Delhi District Court
Sh. H.C.Khanna vs Union Of India on 27 January, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC NO : 84/1/06 AWARD NO : 03/1999-00
(Old LAC No.121/02) VILLAGE : Delhi Patti.
In the matter of :
1 Sh. H.C.Khanna,
S/o Sh.Amar Nath Khanna,
MP/39, Pitampura, Delhi
2 Sh. Inderpal Khanna
S/o Sh.Amar Nath Khanna,
B-A/362, Tagore Garden,
Delhi
3 Sh. Kuldeep Khanna,
S/o Sh.Amar Nath Khanna,
C-40, Tagore Garden Extn.
Delhi.
4 Sh. Ashok Khanna
S/o Sh.Amar Nath Khanna,
43, Bank Vihar, Pitampura,
Delhi.
5 Sh. Sushil Khanna,
S/o Sh.Amar Nath Khanna,
47-A, Air Force Station,
Arjun Garden, Aya Nagar,
New Delhi. ...Petitioners
Versus
1 Union of India
through Land Acquisition Collector/ADM,
North District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Through its Chairman, NDCC Building,
Bhisham Pitamah Marg, Lodhi road,
CGO Complex, New Delhi.
...Respondents
AWARD REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1 Vide notification No.F7(35)95-L&B/LA/11/5506 dated 12.06.1997 U/s 4 of the LA Act (hereinafter referred to as the ACT) and declaration was also made vide notification No.F7(35)95/L&B/LA/8918 dated 28.07.1997 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act. The land including the land of the petitioners vide bearing kh. no.828/756/419 measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Delhi Patti (Pul Bungash Area), Delhi was acquired by the Govt. for Mass Rapid Transit System. The Delhi Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act passed the award bearing No.03/1999-2000 awarded the compensation @ Rs.1,247/- per sq. mtr.
2 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioners herein filed reference petition U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value which was sent to the reference court. 3 In the reference petition, the petitioners have sought the enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the petitioners are the legal heir of late Sh.Deviditta Mal & late Sh.Hans Raj who had purchased the aforesaid acquired land along with others co-owners late Sh.Agia Ram & late Sh.Kidar Nath in public auction held on 05.01.1959 by the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation against adjustment of the money in respect of their claims of the properties left by them in Pakistan at the time of the partition of the country. The petitioners, became the legal heir after their death and were in possession and use of the acquired land in question. The compensation amount which has been awarded and being paid at the rate of Rs.1,247/- per sq. yard is neither fair nor reasonable and is too low taking into consideration the nature and potential values of the land in question. The land owned by the petitioners was purchased by their ancestors against the adjustment of amount of the compensation of their properties left in Pakistan. The land owned by the petitioners is situated on the main high- way and abutted on more than 100 ft. wide road on its front. It is situated between the two important railway stations of the capital viz. Sabzi Mandi and Kishanganj. It is also situated in close proximity of the highly developed commercial area and biggest business centres like Azad Market, Sabzi Mandi, old Rohtak Road, rohtak Road and Sadar etc. The market price of the land even at the time of acquisition of the land was not less than Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per sq. mtr and even the L&DO land rates as notified by the Government for the land price in this area is much more than awarded by the LAC for the land in question. On these grounds, the petitioners have filed this reference petition.
4 The UOI, in its written statement has raised the objections on the ground that the Delhi Land Reform Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The correctness of the khasra nos., their area and the extent of share of the petitioners therein admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished U/s 19 of the LA Act. In response to notice issued by the LAC U/sec 9 & 10 of the LA Act and petitioners has preferred claim. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or un-developed colony and can only be used for agricultural. There was no structure, tree, well, or tube well on the land in question at the time of publication of notification U/sec. 4 of the LA Act.
