Rs. 3,95,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crores and Ninety Five Lakhs only). As already observed by me, the cost of land for this sale comes to approximately Rs. 24,500/- per sq. yds. Calculating enhancement of land value @ 12%, we reach the figure of Rs. 45,080/- per sq. yds. (Rs. 37,693/- per sq. mtr.) while calculating I have ignored 1/3 years (4 months period) and have taken 7 years into account.
Though, the surroundings of the acquired land were very well developed, the acquired land has not been proved to be equally developed. In the given facts and circumstances, where the acquired land was a small chunk of land spread only over some bighas (less than even 1 hectare) and was surrounded by development in all directions having well developed colonies such as Prem Nagar, Baljit Nagar, West Patel Nagar etc. in its near vicinity and Shadipur DTC Depot, West Patel Nagar police station and Power House, DTC Colony, Patel Road Colony and West Patel Nagar etc. having been constructed/raised on the land of village Khampur Raya itself, it is clear that higher compensation amount was payable to the petitioners on this account.
In these circumstances, considering the level of development, I am inclined to apply only 20% deduction (1/5 th) on account of development in place of 1/3rd deduction. In this manner, we reach the amount of Rs. 30,154/- per sq. mtr., which LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 26 of 29 can be safely assessed to the market value of the land in question at the time of Section 4 Notification dated 17.03.2004.
49. Accordingly, I hold that the market value of the acquired land of the petitioner, at the time of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was @ Rs. 30,154/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO-3 Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate?
OPP
50. In light of findings of Issue No. 1 discussed above, petitioners are entitled to enhancement @ Rs. 26,654/- (Rs. 30,154.00 - Rs. 3500.00) per sq. mtr. over and above the compensation @ Rs. 3500/- per sq. mtr.
51. Further, the petitioners have been able to prove that MCD had started running a school on the acquired land as early as 17th July 1960, when they admitted the first child in that school. In this light, it can be safely inferred that the possession was taken at least 3-4 months prior to admission of children as the government is required to make infrastructural provisions prior to running a school.
Therefore, I hold that the MCD had taken possession of this land latest by 31.03.1960. It is well settled law as on date that in such circumstances where possession is taken without legal authority and the formal acquisition takes place at much LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 27 of 29 later date, the people whose land is so possessed by the government, are entitled to damages from the government at the minimum rate of 6% P.A. from the date of possession till the Section 4 Notification on the market value of the land, in addition to compensation for acquisition thereof. Therefore, the petitioners also become entitled to damages in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case w.e.f. 01.04.1960 till 17.03.2004. This is in accordance with the law laid down in Bholanath Sharma, through LRs. Vs. Anand Prakash & Ors., 229 (2016) DLT 142.
ISSUE NO-3 RELIEF
52. In view of my discussion and observations on the issues, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to following reliefs :-
i. Enhancement @ Rs. 26,654/- (Rs. 30,154.00 - Rs.
3500.00) per sq. mtr. over and above the compensation @ Rs. 3500/- per sq. mtr.
ii. In addition to the above, the petitioners shall also be entitled for 30% solatium on the enhanced amount.
iii. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9% from the date of award till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment.
iv. The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of fresh notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of award.LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 28 of 29
v. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on additional amount as well as solatium.
vi. In addition to above, the petitioners are also entitled to damages @ 6% P.A. on the market value w.e.f.
01.04.1960 till the Section 4 Notification i.e. 17.03.2004.
vii. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly.
53. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. A copy of the judgment and decree sheet be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
54. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SAVITRI SAVITRI
Announced in the open court CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY ATTRI
on 6th day of February 2020 ATTRI Date: 2020.02.06
16:29:00 +0530
(SAVITRI)
Addl. District Judge-02 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
Note :- The above judgment has been dictated directly on computer and shorthand dictation was not given to the stenographer.
LAC-1588 /12 Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 29 of 29