Delhi District Court
Shri Surat Singh vs Union Of India on 9 May, 2008
-:1:- LAC No. 33/2003
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.S.HANDA: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI
LAC No. 33/2003 Award No.: 8/1999-2000
Village : Ghevra
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Shri Surat Singh
2. Shri Mahabir Singh
3. Shri Parkash
All sons of Shri Rattan Singh
4. Shri Balwan Singh
5. Shri Anant Singh
6. Shri Anup Singh
All sons of Shri Azit Singh
S/o Shri Rattan Singh
All R/o Village Ghewra, Delhi The Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority, Through its Vice Chairman, Vikas
Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
The Respondents
Date of Assignment : 03.03.2003
Date of Arguments : 09.05.2008
Date of Decision : 09.05.2008
Appearances : None for petitioners.
Shri S.K.Puri, counsel for UOI/ the Respondent No.1.
AWARD
Vide notification No. F-7(23)/95 L & B/LA/10170 dated
-:2:- LAC No. 33/2003
12.8.1997 under Section 4 and F-7(23)/95 L & B/LA/12691 dated
10.9.1997 under Section 6 & 17, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act
(herein after referred to as the Act), land measuring 66 bighas (including
the land of the petitioner as detailed in the statement under Section 19 of the
Act), situated in the revenue estate of village Ghevra, Delhi, was acquired
by the Government for public purposes namely rehabilitation of JJ cluster.
The Land Acquisition Collector after completing all the requisite
formalities as provided under the Act, announced the Award bearing No. 8
of 1999-2000 of village Ghevra and awarded compensation at the
uniform rate of Rs.2,08,333.33 per bigha for the entire acquired land, in
addition to proportionate solatium, interest, etc.
2. The above mentioned petitioners, were dissatisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition collector, and
filed a petition under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act for proper
determination of the market value which was sent to this court for
adjudication. In the reference petition, the petitioners sought enhancement
of compensation stating that petitioners were the joint owners/bhumidars in
possession of the land in Khasra no. 85/19/3(2-0), 22/2(4-2) situated in the
village Ghewra, Delhi. It was stated that awarded compensation was too
low, unreasonable, inadequate, arbitrary and without considering the
relevant evidence available with the ld. LAC. It was further stated that
LAC did not adopt the correct method of valuation. The land in dispute
was leveled and was fit for any purpose, industrial, commercial or
residential. It was also stated that all facilities, like roads, electricity,
-:3:- LAC No. 33/2003
hospitals, school, college, railway were available there and the value of the
land in dispute was not less than Rs.3000/- to Rs.4,000/- per sq yd. It was
near the Abhor-Fazilka via Rohtak Road. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Depot
and Tikri border were near to it. It was in proximity of PVC market and
National Highways. The land of petitioners were leveled and required only
little development. He was deprived of right of his property as envisaged
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He is entitled to get
reasonable compensation for his land at the prevailing rate which was
Rs.5000/- per squire yards. The petitioners therefore, prayed for
enhancement of the market value of the land and compensation at the rate
of Rs.2000/- per square yard for the land; besides other benefits as per law.
3. In the statement under Section 19 of the Act, it was recorded that
petitioner no.1, Shri Surat Singh, petitioner no.2, Shri Mahabir Singh and
petitioner no.3, Shri Parkash all sons of Shri Rattan Singh to the extent of
one third share each and petitioner no.4, Shri Balwan Singh, petitioner no.5,
Shri Anand Singh and petitioner no.6, Shri Anup Singh all sons of Shri Ajit
Singh S/o Shri Rattan Singh to the extent of one-twelfth share in the land
comprised in Khasra Nos. 85/19/3(2-0) and 22/2(4-2_ total measuring 6
bighas 02 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Ghevra, Delhi -
81. This statement was admitted as correct.
4. The Union of India contested this case on the grounds that the
Delhi Land Reforms Act was applicable to the land in dispute and that
there was no developed or undeveloped colony in the land or that land was
-:4:- LAC No. 33/2003
surrounded by developed colony. There was no structure, tree well or
tubewell on the land in question at the time of publication of notification
under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. There was no ground to enhance the
market value as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The UOI
further pleaded that compensation was correctly assessed and prayed for
dismissal of the claim.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 10.10.2007
following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in
dispute, if so, to what effect?
(ii) To what enhancement of compensation, the petitioner is entitled
to claim, if so, to what amount? OPP
(iii) Relief.
6. As none for the petitioner appeared, therefore, petitioners were
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.05.2008 and evidence of petitioners
was closed.
7. In support of its case, counsel for the respondents tendered in
evidence copy of Award No. 8/99-2000of village Ghevra as Ex. R 1.
8. After closing of evidence by the parties, I heard arguments of
counsels for the respondents and perused file.
