Delhi District Court
Het Ram & Anr. vs . Uoi & Ors. on 1 December, 2015
Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District, Room No. 602,
Sixth Floor, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi
In the matter of :
LAC No. 246/2011
Unique No. 02403C0970972008
1. Shri Het Ram (deceased), through LRs :
(a) Bimlesh, W/o Shri Ganendra Singh, D/o Late Het Ram
(b) Smt. Channo, W/o Shri Mahendra Singh, D/o Late Het Ram
Both R/o 365, Khera Dharampura, Chhaprula, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh201009
(c) Smt. Biramwati, W/o Shri Kartar, D/o Late Het Ram,
R/o 115, Village Bhatola, New Shiv Mandir, Faridabad, Haryana.
(d) Smt. Sunita, W/o Shri Sukhvir, D/o Late Het Ram,
R/o 781, Bans Mohalla, Vilalge Ghitorni, Delhi.
(e) Smt. Geeta Devi, W/o Shri Dheeraj Singh, D/o Late Het Ram,
R/o 367, Village Chhaprola, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
(f) Shri Ranvir, S/o Late Het Ram, R/o 11/108, Village Aali, New Delhi.
(g) Shri Chander Pal, S/o Late Het Ram, R/o 11/108, Village Aali, New Delhi.
(h) Shri Ghanshyam (deceased), S/o Late Het Ram, through LRs :
(i) Smt. Shima, Wd/o Late Ghanshyam
(ii) Shri Harish Chaudhary, S/o Late Ghanshyam
(iii) Shri Anil Rexwal, S/o Late Ghanshyam
(iv) Ms. Manisha, D/o Late Ghanshyam
(v) Ms. Poonam, D/o Late Ghanshyam
(vi) Ms. Pooja, D/o Late Ghanshyam
LAC No. 246/2011 Page 1 of 13
Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
All R/o 108, Village Aali, New Delhi.
2. Shri Nain Singh, S/o Late Daulat,
R/o 111/108, Village Aali, New Delhi.
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India, through LAC / ADM (SouthEast),
Old Gargi College Building, Lajpat NagarIV,
Near Lady Shree Ram College, New Delhi.
2. NTPC, through its General Manager,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
..... Respondents
Reference received from LAC on : 22.5.2008
Date of institution : 15.02.2011 (LAC 246/11)
22.5.2008 (LAC 119/08)
Decision reserved on : 24 .11.2015
Date of decision : 01.12.2015
AWARD
(by the Court u/s 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) 1.1 (Introduction) - The petitioners are seeking enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of land acquired, while dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Whereas, respondent LAC No. 246/2011 Page 2 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
no.1 stand by the Award that amount determined is correct and it represents fair market price and respondent no.2 relies upon precedent, which determines the rate finally.
For deciding the petitioners' reference petition u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894) read with statement u/s 19 of the Act sent by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act 31.10.1996 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act 31.10.1996 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act 26.02.1997
(iii) for Project Planned Development of Delhi construction of Ash Pond by BTPS (iv) Location/Name of Village Aali (va)Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC 4/9899 & date of award 23.2.1999 (vb) Area under acquisitionin question (423) (vc) date of possession 03.09.1997 (via) Date of reference petition to LAC 6.4.1999 (vib) Petition referred to Court on 22.05.2008 1.2 Pursuant to preliminary notification dated 31.10.1996 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894), followed by declarations by notification dated 31.10.1996 and 26.2.1997 respectively under sections 6 and 17 of the Act, 1894, the Government acquired chunk of lands of Village Aali Delhi by award for construction of Ash Pond. The lands of petitioners was also acquired as mentioned in LAC No. 246/2011 Page 3 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
para 1.1 above, {hereinafter referred as lands acquired} as per statement dated 22.5.2008 U/s 19 of the Act. All concerned were heard, inclusive of the interested persons applied before Land Acquisition Collector and considering the location of land, the Land Acquisition Collector determined market value of land @ Rs. 1,94,088/ per bigha. Whereas the petitioners claim that the Collector should have awarded compensation @ of Rs. 4000/ per square yard land, Rs.20,000/ per bigha for standing crops besides other statutory benefits and compensation for 3 pucca rooms & one tubewell constructed. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred the reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894 against respondent no. 1 Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petition along with statement under section 19 of the Act, 1984 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector to decide the reference (by giving details of acquired area, date and amount of compensation paid). The respondent no. 2/NTPC is one of the respondents.
