Delhi District Court
Sh. Mukhtyar Singh vs Union Of India on 6 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DR. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01 + MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST :
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
==================================================
UID No. DLNW01000876 2012 LAC No.238/16 (New) LAC No. 1671A/12 (Old) (Old Case : 7 + years old) In the matter of :
1. Sh. Mukhtyar Singh S/o Sh. Ram Savroop Village & P.O. Rani Khera Delhi ...... Petitioner Vs.
1. Union of India Through Land Acquisition Collector, NorthWest, Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority Through its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi .....Respondents Village Rani Khera Notification U/s 4 of F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/20112 L.A. Act, 1894 dt. 21.03.2003 Notification U/s 6 of L. F.11 (21)/2004/L&B/LA/28049 A. Act, 1894 dt. 18.03.2020 Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW) Date of Announcement 12.07.2005 of Award by LAC LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 1 of 85 Date of Receipt of Reference : 18.12.2012 Date on which first listed before this court : 18.12.2012 Date on which arguments concluded : 14.12.2022 Date of Decision/Award by court : 06.01.2023 Appearance(s): Sh. R.S. Dalal Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner.
Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Ld. Counsel for Union of India. Ms. Ravi Prabha, Ld. Counsel for DDA.
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 J U D G M E N T / AWAR D (Under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)
1. This is a reference petition u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), filed by the petitioner mentioned aforesaid for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (NorthWest) (hereinafter called 'the LAC') for acquisition of his land for public purpose. The petition was filed before the LAC and referred to by the Collector for determination of the court.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the present petition is that vide notification bearing No. F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/20112 dt. 21.03.2003 issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi under Section 4 of the Act, the Government intended to acquire about 907 Bigha 09 biswas of land with its specification mentioned in the notification for public purpose namely 'Rohini Residential Scheme' under the "Planned Development of Delhi".
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 2 of 85
3. Vide consequent Declaration/notification No. F.11 (21)/2004/L&B/LA/28049 dated 18.03.2004 issued pursuant thereto under Section 6 of the Act, 907 Bigha 9 Biswas land (as detailed in the statement under Section 19 of the Act), situated in the revenue estate of village Rani Khera, Delhi, was acquired by the Government. The LAC (N/W) after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act, announced the Award bearing no.08 of 2005 06 dated 12.07.2005 u/s 11 of the Act in respect of 907 bighas 09 biswas out of the aforesaid acquired land and awarded a compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.15,70,000/ per acre (or Rs. 3,27,083.33/ per bigha) for the entire acquired land in addition to other statutory benefits and interests besides liquidated cost for trees, tubewell and borings.
4. The petitioner being coowner/cobhumidhar of 1/9 th share in agricultural land comprised in khasra nos. 36//4/2 (103), 6(506), 7/2 (102), 15(416) total area admeasuring 12 bigha and 7 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Rani Khera, Delhi (in short, the said land). The said land has been acquired vide Award no. 08/200506/DC(NW) dated 12.07.2005.
5. The petitioner aggrieved by the market value determined by the LAC, vide the subject award announced on 12.07.2005 while accepting the compensation under protest, challenged the said Award on the grounds as detailed in the reference petition which are summarized as under: LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 3 of 85
(i) The petitioner being one of the land owner/Bhumidar, feeling aggrieved by the said Award approached the LAC for enhancement thereof by way of the present petition u/s 18 of the Act, which, in turn, was referred to this court.
(ii) The ld. LAC has assessed the compensation merely on the basis of conjenctures and surmises and without looking into the actual market rate of the said land in the prevailing area. The said land is attached to the residential area of Rohini and has a great market value. The value of each and every community has been rising day by day and the value of the acquired land has also been increasing similarly. The LAC has not considered the fact of intrinsic value, which inhere in the said land and the location of the land while assessing the market value. The acquired land is surrounded by industrial area of Mundka (recently developed by DSIIDC), residential area of Rohini, National Highway8, industrial area of Bawana and several godowns and factories where the government have provided all the civic amenities like roads, bus services, railway facilities, electricity, school, hospitals and telecommunications etc.
(iii) It is stated that the acquired land is levelled one and is fit for residential/commercial industry building without making any level thereof, therefore, the market value of the said land at the time of above said notification is not less than Rs. 5000 per sq. yds. which amount could be easily fetched, if sold to some other person.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 4 of 85
(iv) The respondent no.1 had fixed the market value of the land in a very illogical manner and without taking into consideration the actual prevailing market price of the land. The method adopted by LAC for determining the market price of the land is not practical and is outdated. The respondent no.1 had took only not taken into consideration the policy announcement and not the other factors, which have real role in determining the market value of the land and, therefore, the acquired land could not be tagged at any amount less than Rs. 5000 per sq. yds. The earlier DSIDC has provided the adjoining land to industrial units for more than Rs. 10,000 per sq. yds. and that too, only to those who has applied for the plots well in advance, which shows that the land for the purpose of establishing industrial unit is not easily available for the rates (@Rs. 10,000 per sq. yds.). The DDA has been allotting the said land at a minimum rate of Rs. 8000 per sq. yds. at the remotest areas, therefore, the respondents have acquired the said land widely above said notification at a very low rate and the respondent no.2 must not gain/profits at the cost of causing loss to the petitioner.
(iv) It is stated that while passing the impugned award the LAC has erred in not appreciating the fact that the said land is fertile and productive and gives at least three crops in a year. The said land was having a water course connected with the canal which is adjoining these said land/field of the petitioner. The petitioner and his family were totally dependent on the agricultural income and after the LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 5 of 85 acquisition of the said land they have left with insufficient source of income. The petitioner and the nonserving dependent family members have no knowledge of technical knowhow except agriculture, therefore, they cannot do any other work. The agricultural equipments and paraphernalia i.e. tractor, cultivator, harrow trolley costing about Rs. 4 lakhs has become complete waste as the entire land has been acquired by the said award. It is stated that the petitioner will not get the agricultural land at the awarded even in the radius of 50 kms of the said land, therefore, the petitioner has to shift his establishments including the agricultural ancillary equipments. The petitioner has a big family to support in the intervening period, and has to be an expense of Rs. 25,000 per month, however, no compensation has been awarded on this account.
(v) It is stated that the said land is well fertile and productive one and there existed vegetable and crops at the time of demarcation of the said land and by fixing course in the same prior to passing of the impugned award, the petitioner has been deprived of cultivating the land for the "fasali year"till today in spite of being in possession. The petitioner also claims Rs. 80,000 per bigha for crops.
(vi) the LAC has grossly erred in not taking into account the devolution of money and if the date and year of the said notification is taken to be the base date and year, then the LAC was bound to grant compensation by taking into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification on the basis of LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 6 of 85 loss and injury suffered by the petitioner. The Rupee has been devalued by more than 50% between the date of notification and the date of making the impugned award, therefore, the compensation awarded by the land acquisition is only 50% of the market value in terms of the present value of Rupee. The LAC has also erred not awarding the compensation for the expenses, loss and injury sustained by the petitioner due to completed change of nature and place of business/livelihood. The government has fixed criteria for making these changes and the same has also been paid to government servants in advance, however, in the present case the bare minimum expenses have not been awarded to the petitioner.
(vii) the LAC has grossly erred in not considering the annual increase of 12% per annum in the value of land between 01.04.2001 to 21.03.2003 i.e date of policy announced vide order number F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 dated 09.08.2001 and notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is submitted that respondents are not following their own admitted norms, while granting the compensation the land owners. The LAC has not awarded for just any legal interest and solatium as per the acts and rules framed.
(viii) the petitioner was having a tube well run by diesel electric engine in the said land which was working in good condition when the possession of the land was taken by LAC and has grossly erred in not awarding compensation for boring the tube well and equipments such as pipe etc. LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 7 of 85
(ix) It is stated that the impugned award was announced by the LAC on 10th of July 2005, however, neither the contents of the award nor the copy thereof has been supplied to petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has no knowledge about the contents of the impugned award. It is also submitted that the LAC has failed to disperse the amount of award arrived at by him while passing the impugned award and assess the petitioner are entitled for 15% interest on the same till payment is released him.
6. It is stated that in view of these facts and circumstances and keeping in view the consideration of the petitioner, petitioner is claiming market value of Rs. 5000/ per sq. yds. in addition to the said market value. The petitioner is also claiming from of Rs. 80,000 per Bigha for loss and damages sustained by the petitioner on account of having deprived of farming on the land for crops and vegetable. The petitioner further claim an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 regarding his share on account of the boring of tube wells and the cost of equipments thereof and construction of one pakka room.
7. The petitioner claim an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs for the damages sustained by him for acquisition of the land compulsory and injurious affecting his other properties like residential home agricultural equipments.
8. The petitioner further claims an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs in consequence of the acquisition of the land as the petitioner has to LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 8 of 85 change his place of business and reasonable incidental expenses. The petitioner also claims the interest at the rate 18% per annum without any tax deductions and the just and legal solatium as per law along with the alternate plots to the petitioner as per rules.
9. The respondent no. 1/Union of India has contested the reference by filing written statement, and, interalia, it is submitted that the LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the said land at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4 of Act and also considering the existing locations, surroundings, availability of Civic amenities and other available resources near the land in question. The respondent no. 1 while claiming absence of any specific and cogent evidence for claiming higher compensation has contended that the award passed by the LAC u/s 11 of the Act is a reasoned one and as such, in the absence of any cogent and admissible evidence, the grounds are not maintainable.
10. In its reply on merits, it has been contended that the petitioner is required to put to strict proof, his right, title and interest in the said land as also his entitlement to an enhanced compensation. It is submitted that petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement of compensation on account of any damages or benefits, respondent no.1 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. Respondent No. 2/DDA, the beneficiary of acquired land has also filed a detailed written statement thereby taking preliminary LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 9 of 85 objections and filing reply on merits. It has been contended that the Land Acquisition Collector while making the Award no. 08 of 2005 06 relating to village Rani Khera had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of sale deeds of adjoining lands of the area as well as all documents which were made available and produced before him and has also taken into consideration the existence of other appurtenances, amenities and facilities while assessing the compensation. It is also submitted that the amount awarded by LAC is adequate, sufficient, just and legal and it is made on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence and there is no scope for enhancing of the amount of compensation. It has been submitted that the present reference petition is barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable.
12. It has further been submitted that compensation has been awarded by LAC after taking into consideration all the factors relevant for determining the compensation and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any enhancement of compensation. The respondent no.2 while raising the issue of limitation, has also averred that it is not liable to pay any interest for the delayed period as the Land & Building Department, Union of India was required to send the reference to the Reference Court within 60 days of its filing. While clarifying that the possession of khasra nos. 40/11/1 (14), 36/2 (4
16), 29/19 (412), 22 (416) total area 15 bigha and 8 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Rani Khera, Delhi relating to the petitioner was taken over by DDA in possession on 15.12.2005 and LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 10 of 85 15.03.2007, thereafter, has been transferred to RPDVII on 20.12.2005 & 11.05.2007.
13. It is pleaded that the contents of the petitioner and grounds except specifically admitted are wrong and denied and the petitioner be put under strict proof to the allegations and content in the reference petition. It is denied that the market value assessed by the LAC does not represent the fair and actual market value of the said land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. All of the contents of the petition are denied in toto. It has been prayed that the present petition is liable to be dismissed with costs
14. The petition was filed by the LAC before the court on 18.12.2012 and after completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 11.09.2013 :
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount ?
2. Relief.
15. Petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and has deposed in terms of affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents :
i) The indicative price policy of agricultural land from 19902001 and 2005, are Mark A,
ii) RTI application filed before DDA and other connected document regarding allotment of land to Pawan Hans Helicopter is MarkB, LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 11 of 85
iii) Two sale deeds dated 25.04.2001 of village Khera Khurd, copy of which is Mark C, Sale deed dated 08.09.2003 of village Khera Khurd is Mark D, sale deed dated 15.12.1998 of village Kerala is Mark E,
iv) Perpetual lease deeds executed by DDA in favour of Jagdish Singh and Laxman are Mark F,
v) Allotment letter issued by DSIIDC are Mark G,
16. In crossexamination, witness admitted that after acquisition of agricultural land, the acquisition agency i.e. DDA and DSIIDC used to develop the land and provides all basic amenities i.e. proper sewerage, roads, electricity provision, community centres, parks cool, hospitals and dispensaries etc. He testified that he was not aware about the fact that M/s Saroj Engineering Works had deposited the full and final payment before the DSIIDC and the sale deed in this effect was executed in favour of M/s Saroj Engineering Works.