9. After going through the pleadings of the parties; examination of
-:5:- LAC No. 33/2003
evidence on record; and considering the arguments of the counsels for the
respondents, my findings on the issues are as under :
FINDINGS OF ISSUE NO.1
10. The burden to prove this issue was on the respondents and they
had to prove as to how applicability of the Act affected the market value of
the land in dispute but both the respondents have failed to adduce any
evidence on this issue. Consequently, it is held that both the respondents
have failed to prove this issue and accordingly this issue is decided in
favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
FINDINGS OF ISSUE NO. 2
11. Ld. LAC vide award no.8/1999-2000 while assessing the
relevant legal provisions, material produced before him rendered the award
below:-
"The claimants have filed the following documents as an
evidence in support of their claim:-
1) Sale Deed No.798 dt. 15.4.99 of Rs. 32,94,000/- for an area
measuring 2-12 bighas, vill. Pochanpur in favour of Radha
Soami Satsang Beas.
The perusal of claims reveals that the claimants hav e filed
claims, which are exorbitantly high. The evidences mentioned above
pertains to one person i.e. Radha Soami Satsang Beas, which is a
registered religious society and a single out case and can not be relied
upon an an evidence, for determination of compensation. The Govt. also
while issuing the circular dt. 11.9.01 might have taken it into consideration
and ignore it. The claims are considered on merit and rejected, since it
does not represent the true market value of the land.
-:6:- LAC No. 33/2003
MARKET VALUE
While determining the market value of the land as on 12.8.97
i.e. date of Notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act 1984. Several
factors such as location of the land, nature of soil, Awards announced in
the recent past of the same or adjoining the villages announcement of
different courts, claims filed by interested persons, sale deed and price
policy of the government regarding persons, sale deed and rice policy of
the government regarding acquisition of agricultural land are to be taken
into consideration.
The land under acquisition is basically agricultural land. An
award no.3/98-99 has been announced. The date of notification under
section-4 11.6.96 of this award.
The interested persons have filed claimed for compensation on
a very high rate @ Rs.2000/- per sq. yard to Rs.50 lakhs per acre, but have
not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claims. The
claims therefore can ot form the basis of determination of market value.
In a policy announcement which came into effect from
financial year 1997-98 i.e. 1.4.97, the government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi fixed the indicative price of agricultural land At Rs. Ten
Lakh per acre for the acquisition of agricultural land.
In view of the absence of any documentary evidence on
record to the contrary, I find Rupees Ten Lakhs per acre to be the most
reasonable price for lthis land. In this the Notification under section 4 was
issued on 12.8.97 and the price of the land is to be determined on the date
of Notification u/s. 4 itself. I accordingly determine the market value of the
land at Rupees ten Lakhs per acre.
xxxxx
SUMMARY OF THE LAND AWARD IS AS UNDER:
1. market value of 66Bigha 9.5 Bisw land @
10 Lakh per acre or Rs.208333.33 per Bigha 1,38,48,958=32
2. Solatium @ Rs.30% of the market value 41,54,687=49
3. (i) Additional amount of the market value
@ Rs.12% P.A. w.e.f. 12.8.97 to 13.11.97
(93) days 4,23,436=64
(ii) Interest u/s 28 @ Rs.9% on the market
value w.e.f. 13.11.97 to 12.11.98 (in one
year) 12,46,406=24
(iii) Interest @ Rs.15% on the market value
w.e.f. 13.11.98 to 9.9.99 (300 days) 17,07,405=82
-:7:- LAC No. 33/2003
4. Compensation of Trees 5,640=00
5. Cost of Removal of Tube well -Koth 2,000=00
-------------------------
2,13,88,534=51
----------------------
It has been submitted by Ld. counsel for respondent/UOI, Shri S.K.Puri that as the award was assailed by the petitioners; the burden to prove that he be awarded compensation at the enhanced rate lay upon him.
To discharge the burden as recorded above, the petitioners did not adduce any evidence. The question arises as to "whether on the basis of bare claim-petition; the petitioners are entitled to relief/any relief prayed for in the petition. On this aspect no case law was supplied/relied upon by the petitioner.
In this perspective; the first point for determination arises as to "whether the bare averments of the petition can be read as having been proved". On this aspect, the settled position of law is that the pleadings which are not supported or proved by way of evidence can not be read and looked into. The bare averments of the petition remained unproved. Unless proved by way of evidence; the averments of the plaint an not be looked into. Because there is no evidence to prove the averments of the petition.
Section 3 defines what the Evidence is. It means and includes -
(i) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters o fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence;
(ii) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.
(v) The averments of the petition, breft of evidence are deemed -:8:- LAC No. 33/2003 as 'not proved' as enshrined u/s 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872'.
As the petitioners failed to prove the contents of claim, so the same can not be read and looked into. Accordingly, it is held that petitioners have failed to prove that they were entitled to and be awarded enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded to him vide award Ex.R-1. The issue is thus answered against the petitioners.
RELIEF Resultants upon the decision of issue No. 2 in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners; it is held that petitioners are not entitled for enhancement of compensation. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Reference is, accordingly, answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.
A copy of award be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector for his information.
Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON ( S.S.HANDA ) THIS 9th DAY OF MAY, 2008. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI