Delhi District Court
Sh. Jai Prakash vs Union Of India on 25 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 14/12
New No. LAC - 245/16
Area: Mundka
Award No.: 03/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 23.05.2009
Sh. Jai Prakash
S/o Shri P.D. Bansal
R/o H.No. 119, Pocket A-1,
Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi. ......Petitioner
versus
1. Union of India
Through LAC West,
At Rampura, Delhi.
2. D.M.R.C.
Through its Chairman
Connaught Place,
New Delhi. .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 14.05.2012
Date of reserving of judgment : 14.07.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.07.2017
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 23 Bigha and 05 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7 (21)/05/L&B/LA/MRTS(W)/16141 dated 31.01.2007 also under Section 6 vide notification no.
LAC No. 14/12 (New No. 245/16) Jai Prakash vs. UOI & Anr. 1/10 F.7 (21)/05/L&B/LA/MRTS(W)/2541 dated 24.05.2007. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.7 (21)/05/L&B/LA/MRTS(W)/10339 dated 19.10.2007. The land was acquired for the purpose of Construction of Entry/exit and traffic integration of Inderlok-Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Ph-II near Bus Stand, Mundka and East of Rani Khera Road (Mundka Station).
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)') passed award no. 3/DC(W)/2008-09 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the Lal Dora land @ Rs.1183/- per sq. meter.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector, petitioners were shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
Item Name of Khasra Total Details of
No. of recorded owner No. Area in trees/
NM & share Bigha- Buildings/
Biswa Crops
15 Jai Prakash S/o 455 min 0-9 As per
P.D. Bansal Award
(full share)
4. The petitioner filed the reference under Section 18 of the Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Land Acquisition Collector, West has been referred to the reference court.
LAC No. 14/12 (New No. 245/16) Jai Prakash vs. UOI & Anr. 2/10
5. In brief the facts stated are that the applicant was the owner and was in actual physical possession of the property out of Khasra no. 459 (0-9) and 459/1 (0-10) total measuring 19 biswas in the Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi. The petitioner constructed rooms/halls along with all modern facilities, offices, boundary wall and other structure including iron-gate on the said land and running his business form the above said property. The possession of the land/property and structure was taken over by the Collector from the petitioner. The petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of Award and the petitioner has not received any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act and the present petition is within limitation as per law.
6. It is stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector does not represent true and correct market value of the land as well as Lal Dora land (village abadi) as on date of notification under Section 4 of the Act on dated 31.01.2007 and the compensation assessed by the Collector is much below to the actual market value of the acquired land and same is assailed, interalia, on the following grounds:
7. It is stated that the Collector erred in assessing the market value at low rates inspite of the fact that even as per the award the lands were being sold @ Rs.12,649/- per sq. meter, Rs.14,233/- per sq. meter much prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The said properties were situated away from the main Rohtak Road while the property of the petitioner was situated on National Highway No.10.
LAC No. 14/12 (New No. 245/16) Jai Prakash vs. UOI & Anr. 3/10
8. It is stated that Collector erred in not taking into consideration the similar situated and circumstanced land enjoying the same amenities and facilities in Delhi were sold in open auction by the DDA at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per sq. meter. The Collector grossly erred in not taking into consideration the amenities and facilities of life as well as business available to the land of the petitioner where there are number of branches of banks, regular transport, nearness to market, hospitals, schools and collages etc. and network of mettled roads.
9. It is stated that if the land is sold in open market under the condition of demand and supply, the same would fetch not less than Rs.40,000/- per sq. yds. The Collector has erred in not assessing any compensation for structure which was commercial as well as residential in nature inspite of the fact that the acquiring department got the structure evaluated which was vetted by the Engineers of PWD. The petitioner claims Rs.5 lacs for the structure. The Collector only offered the price of the construction which was in the shape of boundary wall only.
10. It is further stated that no transaction can be made less than the circle rate fixed by the government i.e. Rs.6900/- per sq. meter for the land of Mundka situated in the Lal Dora. The circle rate as fixed by the government does not imply correct and actual market value of the land in question and provision has only been made by government in order to prevent evasion of stamp duty on sale of properties/land in the said vicinity.
LAC No. 14/12 (New No. 245/16) Jai Prakash vs. UOI & Anr. 4/10
11. It is stated that the Collector has misinterpreted the notification No. RNZ/173 of MCD of Delhi dated 24.08.1963 which was published in government of India, Delhi Gazette Notification dated 12.09.1963. As per the notification, the factory, warehouses are not permissible at the Lal Dora land but building bye-laws are applicable on same, so the Collector has wrongly interpreted that the boundary wall and structure existing at the Lal Dora (residential area) land are unauthorized.