17. He testified that he had personally visited Karala land where Satsang Bhawan is situated, however, he had not visited any other land which is mentioned in para no.11 of his affidavit PW1/A. He admitted that he had not filed any document related to sale transactions between Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd., and DDA, however, he volunteered that whatever documents are with him he had deposited the same before the court regarding Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd.
18. He admitted that he had not filed any document before this Court or before LAC regarding proof of income of Rs. 1 lakh from LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 12 of 85 agricultural yields. He admitted that he had not produced any document regarding price of land @ Rs. 20 lakhs before this Court or before LAC as mentioned in para no.15 of his affidavit PW1/A. He denied that the compensation awarded by the LAC is fair proper and adequate.
19. PW1 testified that he was working as a labourer in a private factory for the last 32 years. There were three shifts in the factory where he is working. He testified that his elder brother and younger brother also used to take care of agricultural fields with him. He testified that he used to visit LAC office in the proceeding of acquisition, however, he had not filed any document before LAC or before this Court in support of the claim of compensation as per market value. He testified that he do not know what is aks sizra. ld.
Counsel for the DDA has adopted the crossexamination conducted by ld. Counsel for respondent no.1.
20. Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Alam, LDC, Reader to Sub Registrar 6B, Alipur, has been examined as PW2, who has brought on record the sale deed bearing registration number 272, Additional book no.1, volume no. 2019 on page 171 178 dated 18.01.2010 which is Ex. PW2/1.
21. In crossexamination, witness testified that he has joined the above said office in September 2013 and the sale deed which he has brought on record was not registered in his presence as he has joined LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 13 of 85 the office later on. He testified that he has no personal regarding the land mentioned in the sale deed Ex. PW 2/1.
22. Sh. Ravinder Chikara, UDC Sub Registrar, VIA has been examined as PW3 who has brought on record the summoned record i.e. the sale deed dated 03.05.2001, which pertains to land bearing Khasra number 101/29, area admeasuring 10 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of Village Khera Khurd, Delhi and executed by The Society of Franciscan brothers Khera Khurd at Village Khera Khurd in favour of the Society of Sisters of Destitute, Jivodaya Hospital at Ashok Vihar, Delhi through its Secretary Sister Jwala running into four pages and the copy of the same is Ex. PW3/1 which is already marked as Mark C. However, on the backside of the last page of the record shows that the stamp of Sub Registrar and the petitioner had not filed the photocopy of backside of the fourth page in the case file.
23. PW4 has also brought on record the sale deed dated 03.05.2001 pertaining to land bearing Khasra number 101/22 area admeasuring 12 Biswa and 13 min (207) total measuring 2 bigha and 19 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of Village Khera Khurd and the same is executed by The Society of Franciscan Brothers Khera Khurd at Village Khera Khurd in favour of the Society of Sisters of Destitute, Jivodaya Hospital at Ashok Vihar, Delhi through its Secretary Sister Jwala (running into 19 pages) and the copy of the same is Ex. PW3/2 which is already marked as Mark C. However, on the backside of the last date of the record shows that the stamp of Sub LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 14 of 85 Registrar and the petitioner had not filed the photocopy of backside of the fourth page in the case file.
24. In crossexamination, PW4 testified that he has joined the above said office in February 2013 and the said sale deeds were not registered in his presence as he has joined the office in February 2013. He testified that he is not having any personal knowledge regarding the land mentioned in the said sale deeds as well as regarding the sale deed Ex. PW 3/1 and Ex. PW3/2. He testified that he has no knowledge whether the abovementioned sale deeds have been discarded by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
25. Sh. Ghanshyam Patwari, SDM Office Rohini Kanjhawala is also a summoned witness as PW4, who has brought on record the Khatauni for the year 2003 - 2004 and as per the record, the petitioner is the coowner/co Bhumidar of land bearing Khasra number 12//1/2, (210) 16//17. 19//20/1, 36//4/2, 6, 7/2, 15 and 49/38 situated in the revenue estate of Village Rani Khera and the photocopy of the same is Ex. PW4/1.
26. Sh. Karan Singh, Kanungo, Record Room in charge, DC office, Kanjhawala, Delhi has been examined as PW5, who has brought on record the khasra girdawari regarding the land bearing Khasra number 36//4/2, 6, 7/1, 7/2, 15 situated in the revenue estate of Village Rani Khera. As per the record for the year 2003 - 2004, the abovementioned land was used for cultivation of crops.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 15 of 85 Photocopy of the same is Ex. PW5/1 . PW5 admitted that against column number 12 of khasra Girdawari, the word "unirrigated" is mentioned
27. Sh. Sarjit Singh, Halka Patwari of Village Rani Khera from the office of SDM, Rohini, Kanjhawala, Delhi has been examined as PW6, who testified that he has joined his office on 14.08.2014. Village Mubarakpur Dabas touches the boundaries of Village Rani Khera in eastern side. Village Madanpur touched the boundaries of Village Rani Khera in northern side. Villages Ghewra and Kanjhawala touches the boundaries of village Rani Khera in Western side. Village Rasulpur and Mundka touch the boundaries of Village Rani Khera in Southern side. Karala to Mundka road passes through village Rani Khera and the same ends at NH10 i.e. Delhi to Rohtak Road. No other metal road passes through the village towards Kanjhawala.
28. In crossexamination, PW6 testified that the aks sizra was prepared in the year 1952 - 1953 and he cannot tell whether the village Rani Khera after the year 1952 - 1953 was consolidated or not as he was posted just one months back in the abovementioned office. Witness testified that he even cannot tell the consolidation of other villages which touch the boundary of Village Rani Khera.
29. Sh. Ravinder Chikara, UDC from the office of Sub Registrar VIA has also been examined as PW6 (however, Sarjit Singh has also been examined as PW6) and PW6 Ravinder Chhikara is hereby termed as PW6/A, who has brought on record the sale deed LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 16 of 85 bearing registration no. 6416, Book1 Volume no. 671, pages 87107 dated 21.10.1998. Photocopy of the same is already executed as Mark E and the same has been exhibited as Ex. PW6/1.
30. In crossexamination, PW6/A testified that he is posted in the office of Sub Registrar VIA since February 2013. He admitted that in the copy of the sale deed executed PW 6/1 filed by him, there is no date or month mentioned at point A.
31. Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Assistant GradeI from the office of DSIIDC, has been examined as PW7 who has brought on record the eligibility letter for allotment of industrial plot under three locations scheme to M/s Saroj Engineering Works. The photocopy of the same is already marked as Mark G and the true attested copy by Chief Manager, DSIIDC is Ex. PW7/1 . He has also brought on record the allotment letter of industrial plot under relocation scheme issued to M/s Rathore Enterprises. The true copy of the same is Ex. PW7/2.
32. In crossexamination, PW7 testified that was not having any authority letter from his department to depose before the court, however, he was sent by his Senior Chief Manager to depose in the court. He testified that he do not have any knowledge whether any acceptance was given by M/s Saroja Engineering Works. He volunteered that they have deposited the payment regarding the allotment and the lease was already executed.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 17 of 85
33. PW7 admitted that the factories in Delhi in nonconforming areas were shifted to village Bawana in the year 1996 onwards but he do not have any knowledge whether DSIIDC allotted the plot facilities such as provision of road, sewerage, water connection, electricity etc.
34. Sh. Narender Singh Bhati, UDC from the office of Dy. Director L&B Residential Vikas Sadan, INA has been examined as PW8. He has brought the summoned record i.e. perpetual lease in respect of the residential plot no. 34, pocket 16, Sector 20, Rohini, Delhi made in favour of Zile Singh s/o Sh. Chajju and Smt. Lado w/o Sh. Zile Singh r/o 50/16, Village Puth Kalan, and the photocopy of the same is Ex. PW8/1. He has also brought on record the perpetual lease deed dated 28.02.1997 made in favour of Puran s/o Sh. Raje r/o VPO Pooth Kalan Delhi in respect of plot no. 2, Pocket 11A, sector 22, Rohini, Delhi which is Ex. PW8/2. In crossexamination, PW8 admitted that DDA allotted the plots after providing full amenities like sewerage, roads, Park, community Centre, land for hospital, schools as per site plan
35. ld. counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the certified copy of the indicative price policy from the year 1992 - 2008 is Ex. P1 closed the petitioner's evidence.
36. Thereafter, the matter was listed for recording of respondent's evidence.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 18 of 85
37. Sh. Sameer Vats, DEO from office of Sub Registrar VIA Pitam pura is Ex. RW1. He has brought on record the sale deed dated 13.02.2003 bearing registration number 624, book no. I, volume number 2979 days number 185 - 188 which is Ex. RW1/1. He was crossexamined by ld. counsel for the petitioner who testified that he has no personal knowledge regarding the above said sale deed.
38. Thereafter the respondent's evidence was closed
39. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire record including the pleadings, documents and the oral testimonies. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the same. My issuewise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1
40. The onus of proving the aforesaid issue has not been specifically mentioned at the time of framing of issues, however, since the present petition is a reference petition u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the onus ought to have automatically fallen upon the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is settled preposition of law that the onus to prove the market value of the acquired land or inadequacy of compensation awarded by LAC is always upon the petitioner. The aforesaid proposition of law has been authoritatively held by our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP & Anr v. Rajender Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1564 as under:
"The onus is on the petitioner to prove that their lands are capable of fetching higher compensation then what has been determined by the LAC and that he is entitled for enhanced compensation".
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 19 of 85
41. The petitioner has led detailed evidence as discussed in the forthcoming paragraphs touching upon various aspects and factors in support of its claim for enhancement of market value for determination of just and fair compensation. Ld. Counsels for the parties have also argued upon the aforesaid aspects in detail. The court shall first discuss the arguments advanced, crystallizing the same discussed in the light of the statutory provisions, judgments of Hon'ble Superior courts and the evidence led.
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER
42. Shri R.S. Dalal, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has vehemently argued that the market value of the land under notification as decided by the Land Acquisition collector (LAC) is based on surmises and conjectures without considering the necessary requirements as provided under the law. He has further contended that the LAC has merely gone on deciding the market value on the basis of indicative price announced by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 09.08.2001 and has completely failed to consider the necessary requirements of calculating the fair market value on the basis of exemplar sale transaction, allotment made by development agencies for nearby lands, capitalisation method of annual agricultural yield and even failed to consider the annual progressive increase in indicative price announced by the Government w.e.f. 01.04.2001 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 21.03.2003.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 20 of 85
43. It is contended that petitioner is the coowner of 1/9 th share in the said land admeasuring 12 Bigha 7 biswas situated in the revenue Estate of Village Rani Khera. The government intend to acquire the said land and had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act. The declaration in respect of the said land was made under Section 6 of the Act and the said award has been passed. The possession of the said land was taken over by the Government. The LAC has wrongly fixed the market value of the above said land @ Rs. 15,70,000 per acre on the basis of indicative price policy of the government regarding the agricultural land. Aggrieved from the said award, the petitioner has filed the present reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. It is stated that by way of the present petition, the petitioner prayed for fixing the market value @ Rs. 5000 per sq. yards.
44. It has been contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Airport Authority v Kailash Suneja RCR 2001 (4), fixed the method of assessment of market value by way of several methods such as comparative sales, capitalisation of rent, yield method or any other appropriate method. It has been contended that it was further observed in the said judgments that the writ courts do no sit on the judgment over the manner of calculation made by the Authority, however, if any, relevant factors is ignored in the matter of arrival of fair market value, the same would have effect on the consideration made by the authority, but, if there is no inherent error in the process adopted by the authority, and any relevant method has been adopted, LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 21 of 85 it is not open to the Court to substitute other methods unless it is grossly unjustified or discriminatory in as much as the cases of some acquisition or similar situated property have been decided adopting some other more beneficial manner. He argued that best method for calculating the fair market value is consideration of the sale prices of the adjoining areas in the same village or in the absence thereof, nearby village(s).
