Delhi District Court
Om Prakash vs Uoi (Khampur Raya) on 21 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
DISTT. JUDGE-02
WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
LAC No. 110/16
CNR No. DLWT01-001484-2015
DLWT010014842015
AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES
1. Sh. Om Prakash S/o Kripa Ram
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Parwati Devi
Wd/o Late Sh.Om Parkash
R/o WZ-168, Shadi Khampur,
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(b). Sh.Rajeshwar Singh
S/o Late Sh.Om Parkash
R/o 207/208 C/o Adhunik Dhalai Udyog
Rajokari Village, New Delhi-110038.
(c). Sh.Uttam Singh Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Om Parkash
R/o K-207/208, Rajokari Pahari,
New Delhi-110038.
(d). Sh.Pushpinder Singh
S/o Late Sh.Om Parkash
R/o Flat No.49, Suryodaya Apartment,
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 1 of 64
Pocket-5, Sector-12, Dwarka,
Delhi-110078.
(e). Sh.Mukhtiyar Singh
S/o Late Sh.Om Parkash
R/o WZ-168, Khampur, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
(f). Smt.Raj Dulari
W/o Sh.Raj Singh
D/o Late Sh.Om Parkash
R/o RZ-212B/298, Geetanjali Park,
Gali No.4, West Sagar Pur,
New Delhi-110046.
(g). Smt.Satyavrata Verma
W/o Sh.Vijay Kumar Verma
D/o Late Sh.Om Parkash
R/o 16-B/2, Hindustan Times Apartments,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, East Delhi,
Delhi-110091.
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated
10.03.2023)
2. Sh. Ranvir Singh S/o Kripa Ram
3. Sh.Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Dharmveer for Self as well as Sole
LRs of Late Sh.Niranjan Singh S/o Sh.Ram Swaroop.
4. Sh.Sundeep Kumar S/o Sh. Dharmveer
5. Smt.Rajbala Wd/o Sh.Surinder singh,
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Sh.Anil Chauhan,
(b). Sh.Sunil Chauhan
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 2 of 64
Both sons of Late Smt.Rajbala and residents of WZ-169,
Village Khampur, Near West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(c). Smt.Manisha,
W/o Sh.Manoj Kumar,
D/o Smt.Rajbala,
R/o 102, Priya Appartment,
Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 10.02.2016)
6. Sh.Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Surinder Singh
7. Sh.Sunil Kumar S/o Sh.Surinder singh
8. Sh.Vinod Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Kishan
9. Sh.Ramesh Chand S/o Sh.Bhoolan
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Sh.Parveen Kumar,
S/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
R/o WZ-111B, Village Khampur,
New Delhi-110008.
(b). Sh.Gaurav Verma
S/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
Permanent resident of WZ-111, Village Khampur
New Delhi-110008
Presently residing at Flat No.111, B-Block
Dot Com Building, Dubai.
(c). Smt.Meenakshi
W/o Sh.Rohit,
D/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
R/o RZ-399, Gali No.3,
Main Sagar Pur, South-West
Delhi-110046
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 3 of 64
(The name of Gaurav Verma was impleaded vide Order
dated 10.03.2023 and the name of Smt.Krishna Wd/o Late
Sh.Ramesh Chand was deleted vide Order dated
10.03.2023)
10. Sh.Suresh Chand @ Suresh Kumar S/o Sh.Bhoolan
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Mithlesh Devi
Wd/o Late Sh.Suresh Kumar
(b). Sh.Pankaj Verma
S/o Late Sh.Suresh Kumar
Both residents of WZ-111, Village Khampur, Near West Patel
Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(c). Smt.Shivani
D/o Late Sh.Suresh Kumar
W/o Sh.Ajay Kumar
R/o RZ-18D/2, Street No.1,
Main Sagar Pur, New Delhi-110046
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated
10.02.2016)
11. Sh.Naresh Kumar S/o Sh.Bhoolan
12. Smt.Shanti Wd/o Sh.Bhoolan,
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Sh.Ramesh Chander,
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(i). Sh.Parveen Kumar,
S/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
R/o WZ-111B, Village Khampur,
New Delhi-110008.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 4 of 64
(ii). Sh.Gaurav Verma
S/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
Permanent resident of WZ-111, Village Khampur
New Delhi-110008
Presently residing at Flat No.111, B-Block
Dot Com Building, Dubai.
(iii). Smt.Meenakshi
W/o Sh.Rohit,
D/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
R/o RZ-399, Gali No.3,
Main Sagar Pur, South-West
Delhi-110046
(The name of Smt.Krishna Wd/o Late Sh.Ramesh
Chand was deleted vide Order dated 10.03.2023)
(b). Sh.Suresh Kumar
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(i). Smt.Mithlesh Devi
Wd/o Late Sh.Suresh Kumar
(ii). Sh.Pankaj Verma
S/o Late Sh.Suresh Kumar
Both residents of WZ-111, Village Khampur, Near West
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(iii). Smt.Shivani
D/o Late Sh.Suresh Kumar
W/o Sh.Ajay Kumar
R/o RZ-18D/2, Street No.1,
Main Sagar Pur, New Delhi-110046
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated
10.02.2016)
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 5 of 64
(c). Sh.Naresh Kumar
All sons of Late Smt.Shanti Devi and Sh.Bhullan and residents
of WZ-111, Village Khampur, Near West Patel Nagar, New
Delhi-110008.
(d). Smt.Raj Bala,
W/o Sh.Zile Singh,
D/o Sh.Bhullan,
R/o H.No.WZ-615, Village Naraina,
New Delhi-110028.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 25.07.2013)
13. Smt.Raja Bala,
W/o Sh.Zile Singh,
D/o Sh.Bhoolan,
R/o WZ-615, Village Naraina, New Delhi.
14. Sh.Shivraj Singh S/o Sh.Bharamanand
15. Sh.Promod Kumar S/o Sh.Ghajraj Singh
16. Sh.Chatar Singh S/o Sh. Shri Shadi,
Dead & Represented by LRs namely
(a). Sh.Avadh Singh,
S/o Late Sh.Chatar Singh,
R/o WZ-176, Village Khampur Raya,
Near West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(b). Smt.Prem Wati,
W/o Sh.Harpal Singh,
D/o Late Sh.Chatar Singh,
R/o H.No.RZ-43A/271, Hans Park,
West Sagar Pur, New Delhi-110046.
(c). Smt.Neelam Tanwar,
W/o Sh.Naresh Tanwar,
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 6 of 64
D/o Late Sh.Chatar Singh,
R/o H.No.WZ-1328/A, Nangal Raya,
Near Janak Puri D-Block,
New Delhi-110046.
(d). Smt.Sheela Tanwar,
W/o Sh.Sunil Tanwar,
D/o Late Sh.Chatar Singh,
R/o H.No.WZ-417C, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 10.02.2016)
17. Sh.Prem Singh S/o Sh.Phool Singh
18. Sh.Krishan Pal S/o Sh.Phool Singh
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Kusum Lata
Wd/o Late Sh.Krishan Pal
R/o 2190D, Near Metro Pillar No.224
Khampur, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
(b). Sh.Shashank Kumar
S/o Late Sh.Krishan Pal
R/o 2190D, ShadiKhampur,
New Delhi-110008
(c). Ms. Sapna
D/o Late Sh.Krishan Pal
W/o Sh.Vinit Sharma
R/o D-45/C, Gali No.8, Ganesh Nagar,
Pandav Nagar Complex,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092
(d). Ms. Shikhi
D/o Late Sh.Krishan Pal
W/o Mohd. Abbas
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 7 of 64
R/o E-261A, 2nd Floor,
West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated
10.03.2023)
19. Sh.Jai Pal S/o Sh.Phool Singh
20. Sh.Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh.Phool Singh
21. Sh.Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh.Phool Singh
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Kamlesh
Wd/o Late Sh.Rajesh Kumar
(b). Sh.Shakti Chaudhary
S/o Late Sh.Rajesh Kumar
(c). Ms.Devyani
D/o Late Sh.Rajesh Kumar
All residents of H.No.WZ-5, Khampur Raya, Patel Nagar, New
Delhi-110008
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated
31.03.2022)
22. Smt.Shamo Devi Wd/o Sh.Shree Chand
23. Sh.Atul Kumar S/o Sh. Shree Chand
24. Smt.Anuradha W/o Sh.Vijay Kumar,
D/o Sh. Shree Chand,
R/o WZ-484-485, Basai Darapur,
New Delhi-110015
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 8 of 64
25. Smt.Archana W/o Sh.Promod Kumar
D/o Sh.Shree Chand
R/o H.No.24/52, Ghandi Raod,
Opp. Phoolson Factory, Baraut,
Distt. Baghpat (UP).
26. Sh.Rattan Singh S/o Sh.Jeetu
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Sarla,
W/o Late Sh.Rattan Singh
R/o 230, Aggarwal Mandi,
Village Tatiri, Distt. Baghpat
(UP)-250601
(b). Sh.Ashish Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Rattan Singh
R/o WZ-175, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028.
(c). Smt.Anita
W/o Sh.Ajender
D/o Late Sh.Rattan Singh
R/o WZ-389, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028.