5 DMRC, in its written statement, has stated that the petitioner is said to be one of the legal heir of co-owners (late Sh.Devidutta Mal, Sh.Hans Raj, Sh.Agia Ram and Sh.Kedar Nath) of vacant plot no.829/756/419 measuring 1 bigha and 11 biswas. The possession of the plot was taken on 10.08.2000. The land was taken over vide LAC award No.03/1999-2000. The land in question was vacant land/ plot having no structure on the plot only one boundary wall existed towards the road side and the land was required for MRTS Project for Pratap Nagar Station. The amount of the compensation awarded by the LAC is adequate and just. All the averments made in the reference petition have been denied except those specifically admitted in the written statement by DMRC.
6 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this court on 22.03.2006 which are as under :
1 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. OPP 2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation, if so, to what extent? OPP 3 Relief
7 The petitioners in support of their case for enhancement in compensation have examined Sh.Joginder Lal Malhotra S/o late Sh.Diwan Chand Malhotra as PW1 who has exhibited the copy of the award no.5/DC/N/2001-2002 as Ex.PW1/1 and the copy of the award No.12/2001- 2002 as Ex.PW1/2. Sh.Subhash Malhotra S/o late Sh.Bhagwan Dass Malhotra has been examined as PW2. Sh.Roop Singh, LDC from Land & Development office, Govt. of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi has been examined as PW3 who has proved the schedule of market rates, Ministry of Urban Affiars & Employment, Land Devisioin, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi as Ex.PW3. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the award no.3/1999-2000 of village Delhi Patti dt. 30.07.1999 as Ex.R-1. Photocopy of the sale deed executed & registered on 26.05.1959 as Mark-A. Photocopy of the sale deed dt. 04.07.1958 as Mark-B. (the attested copies of the said sale deeds have already been exhibited in LAC No.56/1/06. The copy of the sale deed no.2046 executed & registered on 13.03.1995 by Ms. Shamina Khatoon & Ors in favour of Ms.Amna Bi as Ex.R-2. Copy of sale deed no.7421 executed & registered on 14.01.1997 as Ex.R-3. (certified copies of the said sale deeds have already been filed in LAC NO.76/1/06). 8 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have perused the entire records. My issue-wise findings are as under:- ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 9 The issue nos. 1 & 2 are inter connected and I shall decided both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioners. The petitioners have sought enhancement in compensation on the aforesaid grounds which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Before considering & evaluating the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. 12.06.1997 U/sec. 4 of the LA Act, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :
''The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes'' In P.Ram Reddy & Others Vs Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & Ors (1995) 2 Supreme Court cases 305, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that :
''Building potentiality has to be decided on the basis of material placed on record or made available and as such material must be supported by reliable documentary evidence. Therefore, if the acquired land has the building potentiality, its value, like the value of any other potentiality of the land should necessarily be taken into account for determining the market value of such land.'' In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam Vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
''In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.''
10 The LAC, in the award no.3/1999-2000 Ex.R-1, has considered the claims of the 63 interested persons including the petitioners herein and decided their claims that ''in response to the notices issued U/s 9 & 10 of the LA Act, as many as 63 claims were received from the interested persons. The list of claims and evidence has been attached herewith containing full details. But in support of claims/ demands put forth by the claimants, no logical reasons have been submitted neither any documentary evidence have been enclosed in support of thier claims''. Further, the LAC in the said award Ex.R-1 while assessing the market value of the acquired land as on 12.06.1997 i.e. the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act has also considered several factors such as location of the land, claims filed by the interested persons, sale prices of similar lands sold in the neighbourhood over a period of five years before the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. 11 The sale deeds of the land situate Pul Bangash, Azad Market, Malka Ganj, Jawahar Nagar & Subzi Mandi from the year 1993 to 1997 have been considered by the LAC in the award Ex.R-1. In the said sale deeds, the rate is varying from 324.00 per sq. yard to 2857.14 per sq. yard. The LAC, to remove the inconsistencies among these prices, calculated and taken into consideration the average sale price which worked out to Rs.1303/- per sq. yard. The LAC further considered that this sale consideration includes the sale price of land and sale price of structures appurtenant thereto. In this area, the structures are quite old and are constructed in a haphazard manner. The quality of consitruction is poor, most of these are temporary sheds. Hence, the LAC considered appropriate ratio of the cost of land to the cost of construction at 80 : 20 i.e. 80% to the cost of land and 20% to the cost of structure. On this principle, according to the LAC, the average sale price of the land only works out to Rs.1043/- per sq. yard or Rs.1,247/- per sq. mtr. Besides the above method, another method of using the 'Schedule of Market Rates' issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Govt. of India for land transfers in Delhi was also considered. As per the schedule, the prices for land transfer for the corresponding period i.e. 01.04.1996 till 31.03.1998 which comes to Rs.6300/- per sq. mtr for residential areas and Rs.12,600/- per sq. mtr. for commercial areas have been noted and before arriving at fair market value, the LAC observed the following factors including the land under acquisition :
A The nature of land use is mixed. Petty commercial establishments, non-conforming household industries, one go- down, small rooms on top of the shops used for residence, cover the area.