45. The petitioner has further contended that sale exemplars have been wrongly discarded by LAC and he has relied upon the sale considerations of agricultural land of village Karala, detailed in sale deed Ex. PW6/3 whereby the market value/consideration price of the land involved in the sale deed is Rs. 44 lakhs for 2 acres of land, however, in the present case the LAC has fixed the market value @ Rs. 15,70,000 per acre, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an increase of Rs. 22 lakhs per acre of the acquired land with effect from 21.10.1998 to 21.03.2003 @ 12% over and above Rs. 22 lakhs.
46. It is further contended that the contention for the said land be fixed as per the sale deeds of land situated in village Khera Khurd i.e. Ex. PW6/1 and Ex. PW6/2, as the land of village Khera Khurd was also acquired with the said land of the petitioner in respect of the said land for the same purpose and notification under Section 4 of the Act as well as land of Khera Khurd are same and both of them are required for the purpose of development of Rohini Residential Scheme. In support of his contention, the Counsel for petitioner has relied upon :
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 22 of 85
(i) GM, ONGC Ltd. v. Sendabhai Vastram Patel, 2005(3) RCR Civil 731
(ii) Om Prakash(D) through LR's v. Union of India, 2004(3) RCR Civil 726.
47. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that even otherwise the market value can be determined on the basis of annual yield method or capitalisation of rent in as much as petitioner claimed to be continuously earning a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to 1.5 lakhs per Bigha from the agricultural produce after deduction of the expenses for cultivation and, therefore, the compensation should accordingly be enhanced. However, the petitioner do not have any record/bills for the same as they have not preserved the bills of their agricultural produce/sales. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon The Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi 2000 AIR SC 2619.
48. The ld. counsel for the petitioner further contended for determination of the market value of the said land should be assessed on the basis of allotment made by DSIIDC and the DDA in the adjoining area. The petitioner has also relied upon the allotment letter issued by DSIIDC in the industrial area of village Bawana in terms of Ex. PW7/1 and Ex. PW7/2. The petitioner has also relied upon the allotment letter issued by DDA for allotment of residential plot in residential area of Rohini in terms of Ex. PW8/1 and Ex. PW8/2. It is submitted that the aforesaid industrial area are developed by the government in the adjoining villages as well as in the same village and the average price of the plots are Rs. 4000 per sq. yards, LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 23 of 85 therefore, 50% cost is assumed to be expenses for development of acquired land and petitioner, therefore, 50% price of the land allotted by DDA i.e. Rs. 2000 per sq. yards should be the price of the said land.
49. It is submitted that the land under reference was notified by Section 4 of the Act from boundary to boundary and on the eastern side itself the Rohini Residential Scheme is in existence, therefore, it is apparent that the said land is surrounded with the developed area and the land of the petitioner, which is fit for development, and only the cost of development would be deducted from the said land allotted by the respondent at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. In this regard, ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon Kasturi & Ors. V. State of Haryana SCC (2003) 1 SCC 354.
50. It is further contended that the LAC had not given an increase in the market value from 01.04.2001 to 21.03.2003 and had fixed the market value on the basis of indicating price policy fixed by the government from time to time. In this regard, ld. counsel for petitioner has relied upon Mahender Singh v. Union of India, LA Appeal no. 866/2005 and Jai Singh v. Union of India, LA Appeal no. 266/2008.
51. The respondent in its evidence has relied upon one sale deed dated 13.02.2003 Ex. RW1/1 and the Award, whereby the LAC has fixed with the market value on the basis of the indicative price announced by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 09.08.2001 and without LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 24 of 85 appreciating the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the LAC wrongly passed the award. It has been further argued that the best method for calculating the fair market value as laid down in the aforesaid judgment, is consideration of the sale price of the adjoining land in the same village or in the absence thereof, of nearby village(s). He has stated that the sale deed relied upon by him of village Karala dated 21.10.1998 for 2 acres of land is valued at Rs.44 lacs according to which the minimum value would come to Rs.22 lacs per acre with annual proportionate increase of 12% per annum from 1998 to 2003 which should be awarded as a fair market value for the acquired land. Stretching the arguments further, Ld. Counsel has referred to 2 other sale deeds of nearby village namely Khera Khurd on the ground that the agricultural lands in village Karala and village Khera Khurd were acquired by the Government at the same time and for same public purpose namely Rohini Residential Scheme. It has been further argued that the compensation be awarded on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds (exemplars). He has relied upon the pronouncement of law laid down in Om Prakash(supra) for the purpose of considering the price rise in rates on sale transaction from the date of sale till notification.
52. It has been argued that the urbanized city of Delhi where Colony Rohini exist has been developed on the agricultural land acquired post 1961 and situated within the aforesaid "V" where historically except for village Narela all the villages have been treated as equivalent in respect of their location and potentiality. It is the LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 25 of 85 vehement argument of Ld. Counsel that village Karala is adjacent to village Pooth Khurd and Barwala with the boundaries of the aforesaid villages touching village Karala on its northern side. Ld. Counsel has argued that even on the basis of aforesaid judgment, the market value awarded for the aforesaid 10 villages by the Hon'ble High court as on the date of notification i.e. 27.01.2003 at the rate of Rs.19,43,500/ per acre which should be awarded to the petitioner as enhanced value with the further increase of 11.5% for the period 27.01.2003 and 21.03.2003 thereby praying for market value of the land to be Rs.19,80,750/ per acre.
53. It is further contended that, without prejudice to the above, the petitioner land also fall in the 'V' shape between Rohtak Road i.e. NH10 and G.T. Karnal Road i.e. NH1. So, the market value of the petitioner land be fixed on the basis of Jai Singh (supra). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi fixed the market value of village Sanooth and Razapur Kalan @ Rs.19,43,500/ per acre as on 26.01.2003, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for two months i.e. from 27.01.2003 to 21.03.2003 further increase @ 11.5% upon Rs. 19,43,500/.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF UNION OF INDIA
54. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 / UOI has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by ld. Counsel for the petitioner and has stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement on compensation being awarded by LAC. It is argued that he LAC has LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 26 of 85 considered all the relevant factors such as location of land, nature of soil and potentiality attached to the land. Besides the aforesaid factors, the LAC has duly considered the indicative price policy of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It has been argued that acquired the large tracts of agricultural land of area 907 bigha 9 biswa of village Rani Khera for a public purpose i.e. Rohini Residential Scheme under planned Development of Delhi while issuing the notification under section 4 of the act on 21.03.2003 and subsequently issued the declaration under Section 6 vide notification dated 18.03.2004 and, thereafter, on 28.06.2005. The LAC passed the said Award and the possession of the agricultural land was taken on 15.03.2007 by DDA/respondent no.2 As per Section 19 of the Act, the total land of the petitioner is 12 Bigha 7 biswas.
55. It is contended that respondent no.1 have granted compensation of Rs.15,70,000 per acre as per the indicative price fixed by the Government for agricultural land under the Act. While determining the market value of land as on 21.03.2003 i.e. date of notification u/s 4 of the Act and several factors such as location of land, nature of soil, potentialities attached to the land and price policy fixed by the government regarding acquisition of agricultural land was taken into consideration. The petitioner being not satisfied with the compensation granted by the respondent no.1 filed the present reference petition and the respondent no.1 is filing the written statement by taking the grounds that the award granted by respondent no.1 is sufficient and adequate.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 27 of 85
56. Ld. Counsel Shri Vinay Kumar appearing on behalf of Union of India/respondent no.1 has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and has stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement on compensation being awarded by LAC since at the time of determination of market value on the date of notification i.e. 21.03.2003, the LAC has duly considered all the relevant factors such as location of land, nature of soil and potentiality attached to the land. It has vehemently been argued that besides the aforesaid factors, the LAC has duly considered the indicative price policy of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as announced on 09.08.2001 which was effective from 01.04.2001. It has been argued that the indicative price for acquisition of agricultural land for public purpose vide the aforesaid notification provides for a fixed price of Rs.15,70,000/ which has to be reviewed only after 3 years. Ld. Counsel for respondent has stretched his arguments by stating that even the petitioner is not entitled to any escalation on the award amount for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2003 since there is no evidence on record to show such escalation in market price. Ld. Counsel has tried to stretch this argument even to the escalation in respect of sale deeds filed on record by relying upon the pronouncement of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in (2008) 14 SCC 745 ONGC v. Ramesh Bhai Jeewan Bhai Patel by stating that in the absence of any material on record the indicative prices are the prices to be considered by the reference court. Ld. Counsel for the respondent even has relied upon the celebrated case of Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769 by stating that if the guidelines LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 28 of 85 market prices are assessed by an expert committee following a detailed procedure of scientific and methodical assessment by a committee constituted of officers of Revenue, Public Works, Survey, Local Authorities and an Expert in the field of Valuation of properties, there is no reason by such rates should not be taken as relevant piece of evidence for determination of market value.
57. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 has vehemently argued that the sale deed exemplars relied upon by the petitioner does not reflect the correct market value of the acquired land since only one sale deed pertains to village Karala and that too of the year 1990, the other two sale deeds of neighbouring villages namely Khera Khurd cannot be relied upon by the court in view of sale deeds produced by the respondent which are not only contemporaneous but also pertains to the same village. It has further been argued that even for consideration of the same a deduction of 50% towards the developmental charges/costs is mandatory in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court dictum in (1996) 9 SCC 640 Basava v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and (1996) 8 SCC 301 V.G. Kulkarni v. Special Land Acquisition Officer.
58. It is contended that the petitioner has filed one sale deed of village Pooth Khurd executed on 18.01.2010 for consideration amount of Rs. 2,81,76,100/ (Ex. PW2/1). Petitioner further relied upon sale deed of village Khera Khurd executed on 03.05.2001 for the consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/ (Ex. PW3/1), sale deed of village LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 29 of 85 Khera Khurd executed on 03.05.2001 for the consideration of Rs. 32,40,000/ (Ex.PW3/2), and the sale deed of village Karala executed on 21.10.1998 for the consideration of Rs. 44,00,000/ (Ex. PW6/1) for commercial purposes. Per contra, the respondent no.1 has relied upon sale deed of village Rani Khera executed on 02.01.2003 for the sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/ (Ex. RW1/1) for area admeasuring 105 sq. yards. It is submitted that a further reduction of 50% towards development charges/costs is mandatory upon the sale prices as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases :
(a) Basava v. Spl. LAC,1996 (9) SCC 640,
(b) V.G. Kulkarni v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 1996 (8) SCC 301& 303.
(c) Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(10) SCC529.
59. It is contended that the sale deeds Ex. PW2/1, Ex. PW3/1, Ex. PW3/2, and Ex. PW6/1, and the documents relied upon by the petitioner cannot be relied upon on the following grounds :
a. that the sale deed dated 21.10.1998 (Ex. PW6/1), sale deed dated 03.05.2001 (Ex. PW3/1 & Ex. PW3/2) are much prior i.e. about 03 years 02 years from the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act and these cannot reflect a true and correct value.
b. that the sale deed dated 18.01.2010 (Ex. PW2/1), is post dated from the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act and it cannot reflect a true and correct value.
c. The land transferred to Pawan Hans Helicopter from DDA to Ministry of Civil Aviation, is for the specific purpose and cannot be compared with the instances of sales of an undervalued agricultural land acquired for public purpose, which requires a lot of development and incurring of high development charges.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 30 of 85 d. Auction Register pertains to period post publication of notification and are not contemporaneous to date of notification U/s 4 of the Act and, therefore, cannot be relied upon the determine the market value of land.
60. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 has vehemently argued that two sale deeds relied upon by petitioner cannot be called a sale deed for a fair market value of land since the said sale deed pertains to religious organization namely Radha Swami Satsang Vyas and Christian Society for Sisters of Destitutes, both of which have purchased the land for special circumstances personal to the vendee and is not reliable evidence for determination of fair market value of the acquired agricultural land. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the pronouncement of law laid down in (1995) 1 SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru Vs. Isti Rohini and (2009) 14 SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin v. Land Acquisition Officer. Ld. Counsel has even relied upon the celebrated judgment of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in Jai Singh (supra)to buttress the aforesaid point. On this aspect, while vehemently arguing the point again and again, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in (1997) 9 SCC 510 Jai Prakash Vs. Union of India to suggest that the sale deeds of neighboring villages cannot be considered at all and merely because a higher compensation was awarded to the land acquired neighboring villages does not entitle the appellant to get the same compensation ipso facto.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 31 of 85
61. While completely refuting the claim for grant of higher compensation on the basis of allotment made by DDA and DSIIDC, Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon the celebrated case of Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769 by stating that the allotment made by these authorities cannot be compared with acquisition of land as same involves various factors including the transfer of rights inherited land, the amount of land actually put to use after development of public areas, roads etc. and even development of commercial activities.
62. Ld. Counsel for respondent while vehemently opposing the over emphasis & reliance placed by the petitioner on Jai Singh (supra) has stated that Jai Singh (supra) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case as village Karala was not at all covered by aforesaid judgment.
63. It is further contended that respondent no.1/UOI relied on the one sale deed/exemplar which sale transaction is very proximate date of notification u/s 4 of the Act, and the land acquired belongs to the same village Rani Khera. A deduction of 50% is mandatory towards the development charges/costs and, therefore, the petitioner are liable to pay Rs. 4,59,908.256 to respondent no.1.
64. It is contended that the formula/ratio laid down in Jai Singh (supra) is not applicable in the present case, because not even a single village including Village Rani Khera has been discussed LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 32 of 85 while passing the order by the Hon'ble High Court and indicative prices applicable to the said land and subsequent notification dated 21.03.2003 is more than 02 years from the date of notification, subject matter in Jai Singh (supra) therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel for respondent no.1 has relied upon the following judgments :
(a) Lal Chand v. UOI, 2009 SCC 769
(b) State of UP v. Rajender Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1564
(c) K.Vasundhara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) (1995) 5 SCC 426,
(d) UOI v. Dyagala Devamma & ors., JT 2018 (7) SC 228,
(e) Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2003) SCC 529
(f) Basava v. Spl Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 9 SCC 640,
(g) Bhola Nath Sharma v. Union of India, 1990 VII AD (Delhi) 159,
65. Ld. Counsel for respondent DDA did not address any separate argument and has adopted the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for Union of India.
CONSIDERATION OF ARGUMENTS
66. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties for canvassing enhancement of market value of acquired agricultural land and opposition thereof can be crystallized and classified into following aspects:
(i) Instances of sale deeds of adjoining lands/exemplars.
(ii) Market value and sale prices of the industrial/residential plots and flats in the surrounding area allotted by DSIIDC and DDA, including the land allotted for development of Heliport in Rohini.
(iii) Yield Based Assessment or Capitalization of annual rent.
(iv) Indicative Price Policy of the Govt. of NCT and its effects.
(v) Regressive Annual Decrease in Indicative Price from 2008 to 2001.
(vi) Progressive Annual Increase in Indicative Price from 2001 to 2003.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 33 of 85 LEGAL POSITION
67. The statutory provisions regarding determination of compensation for acquisition for land acquired for public purpose is provided U/s 23 of the Act. In addition thereto, Sec 24 of the Act laid down the factors which are not to be considered for the purpose of determining the compensation and the said Sections are reproduced as under : Sec23. Matters to be considered on determining compensation. (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration first, the marketvalue of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, subsection (1)];
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change, and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
[(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 34 of 85 market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, subsection (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation. In computing the period referred to in this sub section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.] (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
Sec24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. But the Court shall not take into consideration first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit;
fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, subsection (1); [or] eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy.] LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 35 of 85
68. It is to be noted here that the compensation for the acquired land is actually a restitution to the person who has been deprived of his land acquired for public purpose. The same is required to be just, fair and adequate. While determining the amount of compensation, the most important factor as provided under Clause 1 of Section 23 of the Act, is the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. It is this market value of land which is the pivotal point of lis before the reference court as also before the Hon'ble Superior Courts. 'Market value' is ordinarily the price, the property may fetch in open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs or a particular purchase. It simply means what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having regard to advantages available and potentiality of the land and the developmental activities which may be going on in the vicinity of such land.
69. It may be noted here that various factors are required to be kept in mind for determination of market value of the acquired land namely :
(i) Existing geographical situation of the land,
(ii) Existing use of the land,
(iii) Already available advantages like proximity to National or State Highway or Road and/or developed area
(iv) Market value of other land situated same locality/village/area and in the absence thereof adjacent or near land closer to the acquired land.
In this regard, reliance is placed on Sabhia Md. Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2012) 7 LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 36 of 85 SCC 595 titled and Natesal Pillai Vs. Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition, Triuchi, (2010) 9 SCC 118.
70. It may be relevant to mention here that The Hon'ble Apex Court while enlisting the aforesaid factors has further relied upon its earlier judgment in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor V. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 by reproducing the principles laid down for determination of market value of land, which are relevant to note down and reproduced herein below: "17. Section 23 of the Act specified the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under subsection (1) of Section
4.
18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidence have to be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors visa vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 37 of 85 The positive and negative factors are also enlisted as size of the plot, proximity or distance from a road, frontage or small frontage, nearest or distance from developed area, leveled or unleveled land and even shape of the plot.
It may be noted here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the case law so rendered on each aspect has even laid down that the market value is to be considered having duly regard to all existing conditions including advantages and potentialities attached to the land. It has been further observed that the guiding star for a fair market value would be the conduct of a willing vendor who offered the land and purchaser in normal conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market condition, but not an anxious dealing at arms length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in a quick succession or otherwise to inflate the determination of market value in prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195 and Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568.
71. It may be further relevant to note down here that the Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that for ascertaining the market value of land, it is the potentiality of the acquired land which is of prime consideration. It has been held that the potentiality means the capacity or possibility for changing or developing into a state of actuality. Potentiality of land depend upon various factors including its condition, situation, user and proximity to residential, commercial LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 38 of 85 or industrial area or institutions. The existing human amenities like water, electricity, further extension and existence of a nearby town is also to be taken into consideration. In this regard, reliance is placed on Collector of land v. Hari Singh Thakur, (1979) 1 SCC 236. The Hon'ble Court has further held that whenever an under developed land is acquired a normal deduction to the tune of 1/3rd of market value towards the development cost is also to be made. In this regard, reliance is placed on Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745.
72. It may be relevant to observe here that the important aspect of consideration of market value on the basis of contemporaneous sale deed of an adjoining land is that the instances of sales are to be taken which are normal sales made by a willing seller to a willing purchaser and it must exclude the disinclination of the vendor to part with the land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy such land. These kinds of sale are often regarded as sales which are fanciful or fancy sales. In Jai Singh (supra), it has been clearly held that fancy sales are to be excluded from the purview of consideration as there may be special circumstances which may need a buyer to pay a higher price much higher to the normal market value if he has a particular need, circumstance or fancy for a particular piece of land. While distinguishing a normal sale worth consideration for determination of market value from a fanciful sale worth exclusion, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the test:
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 39 of 85 ".... The true test is the price which a well inform willing buyer would pay to an equally well inform seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be the one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in area, has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing price."
The Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid case, while laying down test has even considered sale deeds produced during evidence and having intrinsic value of fanciful price and held the same to be exfacie mutually self destructive.
SALE TRANSACTIONS OF ADJOINING LANDS/SALE DEED/EXEMPLARS
73. One of the most vehemently canvassed arguments of the petitioner is its reliance upon the sale deeds/transactions of lands situated in the same village/adjoining villages. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the LAC at the time of determination of market value has completely ignored the contemporaneous sale transactions of comparable land of the same village or even in the adjoining villages which in fact reflect the true market value of land by way of real transactions. In support of the said contention the petitioner has relied upon sale deeds i.e. Ex. PW2/1, Ex. PW3/1, Ex. PW3/2, Ex. PW6/1 of the adjoining village of Madanpur Dabas.
74. Relying upon these sale deeds, the petitioner has claimed that though the value of acquired land which is not only comparable but is rather better in its location and proximity towards National Highway with better roads and should not be less than Rs.1 crore per acre. It has been further claimed that, even if, the lowest price of LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 40 of 85 Village Rani Khera sale transactions is considered, then it should be Rs.22,00,000/ per acre as on 21.10.1998 with an added escalation for about four and a half year. Claiming compensation at much higher market value and relying upon these sale deeds, he finds support from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in Sendha Bhai Vastram Patel (supra).
75. The respondent no.1/UOI on the other hand, has branded the sale deeds self serving document brought by the petitioner to lay an inflated claims and has stated that the court is required to determine the real market value and not swayed by the produced sale deed which is neither contemporaneous nor of similarly situated or comparable land. The respondent has placed extensive reliance on Lal Chand (supra) and Rajinder Singh (supra) by stating that the courts are required to be cautious and careful in assessing the sale transactions produced during evidence without actually examining the Vendor and the Vendee and the circumstances under which the exemplar sale deeds were executed. The court has to ensure that the exemplar sale transactions were not only real but the considerations shown thereunder were also true. The respondents have further sought to discard the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner on the ground that the sale deeds of adjoining villages may not create a safe yardstick for determination of market value of acquired land relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India, 76 (1998) DLT 154 SC. Though not quoted LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 41 of 85 has relied upon Bhola Nath & Ors. v. Union of India 1998 VI AD (Delhi) 159 when it has been observed that the exemplars for the same village are available then the exemplars of adjoining village cannot be considered for the purpose of market value.
76. Interestingly, the respondent no.1/UOI has also relied upon contemporaneous sale transaction of the agricultural land situated in revenue estate of village Rani Khera, for defeating the claim of petitioner and sought passing of a "Noenhancement Award". It has also examined the same witness namely Ravinder Chhikara as R1W1 by producing the sale deed pertaining to Village Rani Khera, the details of which is mentioned as under:
(i) Originals of the sale deed dated 02.01.2003 executed by Smt. Gyan Vashisht w/o Sh. H.N. Vashisht R/o 115A, Arvind Enclave, Nangloi, New Delhi 110051 in favour of Sh. Hari Narain Vashisht s/o Sh. S.L. Vashisht R/o 115A, Arvind Enclave, Nangloi, New Delhi 110051, which is Ex. R1W1/1.
77. It may be noted here that contemporaneous sale transactions of agricultural land situated either in the same village or even in the adjoining areas are taken to be credible evidence of determining market value of acquired land. These exemplars/sale deeds are in fact taken to be the best reflection of the market value provided they fulfill the necessary conditions of a free and fair sale transaction in respect of a comparable land and that too which are contemporaneous or nearest to the date of notification. The Hon'ble superior court has however, laid down a number of yardstick to ensure that the sale deed considered by the reference court are in fact instances of genuine sale LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 42 of 85 where considerations have been transferred to the vendor(s).
78. It is relevant to note down here that it has to be a bonafide transaction between the vendor and the vendee uninfluenced by any specific need of the vendee or distress sale of the vendor. The Hon'ble Superior courts have generally taken the sale deed to be admissible in evidence which are prior in time but still not distant thereof from the date of notification on the ground that the prices of land in the same village or in the adjoining villages suddenly escalates on the Government acquisition and therefore, the courts have laid down the principle of reasonable time from the date of notification. One of the important aspect, required to be considered for considering the produced sale transactions are that the lands should not only comparable to the acquired land but should also carry similar potentialities. Reliance is placed upon the judgments already referred by the parties and also on T.S. Ramchandran Setti v. Chairman Housing Board & Anr. II (2009) SLT 638.
79. It may be relevant to observe that another important aspect of exemplar sale deeds be considered is that Section 51A of the Act, (after amendment) obviates the need for examination of either the vendor or a vendee to exhibit the sale deed and prove its contents. This has also created a difficulty in so far as the ascertainment of genuinity or bonafide of sale transactions is concerned or whether the sale transaction shows a depressed or a boosted value. This also requires additional caution to be exercised by the reference court. The LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 43 of 85 Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra) by relying upon its own pronouncement in Civil Corporation of India v. Purya (2004) 8 SCC 270 has clarified that Section 51A of the Act only enables the reference court to accept the certified copies of a registered document including the copies thereof but the use of the word "may" in the statute clarifies the same as it would not ipso facto means that the contents of transaction as evidenced by a registered sale deed would automatically be accepted and the courts can always take into consideration the relevant facts and other materials brought on record even in not accepting the contents of the so produced registered sale deed. The Hon'ble court has finally concluded that mere production of some exemplar sale deeds without connecting the subject matter of the instrument to the acquired land will be of little assistance in determining the market value. Section 51A of L.A. Act only exempts the production of sale deeds and examination of vendor or vendee and nothing more.
80. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, the court now proceeds upon to carefully scrutinize the sale deed produced both by the petitioner as well as the respondents with the objective of drawing a parallel between the lands cited in the exemplar sale deeds and the land acquired by the Govt. by notification u/s 4 of the Act. First of all, it would be worthwhile to tabulate the sale deeds produced by the parties: LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 44 of 85 S. Exhibit Area of Date Village Value Rates per No. Sale Deed Acre.
1. PW2/1 10 Bigha 8 18.01.2010 Pooth Rs. Rs.1,29,94,674 Bishwa Khurd 2,81,67,100
2. PW3/1 10 Bishwa 03.05.2001 Khera Rs. 4,00,000 Rs.3,84,0491 Khurd
3. PW3/2 2 Bigha 19 03.05.2001 Khera Rs. 32,40,000 Rs.52,73,270.8 Bishwa Khurd
4. PW6/1 9 Bigha 12 21.10.1998 Karala Rs. 44,00,000 Rs.22,00,700.22 Bishwa
5. RW1/1 105 Sq. 02.01.2003 Rani Rs. 50,000 Rs. 23,04,761.9 Yard Khera
81. It is relevant to note here that the sale deed Ex. PW2/1, Ex. PW3/1, Ex. PW3/2 and Ex. PW6/1 are produced by the petitioner while the next sale deed Ex. RW1/1 by respondnet no.1 and have been taken into evidence in view of Section 51A of the Act, and as such none of the vendors or the vendee have entered into the witness box to prove their veracity. As already discussed, these sale transactions though admissible in evidence are not to be ipso facto treated as exemplar sale deeds to determine the market value of the land in an area for the reasons there may be special circumstances which may have led the buyer to pay a higher price and the reliance is placed on Jai Singh (supra). It may be noted that there may be circumstances where the vendor has sold his land for a substantial lower price on account of need for money or any other family compulsion which are sometime described as distress or compulsive sale and the reference court is under a legal duty to examine the same, if raised by any of the parties.
82. It may be relevant to note here that so far as sale deeds produced by the petitioner is concerned, sale deed Ex. PW2/1 is for an LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 45 of 85 amount of Rs. 1,29,94,674/ per acre, and this sale deed cannot be considered as exemplar of good sale transaction for the purpose of acquisition of land of notification for more than one reason, inter alia, amongst the sale deed is much anterior in time then the date of notification of the acquired land. Furthermore, the said sale deed belongs to a village which is far away from the Village Rani Khera, with which no similarity or dissimilarities has been brought on record by way of any cogent evidence. As far as the sale deed Ex. PW6/1 is concerned, the same pertains to the year 1998 in respect of the land situated in village Karala and the same being prior in time then the date of notification of the acquired land, therefore, on the basis of analogy of the reasoning assigned in discarding sale deed ex. PW2/1, this sale deed is also discarded. So far as sale deeds Ex. PW3/1 and Ex. PW3/2 are concerned, the same are much prior in time then the date of notification of the acquisition of land in as much as the said sale deeds pertains to year 2001, whereas, the said land was acquired in the year 2003. There is nothing on record to show that the land involved in the sale deed Ex. PW2/1, Ex. PW3/1 and ex. PW3/2 is actually comparable land with the land under acquisition.
83. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the sale deeds pertain to village Khera Khurd with no touching boundaries with acquired land but the same should be considered as they are covered by the same notification dated 21.03.2003 and that too for same purpose namely Rohini Residential Scheme under Planned Development of Delhi and thus the land of village Khera Khurd should be equated with the acquired land under the notification u/s 4 of the Act, in respect of LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 46 of 85 village Karala. This argument of the petitioner is also not sustainable in law or on facts since the acquisition of land by the Govt. is an consolidated exercise involving a number of villages and that too for same public purpose but the value of land pertaining to different villages may have different values in respect of their market price on account of their locational advantages and potentialities attached to each land. It is also worthwhile to point out that the vendors in both the sale deeds Ex. PW3/1, Ex. PW3/2 are a religious society with the name of the "Society Franciscan Brothers Khera Khurd" and the vendee being a similar society named as the "society of Sisters of Destitute, Jivodaya Hospital". The fact that both vendors and vendee are religious societies show that they are not normal or ordinary sale transactions between a well informed willing buyer and an equally well informed willing seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or a fancy to buy a particular piece of land. If buyer has fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price owing to his needs and the sale cannot form a good index of fair market value of the area. Interestingly, one of these sale transactions, has even been rejected by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jai Singh (supra) by terming it to be an example of fanciful sale.
84. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that though the sale deeds pertain to village Pooth Khurd, Khera Lhurd & Karala but the same should be considered as the similarly situated land as land of village Pooth Khurd, Khera Khurd and Karala is abutting the well developed colonies of i.e. Rohini Residential Scheme under "Planned Development of Delhi" and thus the lands of said villages should be LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 47 of 85 equated with the acquired land under the notification u/s 4 of the Act, in respect of village Rani Khera.
85. This contention of ld. counsel for the petitioner is also not sustainable in law or on facts since the acquisition of land by the Government is a consolidated exercise involving a number of villages and that too for same public purpose but the value of land pertaining to different villages may have different values in respect of their market price on account of their locational advantages and potentialities attached to each land.
86. In view of aforesaid discussion, the court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner are not credible sale transactions for the purpose of assessment of fair market value of land acquired under notification.
87. Now adverting to the sale transactions/exemplars relied upon by the respondent no.1/UOI. It may be seen that though ex facie the sale deed Ex.RW1/1 pertains to the same village and is contemporaneous also but when critically examined even it do not form exemplars of good sale transactions, which can be considered for the purpose of assessment of fair market value of acquired land for a number of reasons. A critical examination of that sale deed show that this sale deed pertains to very small plot of land of 105 sq. yards. Secondly, it may be seen that this plot of land are primarily residential in nature. Ex.RW1/1 shows that the plot is situated in the revenue estate of village Rani Khera. The plot of LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 48 of 85 land as per the sale deeds are bounded by other houses and are no more agricultural lands. The sale deeds Ex.RW1/1 has specifically mentioned that house tax, electricity and water bills are to be paid by the vendor uptil the date of sale. Admittedly, the very mention of house tax in the sale deed indicates that these plots have ceased to be agricultural in nature (thus are residential though may be in an unauthorised colony). Finally, the sale consideration for the aforesaid sale deed, i.e. sale deed Ex. RW1/1 dated 02.01.2003 is for Rs.50,000/ for 105 sq. yards thereby making the rate of one acre of land to be Rs. 23,04,761/. Furthermore, ld. Counsel for the respondent has demanded 50% of prices of the acquired land development charges for the said making the prices of the said land; below the prices fixed by LAC in terms of the impugned Award.
88. It may be noted that two folds contentions has been made, one is that sale deeds for small and insignificant piece of land should generally be excluded from the consideration of market value when it comes to acquisition of large tracts of lands relying upon the pronouncement of law laid down in Shawal Singh (supra) and Secondly, the produced sale deeds cannot be considered to be instances of genuine sale since the sale deeds is undervalued sale deed in as much as the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 mentions only the agricultural land to be measured in acre, bigha, biswas and even biswansi and not square yards and the same are squarely hit by Section 25 of Act, which creates a bar on consideration of these sale deeds.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 49 of 85
89. It may be relevant to note here that the respondents on the other hand, have raised contention by placing reliance upon Bhim Singh (supra) & Bhola Nath (supra) that even the small patches of land can be taken into consideration for determination of market value of large tracts of land in the absence of any better evidence, however, subject to the necessary deductions being made on account of developmental charges. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has considered the deductions of 30% to be an appropriate deduction. He has vehemently relied upon Lal Chand(supra) for consideration of deduction for development while putting forth his arguments.
90. A careful consideration of these contentious arguments and the judgments relied upon shows that : (1) sale transactions of small piece of land can be considered in the absence of other better evidence but when the same are to be considered necessary developmental charges to the tune of 20% to 75% in terms of guidelines laid down in Lal Chand's (supra) for "deduction for development" are to be deducted and (2) Section 25 of the Act requires the court not to award compensation amount which is less than what is awarded by land Acquisition Collector and it does not create a bar on consideration of sale deeds/evidence showing a lesser value by distinguishing award of compensation from determination of market value and in this regard, reliance has been placed on Lal Chand (supra).
91. Adverting to the fact of present case, it may be seen that the sale deed relied upon by the respondent is of an area of 105 sq. yards which is extremely minuscule when compared to 907 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land acquired by the Govt. by way of notification u/s 4 of the Act. This sale deed shows that the LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 50 of 85 consideration price of Rs.50,000/. Now, admittedly this sale transaction of residential plot and cannot be per se compared to vast tracts of agricultural land acquired for public purpose. Furthermore, it is interesting to point out that transactions value in Ex. RW1/1 is Rs.23,04,761/ per acre in the month of February 2003 while the market value as per indicative price is fixed as Rs.15,70,000/ in April 2001.
92. It is relevant to mention here that the indicative price as determined by the Govt. also determines the floor value or the minimum rates of these agricultural lands. Though the same was disputed by Ld. Counsel for Respondents but the endorsement made on all the indicative price policy announcements shows an endorsement being made to the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi (and later to the Deputy Commissioners of all the nine districts in Delhi) with a direction to be issued to the Registrar, SubRegistrar, Collector of Stamps for registration of sale deeds.
93. It may be noted here that the notification dated 14.03.2008 issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi whereby which the Govt. has notified the minimum rates for the purpose of chargeability of stamp duty on the instrument related to sale/transfer of agricultural land which is completely in consonance with the endorsement made in indicative price policy. Though, technically the sale deed Ex.RW1/1 as produced by the respondents may not per se look as instances, of undervalued sale but if the developmental charges in terms of Bhola LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 51 of 85 Nath (supra) and Lal Chand (supra) are applied, the sale deed being transaction in respect of plots in an unauthorised colony/ lay out would attract a deduction of about 20% plus 20% in all 40% which means that the actual price after the aforesaid deduction would come out to be the rate per acre, which is much below the minimum rates in respect of sale /transfer of agricultural land. Even if, the best case of respondents taken, this sales is liable to be excluded from the consideration zone of reliable evidence for the purpose of determining fair market value in the teeth of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra), wherein, in para No. 76, it has been held as under : "76....... when the respondent relied upon certain sale deeds to justify the value determined by Land Acquisition Collector or to show the market value was less than what is claimed by claimants, and if the claimants produce such evidence (which may be either with reference to contemporaneous sale deeds or awards made in respect of acquisition of comparable land or by other acceptable evidence) to show that the market value was much upon by the respondents showing a lesser value may be inferred to be undervalued or not showing the true value. Such deeds have to be excluded from consideration as being unreliable evidence. A document which is found to be undervalued cannot be used as evidence." (emphasis supplied)
94. It may be noted here that even otherwise, for the purpose of consideration of market value, it may be seen that the prices mentioned in Ex. RW1/1 is Rs. 50,000/ for 105 sq. yards (Rs. 23,04,761 per acre) which though appears minutely higher sale deed (Ex. RW1/1) than the value assessed by the LAC, and fixed by the Government as prevailing minimum rate of land in the year 2001 while the sale Ex. RW1/1 is made in the year 2003, it LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 52 of 85 can be safely presumed that there were compelling or exceptional circumstances like pressing requirement of money, debt or mortgage etc. which may have driven the vendor to sell the property at such a low price without the prudent annual escalation in land values and that too for a developed plot when compared to an agricultural piece of land. Thus, these transactions were either undervalued or distress sale, which needs to be excluded from consideration as they did not reflect the true market value.