(d). Smt.Shobha
W/o Sh.Narender Singh
D/o Late Sh.Rattan Singh
R/o WZ-175, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028.
(e). Smt.Geeta
W/o Sh.Raj Kumar
D/o Sh.Rattan Singh
R/o WP-393A, Wazir Pur Village
New Delhi-110028
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated
31.03.2022)
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 9 of 64
27. Sh.Ramesh Chander S/o Sh.Jeetu
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Shakuntala,
W/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
R/o 230, Aggarwal Mandi,
Village Tatiri, Distt. Baghpat
(UP)-250601
(b). Sh.Dharam Singh Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
R/o WZ-175, Naraina Village,
New delhi-110028.
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated
31.03.2022)
28. Smt.Savitri Devi W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
D/o Sh.Jeetu
R/o CB-29, Naraina Ring Road,
New Delhi-110028
(The name of Petitioner/Savitri Devi was corrected vide
Order dated 31.03.2022)
29. Smt.Ramo Devi Wd/o Sh.Jeetu
Dead & Represented through her sole LR namely:-
(a). Smt.Savitri Devi W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
D/o Sh.Jeetu
R/o CB-29, Naraina Ring Road,
New Delhi-110028
(b-1).Smt.Shamo Devi Wd/o Sh.Shree Chand
R/o WZ-178, Village Khampur Raya,
New Delhi-110008
(b-2). Sh.Atul Kumar S/o Sh. Shree Chand
R/o WZ-178, Village Khampur Raya,
New Delhi-110008
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 10 of 64
(b-3).Smt.Anuradha W/o Sh.Vijay Kumar,
D/o Sh. Shree Chand,
R/o WZ-484-485, Basai Darapur,
New Delhi-110015
(b-4).Smt.Archana W/o Sh.Promod Kumar
D/o Sh.Shree Chand
R/o H.No.24/52, Ghandi Raod,
Opp. Phoolson Factory, Baraut,
Distt. Baghpat (UP).
(c-1). Smt.Sarla,
W/o Late Sh.Rattan Singh
R/o 230, Aggarwal Mandi,
Village Tatiri, Distt. Baghpat
(UP)-250601
(c-2). Sh.Ashish Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Rattan Singh
R/o WZ-175, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028.
(c-3). Smt.Anita
W/o Sh.Ajender
D/o Late Sh.Rattan Singh
R/o WZ-389, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028.
(c-4). Smt.Shobha
W/o Sh.Narender Singh
D/o Late Sh.Rattan Singh
R/o WZ-175, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028.
(c-5). Smt.Geeta
W/o Sh.Raj Kumar
D/o Sh.Rattan Singh
R/o WP-393A, Wazir Pur Village
New Delhi-110028
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 11 of 64
(d-1). Smt.Shakuntala,
W/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
R/o 230, Aggarwal Mandi,
Village Tatiri, Distt. Baghpat
(UP)-250601
(d-2).Sh.Dharam Singh Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
R/o WZ-175, Naraina Village,
New delhi-110028.
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 23.07.2024)
30. Sh.Suresh Chander S/o Sh.Chander
R/o Village Chaulda,
P.O.Aggarwal Mandi,
Distt. Baghpat (UP).
31. Sh.Naresh Chander S/o Sh.Chander
R/o Village Chaulda,
P.O.Aggarwal Mandi,
Distt. Baghpat (UP).
32. Sh.Deepak S/o Sh.Sita Ram
R/o Village Chaulda,
P.O.Aggarwal Mandi,
Distt. Baghpat (UP).
33. Sh.Raj Kumar S/o Sh.Sita Ram
R/o Village Chaulda,
P.O.Aggarwal Mandi,
Distt. Baghpat (UP).
34. Smt.Omvati W/o Sh.Sita Ram
R/o Village Chaulda,
P.O.Aggarwal Mandi,
Distt. Baghpat (UP).
35. Smt.Anita Wd/o Sh.Anoop Singh
R/o Village Chaulda,
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 12 of 64
P.O.Aggarwal Mandi,
Distt. Baghpat (UP).
36. Anshul S/o Sh.Anoop Singh
R/o Village Chaulda,
P.O.Aggarwal Mandi,
Distt. Baghpat (UP).
37. Vinay (minor U/G Anita Mother)
R/o Village Chaulda,
P.O.Aggarwal Mandi,
Distt. Baghpat (UP).
38. Sh.Virender Singh S/o Sh.Deep Chand
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Pushpa,
Wd/o Late Sh.Virender Singh
R/o WZ-169, Village Khampur
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
(b). Sh.Sarvadeep Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Virender Singh
R/o K-1160, Pioneer Park,
Golf Course Extension Road,
Opposite Heritage School,
Sector-61, Gurugram (Haryana)
c(i). Smt.Parul Chauhan
Wd/o Late Sh.Navdeep Chauhan
(Predeceased son of Late Sh.Virender Singh)
c(ii). Master Yathesht Deep
Minor Son of Late Sh.Navdeep Chauhan
(Predeceased son of Late Sh.Virender Singh)
Through his Mother & Natural Guardian
Smt.Parul Chauhan
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 13 of 64
c(iii). Baby Gauri Chauhan
Minor Daughter of Late Sh.Navdeep Chauhan
(Predeceased son of Late Sh.Virender Singh)
Through her Mother & Natural Guardian
Smt.Parul Chauhan
All residents of H.No.WZ-169, Village Khampur, West
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated
07.07.2021)
39. Sh.Rajender Singh S/o Sh.Deep Chand
40. Sh.Devender Singh S/o Sh.Deep Chand
41. Sh.Ravinder Singh S/o Sh.Deep Chand,
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Amar Lata Chauhan,
Wd/o Late Sh.Ravinder Singh
(The name of Smt.Amar Lata Chauhan was deleted vide
Order dated 30.10.2019)
(b). Ms.Nidhi Chauhan,
D/o Late Sh.Ravinder Singh
(c). Ms.Chavi Chauhan,
D/o Late Sh.Ravinder Singh
(d). Ms.Ati Chauhan,
D/o Late Sh.Ravinder Singh
(e). Sh.Nityadeep Chauhan,
S/o Late Sh.Ravinder Singh
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 14 of 64
All residents of WZ-170C/1, Shadi Khampur, West Patel
Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 10.02.2016)
42. Sh.Jai Ram S/o Sh.Ram Kishan
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Angoori Devi
Wd/o Late Sh.Jai Ram
R/o Z-66, Mohan Garden
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
(b). Sh.Sanjay Verma
S/o Late Sh.Jai Ram
R/o E-18, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar
New Delhi-110059
(c)(i). Smt.Shitval Verma
Wd/o Late Sh.Satish kumar
(Predeceased son of Late Sh.Jai Ram)
R/o Z-66, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar
New Delhi-110059
(c)(ii). Sh.Kushagra Verma
D/o Late Sh.Satish kumar
(Predeceased son of Late Sh.Jai Ram)
R/o Z-66, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar
New Delhi-110059
(d). Smt.Geeta Rani Tanwar
D/o Late Sh.Jai Ram
W/o Sh.Satish Kumar
R/o WZ-1108B, Basai Darapur
New Delhi-110015
(e). Smt.Anita Singh
D/o Late Sh.Jai Ram
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 15 of 64
W/o Sh.Bhagat Singh
R/o B/2/2, Oxford Square
Supertech, ECO Village-3
Greater Noida West, Near Ek Murti Chowk
Gautam Budhha Nagar, Noida (UP)-201301
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 22.11.2023)
43. Sh.Om Prakash S/o Sh.Ram Kishan
44. Sh.Subhash Chand S/o Sh.Ram Kishan
All residents of Village Khampur Raya, Opposite West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Union of India Through,
Land Acquisition Collector (West),
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027
2. Delhi Jal Board, Through,
its Chief Executive Officer,
Varunalaya, Jhandewalan,
New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS
(Respondent No.3 i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi has been
deleted vide Order dated 08.01.2016)
AWARD NO 12/DC (W)/2006-2007
Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi
dated 30.05.2007
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 16 of 64
Date of institution of the reference :10.07.2015
Date of reserving the judgment :29.08.2024
Date of pronouncement of Judgment :21.09.2024
REFERENCE PETITION U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT AGAINST THE FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION OF
MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND ETC ASSESSED BY THE LAND
ACQUISITION COLLECTOR ( WEST), RAMPURA, NEW DELHI
FOR THE ABOVE AWARD.
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi has acquired land measuring 3 Bighas and 06 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ('the Act') vide notification no. F.10(87)/02/L&B/LA/3583 dated 01.06.2004 and followed it up with the relevant notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act vide notification no. F.10(87)/02/L&B/LA/2470 dated 31.05.2005. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.10(87)/02/L&B/LA/2471 dated 31.05.2005. The public purpose for which land was acquired was the construction of underground reservoir and Pump House by DJB.