B The area is not located on the main road and can be approached through a narrow opening from the main road. C The area is surrounded by squatter settlements on the front and railway line on the back.
12 The LAC observed that perusal of the above factors indicates that the potential for development in this area is very limited. Therefore, keeping the above in mind, the LAC considered that the rates indicted by the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment are on a very higher side particularly for this area in comparison to the actual registered rates on transfer of similar lands.
Thus, the LAC considered the market value arrived at by averaging the registered sale prices registered over five years of similar lands in the neighbourhood as the 'Fair Market Value' which was assessed at Rs.1,247/- per sq. mtr for the land and the same was finalized as the basis for compensation.
13 I would also prefer to place a reliance upon the judgment dt. 03.03.2005 in WP (C ) 76-79/2004 titled Chet Ram Sharma & Ors Vs UOI & Ors, the land situate in village Bahapur, New Delhi was acquired vide the notification dt. 28.11.2002 U/s 4 (1) r/w/sec. 17 (1) (4) of the LA Act, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that :
''Not much material has been placed before us which could help the court to determine the fair market value of the land in question while the petitioners have placed whole emphasis on the fact that the land sought to be acquired by the respondents vide their notification U/s 4 dt. 28.11.2002 is part of a fully developed commercial area and has great potential and they are entitled to the present market value prevalent in the area at the relevant time. The petitioners rely upon the public auction conducted by the DDA in relation to plot No. 70, Nehru Place, wherein the land was auctioned at a price of Rs.1,91,666/- per sq. mtr. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi further observed that it was concerned only with the fixation of a fair market price of the land, prima facie. While determining prospective use of the land or its future potential and development by itself, cannot be the only basis for the court to determine the market value of the acquired land. It is for the claimants to prove on record that the land or its surrounding areas have been fully developed at the time of notification. Granting of compensation is a mtter of serious consequence and thus cannot be based upon the element of conjuncture. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.G. Kulkarani Vs Special Land Acqusition Officer JT 1996 (4) SC 220 as well as Trilochan Singh Vs State of Punjab 1995 LACC 283 SC. Normally, the auction by public authorities of fully developed plots cannot be stated to be a fair guiding factor for determining the fair market value of the land sought to be acquired by the Government at a subsequent stage. Of course, location, potential, utility would be the relevant factors which the court upon due proof by the claimant, may take into consideration. Auction of a developed plot by a public authority may not be a proper guide for determination of such compensation. It will be appropriate to refer to the judgment in the case of Santa (Died) & Ors Vs State of Haryana & Anr 2000 (2) PLR 501 while referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of that Court, it was held as under:-
''It is settled principle of law that the plot which are developed by the Government or its instrumentalities in the larger public interest after incurring huge expenditure cannot form basis for determining the compensation payable to the land being acquired by the Government for achieving that very public purpose. The cost indicated includes various other ingredients and does not indicate the excessive cost factor of the land price. It was for the claimants to bring appropriate evidence on record for bifurcation of such costing before they could derive any benefit from such documents.