95. Finally, the argument of deduction of developmental charges as raised by Ld. Counsel for respondent in terms of Bhim Singh (supra), Bhola Nath(supra) and Lal Chand (supra) are self destructive to his own arguments of genuine sale consideration at a price higher than the minimum indicative price.
96. In view of the aforesaid discussion, even the sale deed relied upon by respondents cannot be considered as sale transaction/ exemplar for the purpose of consideration of market value of acquired land.
PARITY WITH LAND DEVELOPED AND ALLOTTED BY DSIDC/DDA.
97. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that the market value decided by the LAC is totally based on conjectures and the LAC should have taken into consideration the market value of adjoining DDA land which was allotted to various industries/people LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 53 of 85 at a much higher price. It has been the contention of the petitioner that the acquired land has potentiality since it was abutting the Rohini Residential Scheme and is also surrounded by developed industrial area. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the acquired land was surrounded by both industrial as well as the residential area, the average price of allotted plot are taken as Rs. 2000/ per sq. yards and, even if, a deduction towards developmental charges to the tune of 50% is taken into consideration, a sum of Rs.2,000/ per sq. yards and that should have been the market value of acquired land which should have been granted as a fair market value to the petitioner.
98. It is relevant to note his requires a little careful examination. First of all, the documents relied upon by the petitioner are carefully perused, they are either instances of allotment or creation of a perpetual lease deed, that too by the Government for specific purpose. These cannot be compared with the instances of sale of an under developed agricultural land acquired for public purpose which requires lot of development and incurring of very high development charges. Secondly, these allotments are pertaining to year 20042007 are not contemporaneous to the year of land acquisition which is 2003. Further, allotment or creation of a lease hold right by the Government or any Industrial Agency is for specific purpose of creating either an industrial hub or creating a residential area which requires lot of planning and developmental activities by the Government involving huge amount of fund and generally only a small part of the acquired land can be developed into an industrial LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 54 of 85 area or a residential colony which sometime can even go as low as 30% to 40% of the total area and the rest of the area is used for creation of public utilities, roads and other required infrastructure.
99. Finally, the allotment for creation of freehold right cannot be treated as an instance of absolute sale and as such, cannot be compared to market value of the land in case of agricultural acquisition by the Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the entire gamut of law including the development cost has rejected the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to plots allotted by industrial authority or lease hold allotment made by developmental agency like DDA in developed layout for determination of adjoining underdeveloped land. It would be therefore, relevant to refer to the observations made in Lal Chand (supra), which are as under: "7. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by Development Authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several reasons. Firstly market value has to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed lay out falling within Urbana. Secondly DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly we are concerned with market value of freehold land, whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA Brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors.
8. First factor: The percentage of 'deduction for development' to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 55 of 85 to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the lay out in which the exemplar plots are situated. The 'deduction for development' consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, play grounds and civic amenities (community facilities) etc. The Development Authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying waterlines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the deduction for development' and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of deduction for development' may be far less. This is because in an unauthorized lay outs, usually no land will be set apart for parks, play grounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. The deduction for development' with references to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq.m. to 200 sq.m.), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of a industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65 to 75% for residential plots. If the acquired land is in a semideveloped urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 56 of 85 infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary).
9. Therefore the deduction for the 'development factor' to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed lay out, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be for more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized private lay out or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilized for roads, civic amenities, parks and play grounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout whether it is residential, residential cum commercial or industrial; and even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community facilities, parks and play grounds provided. Some of the layouts formed by statutory Development Authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the deduction for development' factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%.
10. Second factor: DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment, plots in the same layout, depending upon the economic status of the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots may be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker section at a price/premium of Rs. 100/ sq.m, whereas the price/premium charged may be Rs.150/ per sq.m for members of low income group, Rs.200/ per sq.m for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs. 250/ per sq. m. for persons belonging to High income groups. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the 'market value' of those plots, does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the applicants for allotment.
11. Third factor: Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is by way of absolute sale. Some development LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 57 of 85 authorities like DDA allot plots on leasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership) rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, some times there is a tendency among public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the property. However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant".
The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is clear and categoric, rejecting the rates fixed by DDA, it is not safe to rely upon these rates for determination of market value of subject agricultural land acquired vide notification dated 21.03.2003 & 18.03.2004. The contentions raised by petitioner's and the principles canvassed by them for claiming parity is, thus liable to be rejected.
YIELD BASE ASSESSMENT
100. The petitioner has prayed for fixing the market value on the basis of capitalization of yearly rent or agriculture yield. It is the contention by placing reliance upon Sarath Chandra (supra) of the petitioner that the acquired land was not only fertile but was also highly productive yielding three crops in a year. It has been averred in the petition that they used to grow vegetable crops as a result of which, the petitioner used to earn at least sum of Rs.1 1.50 lakhs per LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 58 of 85 bigha per annum out of agricultural produce from the acquired land and in terms of aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, 20 year yield should be taken into consideration thereby capitalizing the same to Rs.20 30 lakhs per bigha for the acquired land.
101. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 on the other hand has countered the aforesaid arguments by contending that the award amount granted by the LAC also inheres the agricultural produce expected from the land. It has been contended that even otherwise, at the time of determination of indicative price by the Government, the aforesaid factor was taken into consideration by the expert committee.
102. It may be seen that the petitioner apart from claiming the earnings from the acquired land has failed to bring on record any documentary or oral evidence to corroborate the same. The petitioner has neither placed any document showing the sale of agriculture produce which, if assessed, would be of a very high volume. The same would automatically give a very high income each year and it is highly unbelievable that a person who has such high income, will not invest a single penny in a bank or a security, wherefrom, interest or dividend could be earned.
103. The petitioner has neither filed any electricity or irrigation bill nor any bill showing the purchase of tractor or even diesel being used. No proof of number of workers employed or their wages given, has been shown on record. Besides there is no proof of such high LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 59 of 85 volume of sales being effected in a local mandi or otherwise. The petitioner has failed to examine even a single trader to whom the alleged produce was sold for all these number of years. The petitioner has even failed to bring before the court any witnesses from any department to show the agricultural produce of village Rani Khera or any nearby block. No proof of payment made to irrigation department or any other department has been furnished. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid, the claim raised by the petitioner for grant of compensation on the basis of Yield or Capitalization of rent, remains uncorroborated and unsubstantiated and as such, the market value cannot be determined on the aforesaid method accordingly. The claim on this count is also liable to be rejected accordingly.
INDICATIVE PRICE POLICY ANNOUNCED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
104. One of the contention in this petition is assessing the compensation on the basis of Indicative Price policy announced by Govt. of NCT of Delhi which Ld. Counsel for petitioner as well as respondents have equally relied upon, though in diametrically opposite directions. While the petitioner has assailed the award amount of Rs.15,70,000/ per acre determined by LAC on the ground that the LAC has failed to consider the material placed before him in arriving at a fair market value of the acquired land and fixing the same merely on the basis of the indicative prices announced by the Govt. and that too when the same were announced about two years prior to the date of notification for acquisition of land in this case.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 60 of 85 Reliance is placed upon Indicative Price Policy issued from time to time between the year 2001 to 2005 for setting up the claim for enhancement of market value of acquired land and consequent compensation seeking an increase in the market value for the period 01.04.2001 to 21.03.2003 by adding progressive percentage increase of at least 11.5% per annum on the minimum value of Rs.15,70,000/ per acre, being the normal escalation in the market value of land during this period, when the indicative prices were fixed by the Govt. and 2001, when the same were announced and were considered by the LAC for determination of the market value of the subject acquired land. The other adroit argument of Ld. Counsel for petitioner is seeking a decrease @ 16.5% per annum from the indicative price of Rs.53,00,000/ per acre as announced by the Govt. in 2008 by applying a regressive percentage decrease formula to bring it down to the level of 21.03.2003, the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act in the instant case. The Petitioner has sought support from Mahender Singh(supra) and Jai Singh(supra).
105. It may be relevant to note here that the respondent no.1/UOI has also vehemently relied upon the aforesaid indicative price policy. The contention raised by the respondent no.1 is that indicative prices for the acquired agricultural land has been fixed by the Govt. and revised from time to time after consideration of all the factors by an Expert Committee which was constituted under the chairmanship of the then Finance Minister, Govt. of NCT of Delhi thereby giving a realistic and well examined amount of Rs.15,70,000/ per acre for the LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 61 of 85 acquired agricultural land within the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
106. It is further the contention of the respondent no.1 that the report itself suggests that such revision in prices should be periodic and the same can only be done in an interval of 3 years. It is the contention raised that having announced the minimum indicative prices on 09.08.2001 (effective from 01.04.2001), the next revision shall take place only in the year 2004 and that to be effective from 01.04.2004 and therefore, the notification of the Govt. acquiring agricultural land between the period should be covered by the indicative prices fixed by the Govt. in 2001 only and no such enhancement even by percentage annual increase can be accorded to the land owners including the petitioner herein. The respondent no.1 has sought support from Lal Chand (supra).
107. It may be noted that both the contentions, based upon the same Indicative Price policy of the Govt. requires a little analysis. First of all, the indicative prices or to be precise, the minimum indicative price announced by the Land & Building Department of Delhi Administration (later by Govt. of NCT of Delhi) are in the form of letters issued by the Department thereby fixing the minimum price/rates of agricultural land for acquisition of land acquired for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within the Union Territory (later National Capital Territory) of Delhi with the objective of countering the variable prices of acquired land LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 62 of 85 announced by LAC mainly on the basis of exemplar sale deeds and sometime under valuation of the land for the purpose of registration of Sale Deed which leads to insufficient compensation much below the market price leading to resistance of acquisition resulting into nonavailability of land available through regular channel. In a way, the minimum Indicative Prices were fixed by the Government to actually give a relief to the land owners by countering the menace of under valuation of sale deeds.
108. Further, it basically fixes the minimum price or the floor value of agricultural land acquired by the Govt. for public purpose namely the Planned Development of Delhi. While fixing the minimum indicative price/rates for consideration of Land Acquisition Collector for payment of compensation, it leaves discretion to the extent that the actual rates of compensation can be determined by Land Acquisition Authority in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and the prevalent case law.
109. It may be noted here that till date, it has categorized the land in two categories, one land situated in river bed between the forward bunds and second, all other agricultural lands. The indicative prices were announced for first time on 03.05.1990 (w.e.f. 27.04.1990) thereby fixing the price as Rs.1,50,000/ and Rs.4,65,000/ per acre respectively. The same was lastly announced on 24.01.2008 (effective from 18.12.2007) fixing the same to be Rs.17,60,000/ and Rs.53,00,000/ respectively. For the purpose of the present case, the LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 63 of 85 effective date of such announcement is 09.08.2001 (effective from 01.04.2001) thereby fixing the price to be Rs.11,50,000/ and Rs.15,70,000/ per acre respectively. It is this value of Rs.15,70,000/ per acre which is fixed by the LAC in the instant case and is under dispute. The summation of these indicative prices has been referred to in a tabulated form in Jai Singh (supra) as under: Sl. Date of Effective Date of the Price (in % Increase No. Notification Price lakhs/acre) per annum
1. 03.05.1990 27.04.1990 4.65
2. 25.07.1997 01.04.1997 10.0 11.5
3. 24.09.1998 01.04.1998 11.2 11.2
4. 21.11.2000 - 12.32 5. 09.08.2001 01.04.1999 12.16 11 01.04.2000 13.82 11
6. 09.08.2001 01.04.2001 15.7 11.5
7. 30.08.2005 30.08.2005 17.584 2.98
8. 24.01.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51
110. Now the question before the Court is whether these rates are to be taken as sacrosanct by the LAC or for that purpose even by the reference court while considering the petition for enhancement u/s 18 of the Act or can be varied. It is also to be considered as to whether the same can be used as a credible evidence for the purpose of such determination with either progressive annual increase or regressive annual decrease.