2. After considering the respective claims, the Land Acquisition Collector, West (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC') passed Award no. 12/DC (W)/2006-2007 dated 30.05.2007 under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.3,500/- per sq. metre alongwith statutory benefits.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 17 of 643. According to the statement under Section 19 of the L.A. Act filed by the Collector, petitioners were shown as recorded owners of the acquired land which is the subject matter of this Reference. Brief description of the land holding of the petitioners as culled out from the statement u/s 19 of the L.A. Act is as under:
Name of recorded Khasra No. Total Detail of trees owner & share Area Building/Crop Bigha- s Biswa
106. Jai Ram S/o Ram754/21/2/2/2/2/2 03-06 As per Award Kishan 463/143208 /2/2 (old) 1083/1149/754/
107. Om Prakash S/o21 (New) Ram Kishan 463/143208
108. Subhash Chand S/o Ram Kishan 463/143208
137. Ramesh Chand S/o Bhulan 1035/238680
138. Suresh Chand S/o Bhulan 1035/238680
139. Naresh S/o Bhulan S/o Bhulan 1035/238680
140. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Sh. Bhulan 1035/238680
141. Raj Bala D/o Sh.Bhulan 1035/238680 LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 18 of 64
142. Shiv Raj Singh S/o Brahma Nand 1035/127296
143. Pramod S/o Gaj Raj Singh 1035/127296
204. Om Prakash S/o Kripa Ram 1/128
205. Ramvir Singh S/o Kripa ram 1/128
210. Pradeep S/o Dharamvir Singh 1/384
211. Sandeep S/o Dharamvir Singh 1/384
259. Chhatar Singh S/o Shadi Ram 1/280
260. Prem Singh S/o Shadi Ram 1/210
261. Krishma Pal Singh S/o Shadi Ram 1/210
262. Jai Pal Singh S/o Shadi Ram 1/210
263. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shadi Ram 1/210
264. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shadi Ram 1/210 LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 19 of 64
265. Phool Singh S/o Shadi Ram 1/210
266. Shree Chand S/o Jeetu 1/700
267. Rattan Singh S/o Jeetu 1/700
268. Ramesh S/o Jeetu 1/700
269. Smt. Sumitra Dvi D/o Jeetu 1/700
270. Ramu W/o Jeetu 1/700
271. Suresh Chand S/o Chandra Bhan 1/112
272. Naresh Chand S/o Chandra Bhan 1/112
273. Smt. Omwati W/o Sita Ram 1/336
274. Deepak Kumar S/o Sita Ram 1/336
275. Raj Kumar S/o Sita Ram 1/336
276. Smt. Anita Devi W/o Anup Singh 1/336
277. Ansul Kumar S/o Anup Singh 1/336
278. Vinay Kumar S/o Anup Singh 1/336 LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 20 of 64
213. Virender Singh S/o Deep Chand 1/256
214. Rajender Singh S/o Deep Chand 1/256
215. Devender Singh S/o Deep Chand 1/256
216. Ravinder Singh S/o Deep Chand 1/256 Note: There are two parties namely Udye Ram (S.No. 1-146) and Patti Kure ( S. No. 147- 285) and each has ½ share.
4. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the concerned LAC, the petitioners filed an application before the LAC, West under Section 18 of the Act for re-determination of the fair market value of the acquired land/property, on 10.07.2007 and requested for sending the reference to this Court, for seeking enhancement/redetermination of the assessed market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification issued u/s 4 of the L.A. Act.
5. Brief factual recapitulation would be relevant before proceeding to the merits of the Reference claim. The petitioners were the owners of land (to the extent of their shares) comprised in Khasra No. 754/21/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 min. (Old No.) and New No. 1083- 1149/754/21 min., ad-measuring 3 bighas 6 biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Khampur Raya, belonging to Shamlat Deh, which was acquired by Land Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 30.05.2007, which is the Award in question.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 21 of 646. The petitioners have alleged in the reference petition that the possession of the acquired land ad-measuring 3 bighas and 6 biswas had been taken by the Government illegally and unlawfully, more than 40 years ago without acquiring the said land under the law and even without paying compensation to the petitioners. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the land in question has been in illegal possession/occupation of the respondent no. 2/Delhi Jal Board for the last several years.
7. The petitioners further alleged that the petitioners along with other co-villagers had filed writ petition before Hon'ble Delhi High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the respondents to take proper steps for acquisition of land under the provisions of the amended Land Acquisition Act and thereafter, after taking necessary steps for acquisition, the above award was announced.
8. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the land under award is well a developed colony, Baljeet Nagar and is situated on main Patel road and is abutting Shadipur Bus Depot, DMS main depot, Shadipur and very near to Police Station Patel Nagar, Ranjeet Nagar, West Patel Nagar, Shadipur etc. It is further alleged that Shadipur Bus Depot is situated in the same Khasra number in which the acquired land is situated.
9. It has been averred by the petitioners that no person other than the petitioners have got any right, title or interest whatsoever in the aforesaid land and the compensation assessed for the same to the extent LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 22 of 64 of their respective shares shown in the revenue record and as such the petitioners alone are entitled to receive the entire compensation including enhanced compensation. It is further averred by the petitioners that in the award, names of some of the co-owners of acquired land & their respective shares have not been mentioned correctly.
10. The grievance of the petitioners is that the compensation decided by the LAC does not represent the true market value of acquired land as on the date of notification u/s 4 of LA Act and the LAC has grossly erred in assessing the market value of the land in too low and inadequate rates.
11. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has assessed the market value of the land without making any inquiry on the spot as to whether the market value fixed by the LAC is the true and correct market value of the land under the conditions of demand and supply as compare to the land in vicinity as on the date of notification under section 4 of LA Act.
12. It is further alleged by the petitioners that even, the LAC, West has announced award no.13/DC (W)/2004-2005 dated 02.02.2005, by way of which, compensation @ Rs. 13,280/- per square meter was awarded for the land, which was notified for acquisition under Section 4 LA Act on 10.02.2003 i.e. more than one year prior to notification under section 4 LA Act issued in the present award. It is further averred that LAC has also passed award no. 4/DC(W)/2005-06 on 5.4.2006 and LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 23 of 64 acquired the land out of the same Khasra numbers and assessed market value of the land @ Rs. 3500/- per meter and against the said award petition under section 18 L.A. Act is pending for disposal.
13. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the LAC, West has ignored the market value of the land determined vide award no. 14/DC (W)/2004-2005 dated 28.01.2005. It is further alleged that the land acquired vide award no. 14 belongs to the same very revenue estate. It is further alleged that the LAC has ignored the fact that the land acquired vide award no. 13 & 14 is similarly circumstanced land belonging to the same very revenue estate and is comparable to the land acquired in the present award.
14. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the LAC has failed to consider that the land in question is fully developed land and is surrounded by commercial and residential area of West Patel Nagar. It is further alleged that all the amenities and facilities of life such as electricity, water supply, telephone facilities, nearness to developed colonies, metaled road, road transport, rail transport, availability of water supply, transportation, banking, educational and other facilities were available in the surroundings of land under acquisition for the last more than 40 years.
15. The case of the petitioners is that the market value of the land under reference as on the date of notification under section 4 of LA Act is not less than Rs. 60,000/- per square yards under the condition of demand and supply.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 24 of 6416. It has further averred by the petitioners that various Govt. agencies such as DDA and MCD had auctioned residential plots in much more rates than the rates awarded by the LAC, even much prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and not considered the fact that a plot measuring 133.62 sq. mtrs was auctioned by the Govt. @ 40,000/- per sq. mtr. in West Patel Nagar on 23.09.1996, which is also situated on the land of Village Khampur Raya and the reserved price for the said plot was shown at Rs.26,877/- much before the date of notification of section 4 of the Act as on 23.09.1996 and hence the LAC should have considered this valuable evidence for determining the market value of the land in question.
17. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has not considered the fact that a plot in the same very locality quite near to the land in question was auctioned on 11.10.1996 by the DDA @ 40,000/- per sq. mtr and the said plot is comparable to the land in question.
18. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has not considered the fact that MCD had auctioned a plot measuring 174.42 sq. mtrs situated in the revenue estate of village of Khampur Raya and this plot was auctioned at Rs.10,57,000/- and was auctioned more than 20 years prior to the date of notification of the present case.
19. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has failed to considered the fact that the SDM, Patel Nagar has confirmed vide letter dated 25.10.2005, that the value of the land in Khasra no. 1249/905/788/43/5 of Village Khampur Raya is about 1 crore for 600 square yards of land.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 25 of 6420. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC West has erred in holding that Patel Nagar cannot said to be comparable colony. It is further averred that Patel Nagar is also situated in the revenue estate of village Khampur Raya. It is further averred that Baljeet Nagar, Ranjit Nagar, West Patel Nagar and Shadipur are situated in the land of Village Khampur Raya and are very near to each other.
21. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC West has grossly erred in holding that the land at Moti Nagar, Tihar I & II can at best be considered near comparable to Baljeet Nagar (Khampur Raya). It is further averred that the Moti Nagar, Tihar I & II are quite far away from the land under reference.
22. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has erred in not following/adopting the method by which the land in Delhi was being assessed by his colleagues and predecessors. It is further averred that the LAC has not followed the policy of government of NCT of Delhi for fixing the market value of the land.
23. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has failed to take into consideration the land rates fixed by the various government agencies for the land situated in the vicinity of the land in question.
24. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has failed to appreciate the fact that in the past 10 to 15 years, a rapid development has taken placed in Delhi and in surrounding areas as a LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 26 of 64 result of which price of the land in the vicinity of the land in question has increased many folds and the land was being sold @ Rs. 60,000/- per sq. yards at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act.
25. It is further alleged that the LAC has failed to award the interest to the petitioners from the date of taking over the possession of the land till the date of payment of compensation. It is further alleged that the land in reference has been in illegal and unauthorized possession of the Government/MCD/DJB for the last more than 40 years.
26. The petitioners have prayed for compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per sq. yard besides solatium, statutory interest and other benefits under the provisions of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, including interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of taking over possession of the land till the date of payment of compensation.
27. Respondent no. 1/Union of India has filed its WS taking a ground that the petitioners are not admitted to be the owner of the land in question and the market value of the land in question has been assessed by taking into consideration the prevailing market rates of the land in question, at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of LA Act. It is further contended by respondent no. 1 that the shares of the petitioners are correctly mentioned in statement filed under section 19 of LA Act. The respondent no. 1 has denied other contents of the petition of the petitioners.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 27 of 6428. Respondent no. 2/Delhi Jal Board also filed written statements by admitting that the land in question was already utilized by the respondent no. 2 for underground reservoir and pump house. The respondent no. 2 has replied on merits that the contents of para no. 1 to 7 of the petition are matter of record. Respondent no. 2 has denied that the respondent no. 2 is in illegal possession of the land in question.
It has thus jointly prayed by the respondents that the present Reference be dismissed with costs.
29. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 26.10.2016 :-
ISSUES i. Whether Section 19 Statement filed by the Collector ( West) is true and correct? OPR1 ii. What was the fair market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act? OPP iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP iv. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONERS
30. Shri Vijay Kumar, Junior Secretariat Assistant from the office of Land & Development Office, appeared as PW-1. He had LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 28 of 64 brought and proved the record i.e. L& DO Scheduled Rates w.e.f. 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000. He further deposed that after the year 2000 the rates were not revised till date. Attested copy of Scheduled rates is Ex. PW-1/1 (17 pages).
31. Shri Rakesh Kumar, official from the office of DDA appeared as PW-2. He had brought and proved the Conveyance Deed and Perpetual Lease pertaining to plots bearing no. 3 & 4, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He further deposed that the date of auction of the above said plots was 23.09.1996 and 11.10.1996 respectively. The copies of the Conveyance Deed and Perpetual Lease Deeds are Ex. PW- 2/1 (Colly) and Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) (OSR) respectively. The copies of challans are Ex. PW-2/3 (Colly) (running into four pages) (OSR) and copy of demand notices are Ex. PW-2/4 (Colly) (running into two pages) ( OSR).
32. Shri Jai Kishan, LDC from the office of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, appeared as PW-3. He had brought and proved the summoned record pertaining to auction of plot no. 4, 5 & 6 West Delhi District Centre, Shivaji Palace, Raja Garden, New Delhi, as Ex. PW-3/1 and copies of Perpetual Lease pertaining to the above said plots as Ex.PW-3/2. He also proved the certified copy of the record pertaining to auction and Perpetual lease Deed pertaining to plot no. 10 & 23 West Delhi District Centre, Shivaji Palace, Raja Garden, New Delhi, as Ex. PW-3/3 & Ex. PW3/4 ( Colly).
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 29 of 6433. Shri Naveen Kumar, Record Keeper from the office of Department of Delhi Archives appeared as PW-4. He had brought and proved the summoned record pertaining to Sale Deed dated 15.11.1996 executed by Kanishka Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in favour of TATA McGraw Hill Publishing Company Ltd. which was registered vide registration no. 719, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 9373 on pages 1 to 176 dated 3.2.1997. The certified copy of the sale deed is exhibited as Ex. PW-4/1 (OSR).
34. Sh. M.P. Aggarwal, Assistant Engineer, from Delhi Jal Board appeared as PW-5. He had brought and proved the record pertaining to construction of under ground reservoir & Pump House by DJB vide work order dated 04.02.2000. He further deposed that after starting the work of the said reservoir, the contractor had left the work and accordingly the work was re-awarded and completed on 28.08.2008. The copy of work order dated 04.02.2000 exhibited as Ex. PW-5/1 and completion report as Ex. PW-5/2.
35. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Patwari from the office of LAC, West appeared as PW-6. He had brought the summoned record i.e. Original Award No. 13/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 02.02.2005 of East Patel Nagar and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-6/1 (OSR), original Award No. 14/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 28.01.2005 of Main Patel Road, Patel Nagar and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-6/2 (OSR), original Award No. 1/DC(W)/2001-02 of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-6/3 (OSR), original Award No. 4/DC(W)/2005-06 of Village Khampur Raya, New LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 30 of 64 Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-6/4 (OSR) and Award No. 2/2000-01 of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-6/5 (OSR) respectively.
He has also brought the Diary register showing the details of the application dated 01.08.2007 filed for correction of shares and names of the Co-sharers which was filed against Diary No. 4423/LAC/West for making necessary correction in Award No. 12/DC(W)/2006-07 of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi and the same is Ex. PW-6/6 (OSR).
36. Sh. Bipin Chander, UDC from the office of Land & Building Department appeared as PW-7. He had brought and proved the standing instructions dated 28.07.2005, issued by Land & Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Vikas Bhawan as Ex. PW-7/1 (18 pages) (OSR). He deposed that copy of the same were sent to all LACs in Delhi as well as to Divisional Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Commissioner ( IM-DDA), Vikas Sadan.
37. Shri Kunj Bihari, Kanoongo from the office of SDM, appeared as PW-8. He had brought the Aksshajra of Village Khampur Raya showing that the boundaries of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi touches the boundary of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi towards western side. The copy of the relevant extract of the Aksshajra is exhibited as Ex. PW-8/1 (OSR).
38. Sh Rakesh Kumar, Patwari, appeared as PW-9. He deposed that he had been examined as witness IP1/W1 in case titled UOI vs LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 31 of 64 Mam Chand & Ors bearing LAC No. 14A/10/08 on 19.03.2011 and which case was decided on 03.08.2016. He further deposed that in his previously recorded statement (as above), he had proved Jamabandi running into nine pages which was exhibited as IP1-W1/1. The certified copy of his statement dt. 19.3.2011 was exhibited as Ex. PW-9/1 and the certified copy of Jamabandi which was exhibited as IP1-W1/1 is now exhibited as Ex. PW-9/2 (Colly) (OSR).
39. Sh. Prem Singh S/o late Sh. Phool Singh, petitioner no. 17 appeared as PW-10 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-10/A. He relied upon and proved the following documents:
1. Ex.PW-9/1: Application dated 01.08.2007
2. Ex.PW-9/2: Certified copy of judgment dated 01.08.2016 in case titled Union of India Vs Mamchand & Ors.
3. Ex. PW-9/3:. Copy of order dated 03.12.2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court.
4. Ex. PW-9/4: Copy of writ petition.
5. Ex.PW-9/5: copy of judgment passed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then ld. ADJ in case titled Virender Sood Vs Union of India
6. Ex.PW-9/6: copy of judgment in case titled Rai Singh & Ors.
Vs Union of India & Ors in LAC No. 37/10/01.
7. Ex. PW-9/7: copy of judgment in case titled Rai Singh & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. in LAC No. 39/10/01.
He further relied upon the documents already exhibited by the petitioner's witnesses.
40. In his cross-examination, PW-10 deposed that he never sold or purchased any property nor become a witness to any sale transaction during the period of 2003-2005. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had not moved the proper and timely application for correction in the Award. PW-1 could not tell the exact year since when DJB had LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 32 of 64 been in possession of the acquired land since the notification under Section 4 LA Act.
41. PW-10 admitted the suggestion that in his petition, in para no. 2, he had mentioned that DJB was in possession of the acquired land for more than 40 years prior to filing of the present reference but he had not demanded any rent or damages for use and occupation of the land in question from the DJB nor had the DJB paid any such charges to him at any point of time. PW-10 denied the suggestion that DJB had become the owner by way of adverse possession. PW-10 denied the suggestion that petitioners were not entitled for any interest on the compensation awarded, u/s 34 of the L.A. Act. In response to a specific question, PW- 10 replied that he had filed a sale deed dated 15.11.1996 already exhibited as Ex. PW-4/1 vide which the land in the vicinity of the acquired land was sold at about Rs. 49,000/- per sq. yards, to substantiate the averment contained in para no. 15 of his Affidavit.
42. PW-10 denied the suggestion that the land in question cannot be compared with the land detailed in Ex. PW-4/1 for the reasons that vendors and vendees were limited companies and the subject land was commercial land. However, he voluntarily deposed that the land involved in Ex. PW-4/1 was not a commercial land. He further denied the suggestion that the prices of auctioned plot/land cannot be compared with the rates of land in question.