This court has the occasion to discuss the relevancy of such public auctions or allotment of plots by the public bodies in different cases. In the case of State of Haryana and another V.Ram Chander and others, RFA No. 37 of 1996 decided on 13.05.1999 while considering somewhat similar question where auctions were held by HUDA of commercial areas, the Court observed as under:-
''Those instances are to my mind not relevant considerations for determining the fair market value of the acquired land at the time of notification. Varied reasons can be given for rejecting these instances. Firstly, these plots are developed plots on which the Government or HUDA has already spent considerable amount. Secondly, these are commercial sites and can never be equated to the value of huge agricultural land like the land acquired in the present case. Thirdly, these auction prices are not true index of a fair market value of the land at the relevant time because of the element of speculation and unfair competition in such auctions. Fourthly, the auctions have an element of uncertainty and they cannot be equated to a sale deed. It will depend on the terms and conditions of the auction because normally very meager amount in payable at the time of auction and balance is to be paid in instalments. Whether balance amount was paid or not, whether final documents of lease-deed or sale deed were executed in favour of the bidder? Ex. P31 and Ex. P32 are based on such terms only and lastly but not the least these are such small pieces of land that they cannot form a reasonable and fair basis for determination of compensation payable to the claimants. Once this evidence is held to be irrelevant, the compensation cannot be granted on the mere asking of the claimants which they stated in their examination in chief and PW3, PW4 and PW9 respectively.
Again in the case of State of Haryana Vs Rajinder Kumar, RFA No. 2351 of 1998 decided on 03.06.1999 the court held as under:-
''Serious expenditure and efforts are put in by the State or authorities like PUDA before the developed, residential or commercial plots are put to public auction. Cost of land is one of the components of the minimum auction price fixed by the authorities. Auction price is not the price indicative only of the cost of land. It includes various other factors and components in its composition. It is a matter of public knowledge that it includes maintenance, construction and maintenance of roads in times to come, element of interest payable on different heads and other ancillary factors. An auction/bid is primarily is a speculative feature.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid WP ( C) 76-79/2004 held that :
''Thus, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the auction held by the DDA in regard to plot No. 70 in the year 1995 cannot be the sale criteria for determining the compensation payable to the land owners, prima facie, and at this stage of the proceedings. We would not prefer to rely upon this document as the petitioner can hardly be permitted to take undue advantage of public obligations of the Government and its development policies.'' It was further held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that :
''Admittedly the area has been developed by the DDA as a commercial area. However, under the lay out plan, the area was marked only for public utility services and thus it cannot get any commercial value.'' 14 Sh.Subhash Malhotra/ PW2 has deposed in his affidavit that the land use of the land was commercial on the date of notification and huge multi-
stored commercial building has been constructed on the land of the petitioners. PW2 has further deposed that in between Rohtak Road and Roshanara Raod almost entire land is built up and being used for commercial purposes. Lands of Pul Bangash and Ram Bagh award award are touching each other having same potentiality and adjoin same amenties and facilities. In this context, whether the land in question may be treated either residential or commercial, a reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported in the case of M.C.Mehta Vs UOI & Ors AIR 2006 SC 1325, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :
''For dealing with the question of power of MCD to seal the premises in case of misuser, it is necessary to examine few provisions of the DMC Act. The expression 'building' is defined in Section 2 (3) of the DMC Act as a house, out-house, stable, latrine, urinal, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall) or any other structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material but does not include any portable shelter.
The expression 'land' as per section 2 (24) includes benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and rights created by law over any street.