111. It may be noted that reliance has been placed upon Mahender Singh (supra) wherein it has been observed that :
"This also had the approval of the reference court. The apparent defect in the award is that while giving benefit by adding the value of the land @ 11.5% per annum, no benefit has been given to the claimants for the period from 01.04.96 to 15.11.96, the date of acquisition of their land. Seven to Eight months is a material period for considering the benefit to be given on an immovable property in the case of compulsive acquisition"
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 64 of 85
112. It has however, been the contention of Counsel for petitioner that in the present Award the LAC had not granted any increased w.e.f. 01.04.2001 to 21.03.2003. In Jai Singh (supra), it has been held that :
"10 villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, Ali Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (NorthWest) and if we see the map of the city of Delhi we would find that these villages lie in the NorthWestern part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V' formed by Rohtak Road i.e. NH 10 and G.T. Karnal Road i.e. NH1. The DelhiAmbala Railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH1. Whereas, villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway line and NH1, the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. Narela and Shahpur Garhi are towards the east of the railway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has been developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the land within the aforesaid 'V'. Bawana Industrial Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid 'V'. Historically, except for village Narela, all villages have been treated as equivalent with respect to their location.
XXXX
95. Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per 'GRIDP' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sanoth, I note that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation.
96. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to Rs.19,43,500/ per acre and for Category 'B' land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to Rs.18,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at Rs.19,13,765/ and LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 65 of 85 thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRIDP' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of Rs. 19,43,500/ per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to Rs.18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' land to Rs.18,47,539.68 per acre.
Village Rajapur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2003
97. For parity of reasoning as per para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of Rs.19,13,765/ per acre and in some cases at Rs.19,16,040/ per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to Rs.19,43,500/ per acre and for Category 'B' land the price comes to Rs.18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to Rs.18,47,539.68 per acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRIDQ' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of Rs.19,43,500/ per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 66 of 85 reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to Rs.18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' land to Rs.18,47,539.68 per acre.
113. It may be noted that in Lal Chand (supra) while considering the notification of village Rithala of 1981 and examining the aspect of then prevailing circle rates or guidelines of the rates has dealt with the question, whether these rates can form the basis from the determination of market value of acquired agricultural land. It has been authoritatively held that the market value u/s 23 of the Act, cannot be fixed on the basis of rates mentioned in the Basic Valuation Register maintained for the purpose of detection of under valuation. The Hon'ble Court while relying upon the judgments of the court rendered earlier in Jaw Ajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer (1994) 4 SCC 595, and several cases following it including Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti Rohini (1995) 1 SCC 717, The UP Jal Nigam v M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (1996) 3 SCC 124 and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283 has held that these basic valuation rates cannot be taken in toto for determining the market value of the acquired land, though they can form a prima facie basis for rates prevailing in the area. It has further been held that guideline value will only afford a prima facie basis to ascertain as true or correct market value and undue emphasis on the guidelines value without reference to setting in which it is to be LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 67 of 85 reviewed will obscure, the issue for consideration. The Hon'ble Court has also distinguished that the circle rates for property may be even contrasted from assessment made by an Expert Committee that has followed a detailed procedure laid down under relevant rules and published in State Gazette which may provide scientific and methodical assessment of market value.
114. It has been clarified that the Expert Committee may be constituted by the Govt. with Officers from Revenue, public Work, Survey and Settlement, Local Authority and even an Expert in the field of valuation which may consider the market value by classifying them with respect to soil, rate of revenue assessment, value of land in the vicinity and nature of crops besides specific situation in reference to roads, market etc. The Hon'ble Court has further held that even the rates assessed by such Expert Committee are required to be published, inviting objection/ suggestion from the member of the public and it will only be after consideration of these objection/suggestions, the final rates are published in the official gazette which are revised and updated periodically. The Hon'ble Court has held that if such a detailed procedure backed by statutory rules and scientific procedure are followed, then such rates become relevant piece of evidence for determination of market value. While giving credence to these values as a relevant piece of evidence, the Hon'ble Court has further added a caveat that it would be open for either of the parties to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guidelines market value. The Hon'ble Court has further reiterated that this kind LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 68 of 85 of credence can be accorded to such determined market values only when they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committee in accordance with prescribed assessment procedure.
115. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that Indicative Price policy was a result of any statutory law laying down the mandate for such a determination, though, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 has stated that the same may not have a formal statutory backing but decision was taken at the highest level (through the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi). Further, it has not come on record by way of any evidence being led by Union of India that any scientific procedure was laid down for consideration of various factors for valuation of acquired agricultural land. It has not been brought on record as to whether the factors distinguishing or non distinguishing, the land situated in one area from the other area are considered with reference to the nature of soil fertility, the annual yield, proximity to the pond or roads, highways or developed markets were taken into consideration for such a determination. Nothing has come on record to show that the Indicative Price policy was placed in public domain and objections were called from those who are directly or indirectly affected or these objections were considered and decided leading to a final determination of indicative prices for acquired agricultural land.
116. This being the position in law and on facts, the indicative Price fixed by the Government by itself cannot be per se considered LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 69 of 85 as conclusive proof of evidence for determination of fair market value u/s 23 of the Act, though of course the same be considered as one of the factor for ascertaining true or correct market value of acquired land. Reliance placed on Lal Chand (supra) and Jawajee Nagnathan (supra).
117. Before parting with the aforesaid aspect, it would be worthwhile for the contents raised by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner claiming a regressive annual decrease @ 16.5% per annum from 17.12.2007 to 01.04.2001 which he has calculated taking in view the difference between the indicative price of Rs.15,70,000/ as on 01.04.2001 and Rs. 53,00,000/ as on 18.12.2007. It has been contended that if the annual increase or inversely annual decrease is considered, the same shall come out to be @ 16.5% per annum. It has further been contended that taking the aforesaid formula, the market value of the agricultural land as on 01.04.2003 would come out to be Rs.22,72,446/ which should be awarded to the petitioner by reducing it to the date of notification on 21.03.2003. A careful scrutiny of the arguments shows that the contention raised by the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted since the date of indicative Price policy @ of Rs.53,00,000/ per acre was announced by Govt. on 24.01.2008 which is about 5 years away from the date of notification in the instant case, that too when the Indicative Price policy was announced by the Govt. even in the year 2001 @ Rs.15,70,000/ per acre and in 2005 @ Rs.17,58,000/. Admittedly, if at all the annual increase or regressive decrease is to be considered that has to be taken in LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 70 of 85 reference to the nearest announcement of Indicative Price policy which would be in the year 2001. It is settled preposition of Law that escalation in price of land may be based on a number of factors, more so, the price of land generally escalates at a higher rate once the adjoining lands are acquired by the Govt., for the reasons that the Govt. intends to invest heavy amount of money in developmental activities in the acquired land. In so far as the question of annual progressive increase is concerned, the same shall be duly considered in appropriate paragraphs of the judgment and in the light of the settled preposition of law laid down in Jai Singh (supra).
ACTUAL DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE.
118. Having discussed the aforesaid and finding that none of the factor can singly be considered for the purpose of determination of fair market value of the acquired land, the court is still required to determine the same. Ld. Counsel for Union of India had contended that once the factors raised by the petitioner do not come to his rescue by way of cogent evidence and the exemplar sale deed filed by both the sides are, if rejected and the indicative price policy on the basis of which the LAC has passed the award remains in existence, the court should consider dismissing the petition by passing a no claim award.
119. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has vehemently contended that the award dated 12.07.2005 passed by LAC is not only laconic and unfair and also the same does not reflect the correct market value of the acquired land, the court cannot abdicate its LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 71 of 85 duty to decide the fair market value in terms of Section 23 of the Act. It has been vehemently argued that in any case the contention of seeking an annual increase of Rs. 2,000/ per sq. yards on the value of land still holds good and is being recognised not only by the Hon'ble High Courts including Delhi but also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of judgments as referred to above. Further, it has been contended that the rate of escalation of market value of agricultural land even on the trend of escalation shown from various indicative price policy of the Government needs to be considered and an enhancement is required to be given accordingly. It has been submitted that the LAC has not factored in this annual escalation in the land prices between the effective date of indicative price policy and date of notification u/s 4 of the Act while making the award dated 12.07.2005. However, ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 has contended that the indicative price policy was announced in this case on 09.08.2001 (effective from 01.04.2001) which is valid for the period of three years and cannot be reviewed by the Government in between.
120. Considering the arguments, the court has to first determine whether the market value announced by the LAC in its award dated 12.07.2005 is a fair market value and whether the LAC has duly considered all the relevant factors including the factor of annual increase in land prices. It would be worthwhile to refer to the determination of LAC in award dated 12.07.2005. The LAC before adverting to the determination of market value has referred to the number of claimants, the khasra number (s) of land acquired of each LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 72 of 85 claimants and even the nature of claims made by the claimants in a tabulated form and after doing the same decides the market in merely two and half paragraphs. The last paragraph indicates the determination and is reproduced herein: "The notification U/s 4 was issued on 21.03.03 and the price of the land is to be determined as on date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act itself. Hence, in view of the absence any documentary evidences on record to the contrary and in the light of the above discussion. I find Rs.15,70,000/ per acre to be the most reasonable price for the best kind land".
121. Certainly, the LAC despite mentioning the details of each claim, claiming an amount of Rs.2,000/ per square yard besides other factors, crops, tubewell, kotha and structures has failed to appropriately consider the claim of the claimants in so far as the demand regarding per square yard value is concerned. In any case, he has failed to consider the annual escalation factor for the period between the indicative price policy (01.04.2001) and the date of notification (21.03.2003).
122. It may be noted that, though it is true that the Govt. is well within its powers to review the minimum prices after every 3 years or even prior to that but it will not automatically imply that the land prices have to be made or shall remain static during such intervals. Even the Govt. while announcing the indicative prices vide its letter dated 09.08.2001 have specifically mentioned in the announcement itself, that these indicative prices are minimum rates for compensation and the actual rate for compensation would be determined by Land Acquisition Authority in accordance with the provision of Land Acquisition Act and LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 73 of 85 the prevalent case law. In other words, the indicative prices are reference floor prices for the acquired lands and other factors including the escalation are required to be considered by the LAC. This escalation of price has very well been recognised by our own Hon'ble High Court in Jai Singh (supra).
123. It may be noted that in para No.7 and 8 of Jai Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has not only noted but also has considered the annual increase on percentage basis in the land prices in respect of the indicative prices fixed by the Govt. from time to time. Accordingly, not considering the escalation for the period 01.04.2001 and 31.03.2003 on the market value assessed by the LAC cannot be considered appropriate and the market value so announced in the award dated 12.07.2005 cannot be called a fair market value. In any case, there are specific pleadings and specific evidence in the affidavit of one of the petitioner Ex.PW1/A to this effect which has also remained unrebutted during crossexamination of the witness.
124. Having said so, the Court now proceeds to determine the fair market value of the acquired land. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has argued that the land falling in village Rani Khera should be treated at par with the land of 10 villages considered by the Hon'ble High Court in Jai Singh (supra) for the reasons that the topography of village Rani Khera and the other villages considered in Jai Singh (supra) are the same. It has been vehemently argued that the nature of land, nature of soil and even the potentialities of land involved in the LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 74 of 85 villages covered by Jai Singh (supra) are by and large same as that of village Rani Khera.
125. Ld. Counsel has contended that even one of the village namely Pooth Khurd considered by Jai Singh (supra) completely touches from its boundary to the northern boundary of village Rani Khera and that for reason the land involved in Pooth Khurd and Rani Khera should be treated on the same yardstick in terms of its location and potentialities.
126. It has been vehemently contended that in any case, the same is also situated within the same area and the "V" referred to by Jai Singh (supra). Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that even in Jai Singh (supra) the village situated at sufficient distances are treated at par on account of the similarities as explained in the judgment and for their being situated within the "V" formed by NH1 and NH10.