43. Petitioners' Evidence was closed vide statement of Sh. Ravinder Singh, ld. Counsel for the petitioners on 05.07.2017.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 33 of 64EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENTS
44. Sh. S.S. Mittal, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 at Bar, tendered in evidence copy of Award No.12/DC(W) of 2006-2007 pertaining to Village Kampur Raya as Ex. R-1 and he also tender in evidence copies of three Sale Deeds dated 03.01.2004, 03.01.2004 and 19.12.2003 respectively as Ex. R-2 to R-4 ( The originals of the above sale deeds are lying in the case titled as " Mahavir Singh Vs Union of India" bearing LAC No. 143/16).
45. On 17.11.2017, the evidence of respondent no. 1 was closed by recording statement of ld. counsel for respondent no. 1.
46. On 17.11.2017, Ld proxy counsel Sh Tarun Sangwan for Ms Sakshi Popli, ld. counsel for respondent no. 2/DJB, vide separate statement, adopted the evidence led on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI and the evidence of respondent no. 2 was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
47. I have heard the arguments put forward by ld. Counsel for the petitioners and respondents, and have gone through the record of the case, the written submissions and judgments filed on behalf of the petitioners and respondent no. 1. I have also carefully analyzed the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 34 of 64Issue Wise Findings ISSUE NO-1
1. Whether Section 19 Statement filed by the Collector (West) is true and correct? OPR1
48. The onus to prove this issue is upon respondent no. 1. In order to prove this issue, the respondent no. 1 has not led any evidence except tendering three sale deeds Ex. R-2 to R-4 and award under reference Ex. R-1.
49. PW-10 has deposed in his examination in chief by way of affidavit that the petitioners were co-owner/co-sharer in respect of land bearing Kh. No. 754/21/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 min (old Khasra number) and New Khasra number is 1083-1149/754/21 min and the respective shares of the petitioners are mentioned in the revenue record including Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 Ex. PW-9/2. PW-10 further deposed that the correct shares of the petitioners are also shown in Award no. 04/DC(W)/2005-06 vide which the part of the land comprised in the same Khasra number had already been acquired and the copy of said Award is Ex. PW-6/4. PW-10 have deposed that the correct shares of all the petitioners in land in question is as per Jamabandi Ex. PW9/2 & as per Award Ex. PW-6/4.
50. Petitioner/PW-10 further deposed that the LAC has mentioned incorrect shares of petitioner nos. 3,4, 5 (a) to 5(c), 8, 12, 13, 16, 17 to 21, 22 to 29, 30 to 37 in the statement filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act as well as in the Award of present reference. PW-10 further LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 35 of 64 deposed that the petitioners immediately, after the passing of the award, applied for correction of shares to the LAC, West by moving application dated 01.08.2007 which is Ex. PW-9/1 and the diary register vide which the said application was filed is Ex. PW-4/6.
51. PW-10 further deposed that in a reference petition under section 30-31 of L.A Act titled as UOI Vs Mamchand & Ors. decided on 01.08.2016, the then ld. ADJ, West, Sh. Sanjay Kumar, has held that the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation in respect of the acquired land. The certified copy of the Judgment dated 01.08.2016 is Ex. PW-9/2.
52. PW-10 was cross-examined by ld. Counsels for respondents. During his cross-examination, ld. Counsel for the respondents have not disputed the correctness of Jamabandi Ex. PW-9/2 and the findings of Award No. 4 Ex. PW-4/4. During cross-examination of PW-10, no question regarding the shares of petitioners nos. 3,4, 5 (a) to 5(c), 8, 12, 13, 16, 17 to 21, 22 to 29, 30 to 37, in the acquired land has been asked by ld. counsel for respondents. The respondents have not disputed the testimony of PW-10 regarding their shares mentioned in the Jamabandi Ex. PW-9/2.
53. PW-9 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Patwari has appeared in witness box and deposed that he had been examined as a witness in a case titled UOI Vs Mam Chand & Ors, decided on 03.08.2016 and he proved the certified copy of his statement given in the above reference as Ex. PW- 9/1 and he also proved the certified copy of Jamabandi of year 2004-05 LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 36 of 64 of Village Khampur Rai as Ex. PW-9/2. During his cross-examination, ld. Counsel for the respondents have not disputed the said Jamabandi.
54. That during trial ld. counsel for the petitioners has filed objections to the statement filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act. Thereafter revised statement under section 19 of the L.A Act was filed by the LAC, West and thereafter also petitioners raised objections on the said revised statement being not correctly mentioned the shares of the petitioners. Thereafter on 12.08.2016 the ld. Predecessor of this court directed the LAC, West to file corrected statement u/s 19 of the L. A. Act. On 23.09.2016, on behalf of LAC, West, it was submitted that the department would like to file appeal against the order dated 12.08.2016. When the case was at the stage of final arguments on 04.05.2018, the LAC West filed revised statement under section 19 of the L.A. Act and revised the share of petitioner no. 3,4, 5 (a) to 5(c), 8, 12, 13, 16, 17 to 21, 22 to 29, 30 to 37 in the said statement. As per Revised statement filed on 04.05.2018, the details & shares of petitioners is as under:-
Name of recorded owner Khasra No.
Total Area Detail of trees
& share Bigha- Building/Crops
Biswa
240. Om Prakash S/o754/21/2/2/2/2/2/ 03-06 As per Award
Ram Kishan 1/128 DAR2/2 (old)
1/2 1083/1149/754/21
(New)
241 Ranvir Singh S/o
Kripa Ram 1/128 DAR
½
245. Niranjan Singh S/o
Ram Swarop Share 1/256
DAR ½
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 37 of 64
246. Pardeep S/o
Dharmveer 1/512 DAR
½
247. Sandeep Singh S/o
Dharmveer 1/512 DAR
½
226 Raj Bala W/o
Surender Singh 1/256
DAR ½
248. Vinod Kumar S/o
Atma Ram 1/64 DAR ½
173. Ramesh Chand S/o
Bhulan 1035/238680
DAR ½
174. Suresh Chand S/o
Bhulan 1035/238680
DAR ½
175. Naresh Chand S/o
Bhulan 1035/238680
DAR ½
176. Smt. Shanti Devi
W/o Sh. Bhulan
1035/636480 DAR ½
177. Raj Bala D/o Sh.
Bhulan 1035/636480
DAR ½
178. Shiv Raj Singh S/o
Brahma Nand
1035/127296 DAR ½
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 38 of 64
179. Pramod S/o Gaj Raj
Singh 1035/127296 DAR
½
295. Chhatar Singh S/o
Shadi Ram 1/120 DAR
½
296. Prem Singh S/o
Phool Singh 1/600 DAR
½
297. Krishan Pal Singh
S/o Phool Singh, 1/600
DAR ½
298. Jai Pal Singh S/o
Phool Singh 1/600 DAR
½
299. Rakesh Kumar S/o
Phool Singh 1/600 DAR
½
300. Rajesh Kumar S/o
Phool Singh 1/600 DAR
½
301. Shree Chand S/o
Jeetu 1/600 DAR ½
302. Rattan Singh S/o
Jeetu 1/600 DAR ½
303. Ramesh S/o Jeetu
1/600 DAR ½
304. Smt. Sumitra Dvi
D/o Jeetu 1/600 DAR ½
305. Ramu W/o Jeetu
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 39 of 64
1/600 DAR ½
306. Suresh Chand S/o
Chandra Bhan 1/600
DAR ½
307. Naresh Chand S/o
Chandra Bhan 1/96 DAR
½
308. Smt. Omwati W/o
Sita Ram 1/288 DAR ½
309. Deepak Kumar S/o
Sita Ram 1/288 DAR ½
310. Raj Kumar S/o Sita
Ram 1/288 DAR ½
311. Smt. Anita Devi
W/o Anoop Singh 1/288
DAR ½
312. Ansul Kumar S/o
Anoop Singh 1/288 DAR
½
313. Vinay Kumar S/o
Anoop Singh 1/288 DAR
½
249. Virender Singh S/o
Deep Chand 1/256 DAR
½
250. Rajender Singh S/o
Deep Chand 1/256 DAR
½
251. Devender Singh
S/o Deep Chand 1/256
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 40 of 64
DAR ½
252. Ravinder Singh S/o
Deep Chand 1/256 DAR
½
130. Jai Ram S/o Ram
Kishan Share
463/143208 DAR ½
131. Om Prakash S/o
Ram Kishan Share
463/143208 DAR ½
132. Subhash Chand S/o
Ram Kishan 463/143208
DAR ½
55. On 09.05.2018, petitioner no. 3 & 6 were present in court and they submitted that the revised statement filed under section 19 of L.A. Act filed by LAC, West is correct and they are satisfied.
56. During arguments, ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that the shares of only petitioners no. 3,4, 5 (a) to 5(c), 8, 12, 13, 16, 17 to 21, 22 to 29, 30 to 37 were mentioned incorrect by the LAC, in the award as well as in the earlier statement filed on 16.03.2018 and 10.07.2015, under section 19 of the L.A Act. He further submits that the shares of other petitioners have been mentioned correctly in the award and in the earlier statement filed under section 19 of the L.A Act by the LAC before 4.5.2018.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 41 of 6457. Ld. counsel for the petitioners further submits that after passing of order by this court, the LAC, West has filed revised statement u/s 19 of the L.A Act on 04.05.2018 in which shares of all petitioners including petitioners no. 3, 4, 5 (a) to 5(c), 8, 12, 13, 16, 17 to 21, 22 to 29, 30 to 37 have been correctly mentioned.