12. It is stated that the land of the claimant is situated at National Highway No.10 which is mattled road and very close to village Rani Bagh, Neelwal, Ghevra, Kirari, Nangloi, Bakkarwala and other neighbouring revenue estates, which are fully developed areas. The area under notification is also part of industrial area in Mundka Udyog Nagar, Mundka, in which government has recently notified to regularize as an industrial area vide notification No. F.1/C1/Policy/Institute/Firni Road Mundka and Mundka Udyog Nagar/2007/20 in Delhi Gazette Notification dated 17.09.2007 and situated on Main NH -10 at prime location at village Mundka, so the market value of the land of petitioner acquired in the aforesaid award having the same status and has a perfect site for purpose of development of industrial activities in the land.
13. It is stated that the petitioner is also entitled to the alternative business site as provided under the policy of the DMRC which may also be given to the petitioner without imposing any cost along with all statutory benefits as provided under the Land Acquisition Act.
LAC No. 14/12 (New No. 245/16) Jai Prakash vs. UOI & Anr. 5/10
14. Plaintiff seeks compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per sq. yds.; Rs.5 lacs for the structure valuation of the building and other reliefs.
15. Written statement filed by respondent no.1/ Union of India and taken the preliminary objections that the petitioner has failed to furnish any evidence in respect of the relief claimed in the present petition. The Collector has already assessed the market value of the land in question taking into consideration the prevailing market rates of the land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act.
The land in question is governed by Delhi Land Reforms Act.
16. On merits, all the averments made in the reference petition are denied. The grounds taken by the petitioner are also denied. It is stated that petitioner is not entitled to any relief and reference is liable to be dismissed.
17. Respondent no.2/DMRC also filed written statement and taken preliminary objection that reference petition is liable to be rejected under Section 7 Rule 11 CPC and the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question. It is stated that the petition is barred under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC.
18. On merits, again all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied and it is reiterated that the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. It is categorically denied that petitioner is also entitled to LAC No. 14/12 (New No. 245/16) Jai Prakash vs. UOI & Anr. 6/10 alternative business site from DMRC/respondent no.2. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
19. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to written statements filed by respondents.
20. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 06.12.2012 by Ld. Predecessor:
1. What was market value of the land in question on the date of notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate?OPP
3. Relief.
21. In support of his case, petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 Sh. Danveer Sharma, UDC from the office of Sub-Registrar II-A, Punjabi Bagh, Nangloi; and PW3 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari of village Mundka, Sub-Division, Punjabi Bagh, Nangloi, Delhi thereafter, vide order dated 10.03.2016 petitioner evidence was closed.
22. From the side of respondent no.1/ Union of India, Sh. S.S. Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered copy of award No. 03/DC (W)/2008-2009 pertaining to Village Mundka as Ex. R1 and photocopies of sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to LAC No. 14/12 (New No. 245/16) Jai Prakash vs. UOI & Anr. 7/10 R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.1 on 08.06.2016.
23. Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC adopted the evidence led by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 and closed R/E on 08.06.2016.
24. I have heard Sh. Sushil Kumar, proxy Counsel for Sh. S.S. Rana, Counsel for the petitioner; Sh. S.S. Mittal, Counsel for the respondent no.2/ Union of India; and Sh. Vijay Kumar, Legal Assistant for respondent no.2/ DMRC and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE Nos. 1 & 225. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fair market value of the land in question has already been determined by this Court in LAC No. 68/12 (New No. 204/16) titled as 'Surender vs. UOI & Anr.' decided on 26.04.2017. They further referred the judgment of Apex Court titled 'Nand Ram vs. State of Haryana' 1988 (4) JT 260 and 'Goa Housing Board vs. Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar & Anr.' AIR 2012 SC 193. It is further submitted that the Apex Court has laid down the principle that lands acquired under the same notification, the compensation shall be awarded to the land owners who are similarly situated under the same notification. Applying the same principle, the petitioners are entitled to the same fair market value @ Rs.4891/- per sq. meter after enhancement @ Rs.3708/- per sq. meter. I have considered the respective contentions of both the parties and gone through the judgments of Apex LAC No. 14/12 (New No. 245/16) Jai Prakash vs. UOI & Anr. 8/10 Court, the present case is covered by the principles laid down in Nand Ram (Supra), therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the same market value and enhancement as determined in LAC No. 68/12 (New No. 204/16) titled as 'Surender vs. UOI & Anr.' decided on 26.04.2017. Both the issues are decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
26. In view of my findings on Issue nos. 1 & 2, the fair market value of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.4891/- per sq. meter after enhancement @ Rs.3708/- per sq. meter. Besides this the petitioner is also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
27. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
28. The petitioner 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 notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
29. The petitioner is 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 LAC No. 14/12 (New No. 245/16) Jai Prakash vs. UOI & Anr. 9/10 compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
30. The interest on compensation for the period of delay due to impleading of LRs or stay of High Court or any other court may also be deducted.
31. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioner be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
32. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
33. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 25th July, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 25.07.2017 LAC No. 14/12 (New No. 245/16) Jai Prakash vs. UOI & Anr. 10/10