Petitioners' case 2.1 Petitioners are feeling aggrieved by the said Award, they filed a reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894 before Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petitioners seek enhanced compensation. LAC No. 246/2011 Page 4 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
2.2 The petitioners assail the impugned Award of LAC that the market value of the lands have not been correctly assessed and awarded, the Collector did not assess the fair market value, land acquired is situated in South Delhi and it is surrounded by colonies such Badarpur, Jaitpur, Molar Band, Mithapur, Madanpur Khadar. It is also adjacent to residential colonies, commercial and industry areas of Faridabad, Badarpur, Thermal Plant Colony, Sarita Vihar and other important colonies. The irrigation facilities are quite cheaper, they are agriculturist, however, they lost their business, livelihood and their equipment rendered useless. The DDA is allotting or selling the land on lease hold basis @ Rs.8000/ per sq. Yards, whereas the land acquired is freehold land. There are all amenities of life like roads, transport DTC & private, market, electricity, schools etc. Moreover, the LAC fixed market value @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre in 1990 on the basis of policy of Government and there is provisions of appreciation @ 15% pa, which was considered and awarded in respect of land of Village Jasola. Thus petitioner should have been given appreciation @ 15%pa from 1990 onward and then market value should have been fixed. The petitioners can easily get Rs.10,000/ per sq. yards in case they sell the land privately. The rate determined in award is bad in law. That is why the present petition for compensation @ Rs.4000/ LAC No. 246/2011 Page 5 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
per sq. yards, loss of business of Rs 4 lacs, severance charges of Rs.4 lacs, shifting charges of Rs.5 lacs and damages of Rs.5 lacs besides statutory benefits.
2.3 During the pending of the petition, petitioner no.1 expired 30.07.2012 and his Lrs were brought on record by order dated 23.4.2013, they have been named in the array of parties. UOI / respondent No. 1's case 3.1 The respondent no. 1 had filed its written statement and opposed the reference petition that the findings given by Collector in his Award is based on market value of the land, the compensation was just, adequate, sufficient and it was rightly assessed in accordance with the conditions prevailing at relevant time inclusive of location, surroundings, availability of civil amenities and other resources available, petitioners failed to bring on record any evidence to claim higher compensation. The petitioners failed to furnish any evidence of his claim and no documentary record of his ownership was produced vis a vis the land in question is not surrounded by developed or underdeveloped colonies, there were no standing crops or boundary etc and the land is for agricultural purposes, it is governed by Delhi Land Reforms Act. 1954. There is no scope for LAC No. 246/2011 Page 6 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
enhancement of compensation, hence petition deserves dismissal. NTPC / respondent no. 2's case 3.2 The NTPC has also opposed the petition. The Collector had considered all aspects and then award was given, the amount awarded is adequate, sufficient, just and legal vis a vis it is based on relevant sale deed transaction and potential value of land at the relevant time and LAC has fairly assessed the rate. It is agricultural land having no connections with lands of colonies named by the petitioner and the same cannot be compared to them nor the same are relevant. Since the land is primarily agricultural land, there is no question of increase of 15% per annum based on the award of Village Jasola. There is no scope of enhancement. In fact, the quantum of compensation has been determined by hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Rs. 9,53,130/ per acre in respect of Award no.4/9899 in LA AAP no.173/2007 Bhule Ram Vs UOI, which was also challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of SLP No.31679/2010, which was dismissed on 28.3.2014, by reaffirming the decision of High Court of Delhi, thus the rate determined attained finality. The petition is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
LAC No. 246/2011 Page 7 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
Issues 4.1 On 21.8.2008, the following issues were framed for determination, in view of the pleading of the parties :
1. What was the market value of land in question at the time issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? onus on parties
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount ? OPP
3. Relief.
Evide nce 4.2 In order to establish the issues the petitioners were given opportunity to lead evidence. Petitioner no.1's LR no. 1(g) Shri Chander Pal/PW1 entered into witness box for all petitioners, he also tendered copy of judgment (Ex PW1/1) in respect of Award no.4/9899 in LA AAP no. 173/2007 Bhule Ram Vs UOI. He was cross examined thoroughly by the respondents. Then evidence was closed by petitioners. 4.3 The respondent no. 1 through counsel Shri I P Singh Advocate has tendered Award (Ex. R1) and respondent no.2 NTPC through its counsel Ms Shaheen, Advocate tendered Award in evidence . Then evidence was closed by the respondents.