58. I have also perused the Jamabandi of year 2004-05 Ex. PW- 9/2. As per the above Jamabandi the total land in the above said Khasra numbers is 332 bighas & 7 biswas and out of this total land, land of 3 bighas and 6 biswas has been acquired in the present award. The Jamabandi Ex. PW-9/2 has already been relied upon by the court while deciding reference under section 30-31 of L.A. Act in a case titled UOI Vs Mamchand & Ors on 01.08.2016.
59. I have perused the statement under Section 19 of L.A Act filed by LAC West on 10.07.2015, and in the said statement, the shares of petitioner nos. 3, 4, 5 (a) to 5(c), 8, 12, 13, 16, 17 to 21, 22 to 29, 30 to 37 have been mentioned incorrectly. However, thereafter during trial revised statement has been filed by LAC/West, on 04.05.2018. In the revised statement as per submission of ld. counsel for the petitioners, the shares of all the petitioners have been mentioned correctly. The revised Statement filed by LAC, West on 04.05.2018 has been given mark CWX today for the purpose of identifying the said document. In view of the above said facts and observations, it is held that petitioners are co- owners in the acquired land and having share in the acquired land as per revised statement filed by the LAC, West under section 19 of the L.A Act on 04.05.2018 and as per Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 Ex.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 42 of 64PW-9/2. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
60. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2Issue no 2: What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
61. The burden to prove the issue no. 2 is upon the petitioners and in order to prove issue no. 2, the petitioners have examined total 10 witnesses.
62. PW-3 Sh. Jai Kishan, has proved the record of auction and lease deeds pertaining to the plots no. 4, 5, 6, 10 & 23, West Delhi, District Centre, Shivji Palace, Raja Garden, New Delhi as Ex. PW3/1, Ex. PW-3/2, Ex. PW-3/3 and Ex. PW-3/4 (Colly) respectively.
63. PW-2 Sh. Rakesh Chand, has proved the copy of Conveyance Deed and Perpetual Lease deed pertaining to plots no 3 & 4, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi as Ex. PW-2/1 (Colly) & Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) respectively ( OSR).
64. PW-4 Sh. Naveen Kumar has proved the sale deed dated 15.11.1996 exhibited by Kanishka Builders & Promoters Private Limited in favour of Tata Mac Graw Hills Publishing Co. Ltd. Ex. PW- 4/1.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 43 of 6465. PW-1 Sh. Vijay Kumar, has proved the attested copy of Schedule rates issued by L & DO department as Ex. PW-1/1. The respondents have not disputed the genuineness of the above said details of rates brought by the witness.
66. PW-6 Shri Rakesh Kumar, Patwari from the office of LAC, West had brought the certified copy of award No.2/2000-01 and original Award No. 4/DC(W)/2005-06 of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi and proved the copy of the same as Ex. 6/5 & Ex. PW-6/4 respectively. He has also brought the certified copy of Award No. 1/DC(W)/2001-02 of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi and proved the copy of the same as Ex-6/3(OSR) and also brought the original Award No. 13/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 02.02.2005 of East Patel Nagar, original Award No. 14/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 28.01.2005 of Main Patel Road, Patel Nagar and proved the copy of the same as Ex-6/1 and Ex-6/2 (OSR).
67. PW-10 has exhibited the copy of Judgment passed in a reference case u/s 30-31 L.A. Act, titled UOI Vs Mamchand and Ors. as Ex. PW-9/2, Certified copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 3.12.2001, passed in a writ petition titled as Phool Singh and Ors. Vs UOI & Ors. as Ex. PW-9/3 and certified copy of the Writ Petition Ex. PW-9/4. PW-10 further exhibited the copy of Judgment passed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, ld. ADJ, in the reference case titled Sh. Virender Sood Vs UOI & Anr. Ex. PW-9/5. ( It is pertinent to mention here that the exhibit numbers of the documents have been mentioned in the examination in chief of PW-10 as Ex. PW-9/1 to Ex. PW-9/7 LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 44 of 64 whereas exhibit number from Ex. PW-10/1 to Ex. PW10/7 were put upon the documents, on the day of examination of PW-10. Therefore, the documents are re-exhibited today as Ex. PW-9/1 to Ex. PW-9/7.
68. The petitioners have primarily placed reliance on sale deeds, lease deeds, auction proceedings, previous LAC Awards of Village Khampur Raya and of adjoining areas and also placed reliance upon previous Reference Court Awards of the same village as in the present case i.e. Khampur Raya and also of adjoining village Basai Darapur. Additionally, they have also placed reliance on the notification issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment dated. 16.04.1999 wherein indicative rates for residential and commercial properties (in sq. meters) in Delhi were notified and which were in force on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 Land Acquisition Act of the acquired land. The petitioners are also mainly putting reliance upon the sale deed executed between Kanishka Builders P. Ltd. (vendor) and Tata McGraw Publishing Company (vendee) in respect of property situated on main road, West Patel Nagar Ex PW-4/1.
69. All the exhibited sale deed/ Conveyance deed /lease deed on behalf of petitioners except Ex. PW-2/1(Colly) & Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) relate to the transaction of commercial in nature. The factors that go in towards purchase of a commercial property in a developed area cannot be considered to be a good indicator of the prevailing market price at the relevant time for land situated in the vicinity unless there is clear evidence to prove that the land in question was having the same use, potential and location as the one on which reliance is being placed.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 45 of 6470. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that the acquired land is fully developed and has proper road and other amenities. The petitioners have also failed to prove that there are commercial properties near to the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and has, thus, failed to prove its commercial use and potentiality. The sale deed Ex PW-4/1 is a sale deed dated 15.11.1996 executed between two corporates and subject matter of the sale deed has already been constructed up to three floors i.e. basement, ground floor, first floor, ad- measuring 800 sq. yards. This property is a commercial property being purchased by two corporators and it is purchased by Tata Mac Graw Hills Publishing Co. Ltd for its special needs and this sale deed cannot be equated as transaction between an average buyer and an average seller. Therefore, the sale deed Ex PW-4/1 cannot be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land of present reference.
71. The Perpetual lease deeds pertains to plot No. 4, 5, 6, 10 & 23 Ex. PW3/2 (OSR) to Ex. PW3/4(Colly) were result of auction proceedings of commercial plots in a commercially developed area i.e. District Centre, Raja Garden and hence, cannot be equated with the potential of acquired land in any manner, as per the observations given in the above para.
72. The petitioners have relied upon Award passed in respect of land acquired in village Basai Darapur, which is adjoining the revenue limits of the village Khampur Raya, where the acquired land is situated. PW-8 proved the copy of ask Sajra Ex PW-8/1(OSR) showing the LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 46 of 64 boundary of village Khampur Raya touching boundary of village Basai Darapur.
73. LAC Awards covering Village East Patel Nagar, Main Patel Road, Village Basai Darapur and Khampur Raya, New Delhi, were exhibited Award No. 13 as Ex. PW-6/1, Award No. 14 as Ex. PW-6/2, Award No. 1 as Ex. PW-6/3, Award no. 4 as Ex, PW-6/4 and Award No. 2 as Ex. PW-6/5 respectively. The dates of notifications issued under section 4 of the L.A. Act in the above said acquisition proceedings were 10.02.2003, 01.06.2004, 05.04.1999, 17.03.2004 and 14.05.1997 respectively. In the LAC Awards Ex. PW-6/1 the compensation was assessed @ Rs.13,280/- per sq. meter, In the LAC Awards Ex. PW-6/2 the compensation was assessed @ Rs.13,280/- per sq. meter, in the LAC Awards Ex. PW-6/3 the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 5799.16 per sq. yards, In the LAC Awards Ex. PW-6/4 the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 3500/- per sq. meter.
74. The Judgment Ex PW9/5 given by Ld ADJ, Sh. O.P. Gupta in a case titled as "Virender Sood Vs Union of India relates to Award no. 16 of village Basai Darapur. But this judgment cannot be considered because the award in above said reference judgment was pertaining to the land which is commercial in nature and petitioners of above case had also filed writ petition in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for giving direction to MCD to sanction him plan for construction of commercial complex and the acquired land of the said award was situated in Kirti Nagar, which is a hub of timber market. Award no. 13 and Award no. 14 Ex. PW-6/1 & Ex. PW-6/2 are also of commercial land and pertained to LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 47 of 64 the above-said acquired land and can not be considered for assessing market value of the acquired land of present award on the same analogy.
75. The two judgments in reference case of the award no. 2/2000-2001 and award no. 3/2000-2001, of the same village i.e Khampur Rai have been pronounced therein by Ld ADJ, Sh. Sanjay Kumar and the copy of the judgments of said answered reference are Ex PW-9/6 and Ex PW-9/7. In the above-said awards, the LAC, West has determined the market value of the acquired land in the above-said awards as Rs. 2000/- per sq. yards and the said market value was redetermined in the above-said judgments @ Rs. 8663/- per sq. meter, after deducting the development charges. The court has relied upon scheduled rates issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment dated. 16.04.1999 Ex PW-1/1 for determining the market value of the land in above judgments. The market value of the acquired land, in the present reference, is determined @ Rs. 3500/- per square meter, which is very less from the market value of the land of the same village determined by the court in the above-said both judgments.
76. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 has tendered photocopies of three sale deeds dated 3.1.2004, 3.1.2004 and 19.12.2003 respectively as Ex. R-2 to R-4. Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 has relied upon the sale deeds for assessing the market value of acquired land. It is settled law that there is no need to call vendor or vendee to prove the sale deed in order to relying upon said sale deeds for determining the market value of the acquired land. The above said sale deeds have been tendered in evidence by ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 at bar. It is LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 48 of 64 stated by ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 that original of above said sale deeds are lying in the case file titled Mahavir Singh Vs UOI, however, ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 has not summoned the above said original case file. Even no witness has been examined to tender these sale deeds in evidence. The respondent no. 1 should have called some officials with original record pertaining to the said sale deeds from the Sub-Registrar office or to summon the above said original case file, in order to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the above said sale deeds. Even no certified copies of the above said sale deeds have been filed on behalf of respondent no.1. The above said sale deeds being photocopies are inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, the LAC West has also not determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the above said sale deeds. Even the land rates issued by L&DO department are more than the value of the land mentioned in the said sale deeds.
77. The comparison of sale deeds of the land of the same village and the land of adjoining villages, for determining the market value of the acquired land is an established norm, the other relevant factors being the area, nature, location, advantages, disadvantages, soil quality, demand for land, availability of land for development in the area and nature of development in surrounding area thereof. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court given in a case titled as "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs Nemi Chand Damodar Dass & Anr"
2022 livelaw (SC), 603.LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 49 of 64
78. In a judgment titled as "Bhola Nath Sharma through Lrs Vs Union of India through LAC & Anr, LA.AAP. 109/2013 decided on 23.03.2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows:
"69. It has been the practice to adopt the comparable sales method for determining the market value of the land as aforesaid method is more preferable than computing the valuation of the land on the basis of capitalization of net income method or by taking expert opinion. The reason for the same is that a willing purchaser would always put pay the same price which was fetched of other land with same geographical location and advantage."
79. In the above-said judgment, it is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the sale transaction under the registered sale deeds are to be assumed as normal sales by a willing seller to a willing purchaser. However, in the absence of such registered sale deeds, even auction sales, which stand on a different footing, can be accepted if they are the only comparable sale transactions available in terms of proximity in situation and proximity in time to the acquired land.
80. The Supreme court in a titled as " Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board Vs Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & ors", (2011) 2 SCC 246, the Supreme Court held as hereunder:-
"7. But where an open auction sale is the only comparable sale transaction available (on account of proximity in situation and proximity in time to the acquired land), the court may have to, with caution, rely upon the price disclosed by such auction sales, by providing an appropriate deduction or cut to off-set the competitive- hike in value. In this case, the Reference court and High Court, after referring to the evidence relating to other sale transactions, found them to be inapplicable as they related LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 50 of 64 to far away properties. Therefore, we are left with only the auction sale transactions. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a deduction or cut of 20% in the auction price disclosed by the relied upon auction transaction towards the factor of 'competitive-price hike' would enable us to arrive at the fair market price."
81. In the present reference, the sale deeds, lease deeds and auction proceedings except lease deed/conveyance deed Ex PW-2/1 (Colly) and Ex PW-2/2 (Colly) are not equitable for assessing the market value of the land in question as already held above. Hence, in the present reference, lease deed/conveyance deed Ex PW-2/1 (Colly) and Ex PW-2/2 (Colly) are remained to be examined as to their applicability in the present reference for determining the market value of the acquired land.
82. PW-10 has deposed in his examination in chief by way of affidavit that the land of the petitioners touches the land of West Patel Nagar, Main Patel Road, Shadipur Metro Station, Patel Nagar Railway Station, Shadipur Bus Depot, Delhi Milk Scheme Plant Shadipur and is surrounded by various developed colonies known as Baljeet Nagar, West Patel Nagar etc. etc. All the facilities and amenities of life such as metalled road, railway station, metro station, bus depot, sewage facility, electricity facility, telephone facility, rail road transport etc. etc. were available in the land in question much prior to date of Section 4 notification.
83. PW-10 further deposed that the land of the petitioners was fully developed land and is surrounded by education institutions, LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 51 of 64 residential area, commercial area of Patel Nagar as well as industrial area of Rama Road, Kirti Nagar and Naraina. The land in the aforesaid colonies were being sold at the rate of more than Rs. 1 lac per sq. yards as on Section 4 Notification date in 2004. Ld counsel for the respondents has only given a general suggestion that the facilities alleged in para no. 11 and 12 of the affidavit of petitioner were available to the land in question prior to the notification issued under section 4 Of land Acquisition Act. The respondents have not led any evidence to rebut the above-said contents of para no. 11 and 12 of the affidavit of PW-10.
84. PW-8 has brought Aks Shajra of village Khampur Rai which prove that the boundary of village Khampur Rai touches the boundary of village Basaidara pur and the said Aks Shajra is Ex PW-6/1 (OSR).
85. In view of the above-said testimonies, it has been proved that the land in question is surrounded by developed area including commercial and residential colonies and it is also proved that there was also existing a constructed building up to 3 floors (basement, ground floor and first floor) on the land of West, Patel Nagar before the issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in the present award. In the award of present reference, the LAC has also mentioned the fact that the acquired land falls in an unplanned colony but respondents have not led any evidence to prove that the colony where acquired land situated is an unplanned colony. The above-said facts prove that on the date of notification i.e. 01.06.2004, the acquired LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 52 of 64 land has the potential to be developed and be used for residential purpose. Though, it has not been proved that the acquired land is equally developed, as per the surrounding developed colonies.
86. In a reference on the present Award, the lease deed/conveyance deed Ex PW-2/1 (Colly) & Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) relate to auction of residential plots of West, Patel Nagar which are situated on the land of Village Khampur Raya. As the above said lease deed/conveyance deed are the only comparable sale transaction in the present reference and the auction sale transaction can be compared for determining the market value of the acquired land as these transactions are of residential plots and are of the same village. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of "Bhola Nath Sharma through Lrs Vs Union of India through LAC & Anr, LA.AAP. 109/2013 decided on 23.03.2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi"
87. PW-10 has deposed that in his examination in chief that the DDA had auctioned plot no 3 and 4 of West, Patel Nagar, Delhi on 23.09.1996 and 11.10.1996. He further deposed that the reserve price of the above-said plots in the auction was Rs.26,877/- per square meter. As per lease deed the above-said plots were auctioned for Rs.39,027/- per square meter and Rs.37,894/- per square meter respectively. It is also fact that the above-said residential plots were auctioned after substantial development by the development authority and the above-said plots also situated in a developed area. In a case titled as "Executive Engineer, Karnatka Housing Board (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex court has observed that while considering the auction sales for determining the market LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 53 of 64 value of acquired land, the court should be cautioned while relying upon the price disclosed by such auction sales by providing an appropriate deduction or cut to off-set the competitive hike in value. Hence, the auction sale amount cannot consider as the sale amount paid by as an average buyer. However, in the said auction sale, the DDA has reserved the sale price of Rs. 26,877/- per square meter and below this price the DDA was not ready to sell the abovesaid plots. So, this reserve price can be safely considered as an average sale price to be paid by an average buyer for purchasing the residential plots in West Patel Nagar.
88. The plot no 3 and 4 have been auctioned on 23.09.1996 and 11.10.1996 respectively, therefore, these auction proceedings do not reflect the true value of the acquired land in year, 2004 but these transactions are relevant for showing that as per the conveyance deed/lease deeds executed much prior in time, the market value of the nearby developed land of the same village was much higher than the market value determined by LAC under the present award. The notification for acquiring the land of present reference has been issued after 7 years and 7 months from the date of auction of plot no 4 i.e. 11.10.1996 and the petitioners were awarded compensation at the meager rate of Rs. 3500/- per sq meter, which has worked great in justice to the petitioners. The petitioners are also entitled for appreciation of land rates at the rate of 12% per annum on the reserve price of plot no 4 which effect from 11.10.1996 to 01.06.2004, which is approximately for about 7 years and 7 months and 20 days. The reliance is placed upon the judgment of "Vedi Ram Vs Union of India & Anr,"
93 (2001) DLT, 150, decided on 23.03.2021.LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 54 of 64
89. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments that the sale deeds of the highest market value must be considered for determining the market value unless there are strong reasons for deviation. It is also held in a number of judgments that deduction up to 1/3rd of the highest sale deed consideration may be made on account of largeness of the acquired land, due to the fact that the acquired land has not still developed though the property in the compared sale deed is fully developed. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments:
i. Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. UOI, 176 (2011) DLT 361;
ii. Sri Ram M. Vijayalakshamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of Madras C.A. No. 410 of 1962, decided on 24.04.1963, by Hon'ble Supreme Court; and iii Pratap Singh, through LRs. Vs. UOI & Ors. LA Appeal No. 193/2006 alongwith many other LA appeals, decided on 19.12.2008.
iv Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs Nemi Chand Damodar Dass & Anr" 2022 livelaw (SC), 603.