127. It has been contended that in the judgment, village Pooth Khurd and Village Holambi Kalan which even do not share common boundaries and are situated at sufficient distance are treated at par with reference to notification dated 07.08.2000. Further, village Holambi Kalan, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Khurd and Alipur were given equal treatment regarding the notification dated 22.08.2001. Furthermore, village Holambi Kalan and Alipur were given same treatment in reference to notification dated 23.05.2002. In LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 75 of 85 similar fashion, village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth were given same treatment in reference to notification dated 27.01.2003.
128. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has argued that even the co ordinate reference courts situated in Rohini District Courts while deciding the reference petitions covered by the same notification u/s 4 of the Act dated 21.03.2003 in respect of village Barwala and Khera Khurd, have been decided the fair market value on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Jai Singh(supra).
129. Ld. Counsel for Union of India has vehemently rebutted the contentions raised by the petitioner on the ground that Jai Singh (supra) only considered the villages situated in North District and not considered either Rani Khera or any village of NorthWest. Alternatively, it has been argued that though village Rani Khera shares common boundary with village Pooth Khurd considered in Jai Singh (supra) but the same can at best be considered as an adjoining village which cannot be treated at par with Rani Khera. It has been contended that if such principle of adjoining village is applied, it would lead to an anomalous situation where the land situated in one end of Delhi would touch the land situated in other part of Delhi or the land situated in Rohini shall become treatable at par with the land situated in New Delhi.
130. The arguments need critical consideration and has been considered. Firstly, considering the arguments raised for rejecting LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 76 of 85 principle of adjoining village, to an extent it is correct that deciding the market value of a land in one village on the basis of land of adjoining village as an absolute rule is not a prudent formula since it would sometimes lead to real anomalous situation as argued. However, the circumstances in hand has other very significant factors worth consideration in contradistinction to the arguments raised.
131. It may be noted that The Hon'ble High Court in Jai Singh (supra) has considered ten villages namely Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, Alipur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth and observed in para no.1 that these villages are situated in revenue district of NorthWest and they lie within the area between the "V" formed by Rohtak Road (NH10) and G.T. Karnal Road (NH1) with Delhi Ambala Railway Line running somewhat parallel to NH1. It has also been observed that urbanized city of Delhi where colony Rohini exists has been developed on the agricultural land, acquired post 1961 and situated in the lands falling within the aforesaid "V". It has been further mentioned that Historically, except for village Narela, all villages have been teated as equivalent in respect of their location.
132. Two things are important to note, one is the mention of Revenue District of NorthWest in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Jai Singh (supra) despite the fact that the ten considered villages are situated in North District. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to 11.09.2012 all the villages of NorthWest, the ten LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 77 of 85 villages referred in Jai Singh (supra) and other villages were situated in what was called the Revenue District of NorthWest and it was only vide notification dated 11.09.2012 of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the revenue district of NorthWest has been bifurcated to carve out villages for North District. Thus, as on the date of Jai Singh (supra), all the considered villages were very well situated in the revenue district of NorthWest.
133. Secondly, the Hon'ble High Court, while considering about 400 appeals of these villages, has drawn a clear parallel and commonality between the villages lying in the "V" formed by NH1 (GT Karnal Road) and NH10 (Rohtak Road) by specifically mentioning that these villages are historically treated as equivalent with respect to their location with the exception of village Narela which was actually a semiurbanized village. This being the factual position all the villages situated in the aforesaid "V" are treated at par in terms of their location and even potentialities. Nothing has been brought on record that the petitioner's land was suffering from any locational and inherent disadvantage in terms of its location and potentialities. There is no reason for the Court as to why the land situated in village Rani Khera , be not treated as comparable or at par with either village Pooth Khurd (which has common boundary with village Rani Khera) or other villages considered by our own Hon'ble High Court in Jai Singh (supra).
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 78 of 85
134. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jai Singh (supra), (which has later been affirmed by a full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 675 of 2012 titled Union of India v. Jai Singh) has decided the market value of 10 villages as mentioned above situated in the then NorthWest Revenue District of Delhi involving 8 notifications right from 07.08.2000 uptil 27.01.2003. The Hon'ble High Court, while disposing of above Land Acquisition appeals, has virtually considered all the arguments referred to above and critically discussed the judgments referred to by Ld. Counsel for parties including the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra). The Hon'ble Court while rejecting the approach of the LAC in determining the market value while awarding compensation in respect of the acquired land merely on the basis of the minimum indicative price notified by the Government closest in point of time to the date of notification without appreciating the escalation in land price for the intervening period has held that the annual progressive increase from the date of policy till the date of notification needs to be considered while taking into account the other relevant factors.
135. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Court in para 19 of Jai Singh (supra) while analysing the compensation awarded by the LAC and subsequently by the reference courts has mentioned that most of the reference courts have awarded compensation by giving an annual progressive increase of 11% to 12% relying upon the LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 79 of 85 judgment Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13. Hon'ble Court has even discussed Lal Chand (supra) in reference to the escalation being given, by reiterating that normally about 12% Annual Escalation Method over the proved market value is reasonably safe unless adverse circumstances for denying the same are brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court.
136. The Hon'ble Court has further considered the rationale behind categorization of agricultural land into "A", "B" and "C" Category for awarding graded compensation for the acquired land, on the basis of estimated expenditure which the Govt. is likely to incur, in order to make the land suffering from depression and pits, suitable for the purpose of acquisition by filling these depressions and pits. Relying strongly upon Gajraj Singh (supra) the Hon'ble court has accepted the price differential of 2.5% each in reference to category of land while converting it from "C to B" and "B to A".
137. Elaborating the issue of potentialities of agricultural land, it has been explained that potential use of lands give birth to potential land value or capability of land to fetch better price in future. It has explained the concept of potentiality in presenti vizaviz a land having a building potentiality in futuro. Relying also upon Mahender Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Court has even discussed as to how the potentiality of lands situated in the "V" area between G.T. Karnal Road and Rohtak Road have increased on account of these rural areas attracting migrants from other parts of Country with G.T. Karnal LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 80 of 85 Road and Rohtak Road providing easy access to these areas. It has also been considered that there has been steep rise in the prices of the land situated within the aforesaid "V" area between the period 1990 and 1996 on announcement of Master Plan for Delhi 1990. It has been mentioned that the land situated in the area of NorthWest part in Delhi has developed in terms of School, Market, Health Care Facility and even Rural Industry. The judgment has even critically analysed the extended potentialities not translating into requisite momentum giving a decreased escalation of 10% to 11% post 1996 for the reasons that the Govt. has failed to announce the zonal development plan for these areas and the cascading effect thereof in as much as these areas continued to practice agricultural even till late 1990's or even early 21st Century.
138. The judgment has finally discussed as to why Govt. has started with the announcement of minimum indicative prices for the acquired land between the period 1990 and 2001 and as to why these indicative prices can form good indicator for determination of market value. The Hon'ble Court has even relied upon the empirical data, evidence of various cases where compensation has been awarded by considering various relevant factors.
139. It may be noted that while summarizing the entire discussion the Hon'ble Court in para No.59 of Jai Singh (supra) held that the best available basis for assessment of market value of village situated within the "V" (formed by NH1 and NH10) may be LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 81 of 85 indicative prices announced by the Government nearest to the date of notification and/or market value of adjoining land or a combination of two. The relevant extract is produced as under:
"59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumed importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 01.04.2000 the per acre price was Rs.13.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was Rs.15.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. if I treat Category 'A' land price at Rs.18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R2 deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately Rs.16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at Rs.15.7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is Rs.70,000/ per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would very the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability......".
140. As per the ratio of Jai Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court while considering about 400 appeals and covering 8 notifications of 10 villages has in fact laid down a formula for determination of fair market value while considering the indicative price policy of the government nearest to the date of notification and the sale deed dated 20.05.2002 of village Rajapur Kalan whereunder agricultural land measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswas situated in Khasra No.200 was sold for a consideration price of Rs.5,39,690/. The Hon'ble Court has then updated the two values by adding or deducting so as to bring them to the date of notification and then finally taken a mean value of the two values for determination of the fair market value. The guiding formula evolved can be simply summarized as: LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 82 of 85 (1) The sale deed dated 20.05.2002 of village Rajapur Kalan@ Rs.17,74,109 ("C" category) was considered and taken to B or A category land (as the case may be) by adding 2.5% increase from category "C" to category "B" and a further 2.5% increase from category "B" to category "A".
Accordingly, for category "A" Land price comes to be Rs.18,65,500/ (Rs. 17,74,109/ + 2.5% = 18,18,462/ + 2.5% = Rs. 18,65,500/).
This value was then stretched suitably to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, by adding/deducting. (Para No.59 of Judgment) (2) Indicative Price of Rs.13,82,000/ (as on 1.04.2000) and Rs.15,70,000/ (as on 01.04.2001) were considered as nearest to the date of notification. This value was also then stretched suitably to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, by adding/deducting. (Para No.59 of Judgment) (3) Both (1) and (2) were calculated and a mean is drawn.
141. The aforesaid formula was almost uniformally applied by the judgment in respect of all the lands except where the same could not have been suitably applied in view of circumstances of each appeal.
142. As already discussed in the foregoing paras that the land of village Rani Khera do not suffer from any inherent disadvantage in terms of its location or potentialities and is very well covered with the circumstances discussed herein above and no special circumstances have been cogently evidenced by either of the petitioner or the respondents, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court which has even been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India provides a good guide for determination of fair market value of the said land acquired by the notification dated 21.03.2003. Accordingly, applying the aforesaid formula to the facts of the present case, the fair market value would be : LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 83 of 85 (1) The sale deed price of Rs.18,65,500/ as on 20.05.2002 is suitably modified to 21.03.2003 i.e. the date of notification thereby, giving an annual increase of 11% for 719 days: Rs.18,65,500/X11/100X 719/365 = Rs.20,36,972/ (2) The minimum Indicative Price of Rs.15,70,000/ as on 01.04.2001 is suitably modified to 21.03.2003 i.e. the date of notification thereby giving an annual increase of 11% for 719 days: Rs. 15,70,000/X11/100X 719/365 = Rs.19,10,195/ (3) The mean value of (1) and (2) is taken Rs.20,36,972/ +Rs.19,10,195/÷2= Rs.19,73,583/
143. The Court accordingly adjudicates and determines the market value of land of petitioner @ Rs.19,73,583/ per acre. An enhancement of Rs.4,03,583/ per acre is accordingly accorded.
144. Besides aforesaid, the statutory benefit as per the Land Acquisition Act 1984 as per Sunder v. Union of India, 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid viz.
(a) 12% additional amount ( in terms of Section 23 (1A) of the Act).
(b) Solatium @ 30% on the enhanced compensation (in terms of S.23 (2) of the Act).
(c) The petitioner shall also entitle to interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the payment of enhanced compensation by LAC is made (in terms of Section 28 of the Act).
Issue no.1 is decided accordingly.
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 84 of 85 ISSUE NO.2 : RELIEF.
145. In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioner is granted the following reliefs: (1) Fair Market value of land of petitioner @ Rs.19,73,583/ per acre. An enhancement of Rs.4,03,583/ per acre is accordingly accorded.
(2) Additional amount @ 12% ( in terms of Section 23 (1A) of the Act).
(3) Solatium @ 30% on the enhanced compensation ( in terms of S.23 (2) of the Act).
(4) Interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the payment of enhanced compensation by LAC is made (in terms of Section 28 of the Act).
146. Reference petition is accordingly, answered with parties to bear their own respective costs.
File be consigned to Record Room after due completion.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 06th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 Digitally
signed by
VIJAY VIJAY KUMAR
DAHIYA
KUMAR Date:
(DR. VIJAY KUMAR2023.01.06
DAHIYA DAHIYA)
17:44:50
ADJ1+MACT, NORTH
+0530WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
LAC no. 390/2016 (Award No. 08/200506/DC(NW)) Mukhtyar Singh v. Union of India Page no. 85 of 85