LAC No. 246/2011 Page 8 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
Final Hearing
5. At the juncture of final hearing, Shri Inder Singh, Counsel for petitioners, Shri I P Singh, Counsel for UOI / respondent no. 1 and Ms Shaheen, Advocate for NTPC/respondent no.2 advanced their respective submissions.
FINDINGS 6.1 The contentions are assessed in the light of material on record, testimony of the petitioners' witness, submissions on behalf of petitioners and their counter submissions besides findings given in precedent SLP No.31679/2010 Bhule Ram & others Vs Union of India, of same area and award. Now the issues are taken.
6.2 Issues No.1 and 2
1. What was the market value of land in question at the time issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? onus on parties
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount ? OPP The onus to prove the issue no.1 lies on both parties and onus to prove issue no.2 lies on the petitioners, both the issues are taken together, since they are interconnected and it involves common LAC No. 246/2011 Page 9 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
discussion. On the one side the petitioners are not satisfied with the amount awarded in award Ex. R1 and on the other side respondents opposed the claim that Land Acquisition Collector has awarded the amount after considering, location, potentiality to use the land as well as other relevant factors while determining the market value land and other compensation. The petitioners claim compensation at the rate mentioned in the petition and respondents cross examined petitioners' witness that under no circumstance the petitioners are entitled for such claim.
Although both the sides have their reservations, however, petitioners have also relied upon judgment Bhule Ram Vs UOI decided on 3.6.2010 (Ex PW1/1) tendered in evidence, to show that market value of land of Rs. 9,53,130/ per acre has been determined in respect of land in question and the same is to be considered for petitioners' land also. In fact the findings therein given by hon'ble High Court of Delhi stand merged into the precedent Bhule Ram Vs UOI (SLP No.31679/2010) and Civil Appeal no.10387/2013 Horam Vs Union of India, decided on 3.4.2014. There is no contrary evidence by the respondents in this regard. Therefore, on 31.10.1996 the market value of land was Rs. 9,53,130/ per acre, whereas the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was Rs. 1,94,088/ per bigha.
LAC No. 246/2011 Page 10 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
To say, petitioners have succeeded to establish issue no.1 in their favour that market value of land was Rs. 9,53,130/ per acre on the date of preliminary notification and petitioners have also established issue no. 2 in their favour that they are entitled for compensation @ 9,53,130/ per acre, consequently amount stand enhanced. Thus, the issue no. 1 and 2 are determined in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No. 3 - Relief
7. In view of the findings given on issues no. 1 to 2 above, petitioners are held entitled for compensation @ 9,53,130/ lacs per acre by enhancing the compensation from amount of Rs. 1,94,088/ per bigha, which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of petitioners' land acquired (as detailed in the statement filed under section 19 of the Act, 1894); besides 30% solatium under section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land, interest @ 12% per annum under section 23(1A) from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC or date of taking of possession, whichever is earlier; 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court (from the date of dispossession of land to payment of excess amount in the court, for/ within one year) and 15% LAC No. 246/2011 Page 11 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in court.
8. It is apparent from the record that date of award is 23.2.1999 the reference petition was filed on 6.4.1999 before Land Acquisition Collector but it was referred to court on 22.5.2008, to say it took more than 9 years to refer the case to the court. There is no explanation by Land Acquisition Collector either in the statements U/s 19 of the Act, 1894 or otherwise . There is prescribed period of limitation U/s 18(2) of the Act, 1894 for interested person to file reference petition and on the same analogy, the Land Acquisition Collector is expected to refer the reference petition in reasonable time. The period of more than 9 years is much belated period, which cannot be termed reasonable period.
9. The reference petition stand answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance for remittance of amount immediately after 30 days period visavis to follow the aspect mentioned in para 8 of this award.
LAC No. 246/2011 Page 12 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
File is consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today (Inder Jeet Singh) th Tuesday, 10 Agrahayana, Saka 1937 Addl. District Judge02 (South) Saket, New Delhi / 01.12.2015 LAC No. 246/2011 Page 13 of 13 Het Ram & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
LAC No. 246/2011 01.12.2015 Present : Shri Inder Singh, Counsel for petitioners.
Shri I.P. Singh, Counsel for UOI / respondent no. 1. Ms. Shaheen, Counsel for NTPC / respondent no. 2. Vide separate Award announced today, the reference petition stands answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance for remittance of amount immediately after 30 days period vis avis to follow the aspect mentioned in para 8 of this award.
File is consigned to record room.
(Inder Jeet Singh)
Addl. District Judge02 (South), Saket
N New Delhi / 01.12.2015
LAC No. 246/2011 Page 14 of 13