90. So, it is clear that as per settled law the deduction of around 1/3rd may be made vide fixing compensation payable on account of difference in the level of development between the area of acquired land and the neighbouring area, the sale deed of which is relied for comparison, to make out a case for enhancement of compensation.
91. Hence, in the present case, the deduction on account of development of acquired land for the public purpose would have to be factored in especially keeping in view the hilly terrain of the acquired land and significant engineering skill required for creating an underground water reservoir and water pump house in a hilly terrain.LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 55 of 64
Huge amount is required to be spent on the acquired land for making it plain and for further develop it and to make it suitable for creating an underground water reservoir and water pump house in a hilly terrain and further for creating an underground water reservoir and water pump on the acquired land. Considering the above-said facts, this court deems it fit to make deduction of 1/3rd from the above-said reserve price of Rs. 26,877/- as development charges. After giving appreciation @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.26,877/-, the amount came as Rs 51,509/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount as development charges from the above- said amount, we reached the amount of Rs. 34,340/-.
92. Accordingly, it is held that the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was Rs. 34,340/- per square meter. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
93 FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 3Issue no. 3: Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate?OPP
94. The petitioners are also claiming damages under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have alleged in the reference application that the possession of the acquired land ad measuring 3 bighas and 6 biswas had been taken by the Government illegally and unlawfully, more than 40 years ago without acquiring the said land under the law and even without paying compensation to the LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 56 of 64 petitioner. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the land in question has been in illegal possession/occupation of the respondent no. 2/Delhi Jal Board for the last several years.
95. It has been argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the MCD, Delhi after notification on 13.11.1959 without waiting the announcement of award, took the possession of the land in question, immediately after notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on 13.11.1959. It is further argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to interest under Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act from 13.11.1962 as the possession of the land was taken immediately by respondent no. 2 even prior to the declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.
96. PW-10, who is one of the petitioner has been examined himself in the court by filing his affidavit by way of examination-in- chief. In the affidavit, Ex PW-10/A, PW-10 has not mentioned any date and year on which the respondent no. 2 has taken possession of the land in question from the petitioners. The Affidavit of PW-10 is completely silent about the date, month and year of taking possession of the land in question by the respondents. In the affidavit, the averments regarding taking of possession has been mentioned in para no. 9, wherein it is mentioned that "since the possession of the petitioners' land have been illegally and unauthorizedly obtained/taken over by respondents, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for interest on compensation under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, from the date of possession till the date of payment of compensation".
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 57 of 6497. In his cross examination, PW-10 deposed that he cannot tell since when DJB was in possession of the acquired land since the notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act. He voluntarily deposed that DJB was in unauthorized possession of the land much prior to the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act. He further deposed that he cannot give the exact year since when DJB was in unauthorized possession of the land.
98. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ petition "Phool Singh Vs Union of India" has held that since the respondents had already utilized the land for public purpose, therefore, inquiry under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, is dispensed with.
99. PW-5 has deposed in the Court that the construction of reservoir and pump house was started by the Delhi Jal Board vide work order dated 04.02.2000 Ex. PW-5/1 and he further deposed that the work was re-awarded and completed on 28.08.2008 vide completion report Ex. PW-5/2. The above said fact is not disputed by respondents during examination of PW-5. The respondent no.2 has also admitted in his written statement regarding utilizing the land in question for underground reservoir and pump house by respondent no. 2 before the issuance of notification under section 4 of the L. A. Act.
100. In view of the above-said evidence, the petitioners has succeeded to prove that the land in question was taken from the petitioners by the respondent no. 2 on 04.02.2000 ( As per Ex. PW-5/1) So, the petitioners are entitled for damages under section of 34 Land LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 58 of 64 Acquisition Act at the rate of 6 % per annum on the market value of the acquired land from 04.02.2000 till date of issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act i.e. 01.06.2004.
101. Ld counsel for the Union of India has argued that the Government should not be burdened with interest at the rate of 15% per annum, as per Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, because there was no fault on the part of Union of India for causing delay in deciding the present reference and the delay in the decision of the present reference took place due to title dispute between the co-sharer of the land in question.
102. He further argued that as per settled law the petitioners are not entitled for interest of the period during which their petition under section 30-31 of L.A. Act remained pending for deciding title dispute between them. He further argued that the legal heir of deceased petitioners who filed delayed application for impleadment, should not be granted interest of the delayed period in moving applications.
103. The case file reveals that during the pendency of present reference petition, some of the petitioners were died and the applications for impleadment of legal heirs of deceased petitioners were filed at belated stage after the expiry of limitation period, therefore, it is held that the legal heirs of the deceased petitioners, for whose impleadment applications have been filed at belated stage, after expiry of limitation period shall not be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced compensation, for the delayed period in moving application for LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 59 of 64 impledment as legal heirs of deceased petitioners.
104. The second contention of ld. counsel for Union of India is that the petitioners should not be granted interest on the enhanced compensation of the period, during which their petition under section 30-31 of L.A. Act was remained pending for deciding their iner-se dispute of title as it would unnecessary and without any justification burdened the State Exchequer to pay interest @ 15 % p.a. without any lapse on the part of government.
105. In the present case, the application for sending the reference to the court, has been filed by the petitioners before the LAC, West on 10.07.2007 but the reference to this court has been sent by LAC West on 10.07.2015 after expiry of 8 years. The government authority i.e. LAC West has taken 8 years in sending reference to court.
106. In an appeal ( civil) 667 of 2002, titled Khazan Singh (dead) by LRs vs Union of India, decided on 24.01.2002, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"Section 18 of the Act empowers a person interested in the land to move by a written application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for determination of sthe Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the person interested. If the application for reference is in order the Collector is bound to make a reference of it to the Court."LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 60 of 64
107. In a case titled as K. Kankarathnamma and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1965, AIR 304, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"We say unfortunately because this is not 'a kind of plea which the State ought at all to have taken. Quite clearly applications objecting to the rates at which compensation was allowed were taken in time by persons interested in the lands which were under acquisition and it was no fault of theirs that a reference was not made by the Land Acquisition officer. Indeed, whenever applications are made under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference unless there is a valid ground for rejecting the applications such as for instance that the applications were barred by time. Where an officer of the State is remiss in the performance of his duties in fairness the State ought not to take advantage of this fact "
108. There is no just/reasonable grounds with government authorities to keep the application of petitioners pending for 8 years. There is no justification as to why the application was kept pending for so long. There is unwarranted delay on the part of the officials who have dealt with the application of the petitioners for forwarding the present reference to this court and due to the lapse of the government authority in timely sending the reference petition to the court, the petitioners can not be dis-entitled from receiving interest of such period as there is no lapse on their part. The petitioners have filed application which is required by law to be filed by the petitioners and thereafter it is the duty of LAC, West to send the reference timely to the court. So there is clear negligence on the part of officers who have dealt with the present reference application. Due to negligence of the officers of government, in not sending the reference to the court timely, the State has been LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 61 of 64 burdened unnecessary to pay interest @ 15 % p.a for which the erring officers are liable to compensate the government.
109. In view of the above said fact, this court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled for interest for the entire period.
110. It has already proved above that the petitioners are co- owner/co-sharers of the acquired land to the extent of their shares mentioned in Jamabandi Ex. PW-9/2 and as per the revised statement under section 19 of the L. A. Act and the market value of acquired land for compensation is determined @ Rs. 34,340/- per square meter. So, the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land, as per their shares mentioned in Jamabandi Ex. PW-9/2 and as per revised statement filed u/s 19 of the L.A Act on 4.5.2018. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
111. ISSUE NO-4 (RELIEF):-
112. In view of above discussion and observation, petitioners are held entitled to following reliefs :-
(i) Enhanced compensation @ Rs. 30840/- (Rs.34340- Rs. 3500.00) per sq. meter, over and above the compensation determined by LAC, West @ Rs. 3500/- per sq. meter.
(ii) In addition to the above, the petitioners shall also be entitled for 30% solatium on the enhanced amount.LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 62 of 64
(iii) The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9% from the date of Section-4 notification till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment.
(iv) The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount @ 12 per cent per annum, on the market value fixed in this case, u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of award.
(v) The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount @ 9% from the date of Section-4 notification till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment as per directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 , wherein it has been held that the person entitled to compensation amount would also be entitled to get interest on additional amount as well as solatium.
(vi) In addition to above, the petitioners are also entitled to damages @ 6% p.a. on the market value of the acquired land w.e.f. 04.02.2000 till the Section 4 Notification i.e. 01.06.2004.
(vii) The legal heirs of the deceased petitioners, for whose impleadment applications have been filed at belated stage, after expiry of limitation period, shall not be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced compensation, for the delayed period, in moving application for impleadment as legal heirs of deceased petitioners.
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 63 of 64(viii) The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands allowed accordingly.
113. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Copy of the judgment and decree sheet be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for intimation and compliance.
114. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
SHIV Digitally signed by SHIV
KUMAR
Announced in the open court KUMAR Date: 2024.09.21 15:36:09
+0530
on 21st September, 2024 (SHIV KUMAR)
District Judge-02
(West), Delhi
LAC-110/16 Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 64 of 64