Section 2 (26) defines 'market' as under :
'Sec. 2 (26) - ''market'' includes any place where persons assemble for the sale of, or for the purpose of exposing for sale, meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, animals intended for human food or any other articles of human food whatsoever, with or without the consent of the owner of such place notwithstanding that there may be no common regulation for the concourse of buyers and sellers and whether or not any control is exercised over the business of, or the person frequenting, the market by the owner of the place or by any other person;'' Sec. 2 (34) defines 'Occupier' as under :
Sec.2 (34) ''Occupier'' includes -
(a) any person who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building in respect of which such rent is paid or is payable;
(b) an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using his land or building;
(c ) a rent-free tenant of any land or building;
(d) a licensee in occupation of any land or building; and
(e) any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for the use and occupation of any land or building;'' U/sec. 2 (59) 'trade premises' means :
''2 (59) - ''trade premises'' means any premises used or intended to be used for carrying on any trade or industry;'' ''Sec. 331 Definition -
(C ) to convert into a dwelling house any building or any part of a building not originally constructed for human habitation or, if originally so constructed, subsequently appropriated for any other purpose;
(h) to convert into a stall, shop, warehouse or godown, stable, factory or garage any building not originally constructed for use as such or which was not so used before the change;
(j) to convert into or use as a dwelling house any building which has been discontinued as or appropriated for any purpose other than, a dwelling house.'' Clause (c), (h) & (j) are very significant. These clauses bring in the concept of user of a building.
It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
''in respect of an area where the notified/ specified land use is residential, sanction for erection of a commercial building cannot be accorded, as is apparent from sub-section (2) of Section 336.
Section 347 contains a specific prohibition for change of the use of any land or building. The said section reads as under :
''Sec. 347 Restrictions on uses of buildings. - No person shall, without the written permission of the Commissioner, or otherwise than in conformity with the conditions, if any, of such permission - (a) use or permit to be used for human habitation any part of a building not originally erected or authorized to be used for that purpose or not used for that purpose before any alteration has been made therein by any work executed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the bye-laws made thereunder:
(b) change or allow the change of the use of any land or building;
(c) convert or allow the conversion of one kind of tenement into another kind.'' A bare perusal of building bye-laws shows how relevant is the user, commercial or residential, and the large impact of occupation load on various facilities including water, sanitation and drainage.
Provision for household industries in residential areas does not mean converting residential houses in the commercial shops. It only means permitting activities of household industry in a part of a residential property. It does not mean that residential properties can be used for commercial and trading activities and sale and purchase of goods. Master Plan contemplates shops in District Centres, community Centres, Local Shopping Centres etc. and not in residential areas.
In respect of planning, reference can usefully be made to Section 313 of the DMC Act as well. The said section provides for the requirement of layout plan of the land. It, inter alia, provides that before utilizing, selling or otherwise dealing with any land U/sec. 312, the owner thereof shall send to the Commissioner a written application with a layout plan of the land showing various particulars including the purpose for which the building will be used. For breach of Section 313, action can be taken U/sec. 314. It has rightly not been disputed by any counsel that neither layout plan, nor the building plan, can be sanctioned by MCD except in the manner and for the purpose provided in the Master Plan. If in the master plan, the land use is residential, MCD cannot sanction the plan for any purpose other than residential.
Building Bye-Laws for the Union Territory of Delhi, 1983, in particular Bye-Law Nos. 2.17, defining the expressions 'Conversion' and ''To Erect' which reads as under:
''2.17. Conversion - The change of an occupancy to another occupancy or change in building structure or part thereof resulting into change of space or use requiring additional occupancy certificates''.
The introduction of the ad hoc Registration Scheme would not only regularize the illegalities but further encourage more illegalities to take place by sending a wrong message underlying the press release. This ad hoc scheme has been stayed by this Court.
Mr. Ashwini Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for MCD, also contended that since there is a large scale misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes, it is a physical impossibility to remove the misuser. The contention deserves outright rejection.'' 15 It is crystal clear that the petitioners have not been able to prove that the acquired land was the commercial land as per the master plan. The commercial and business activities on the acquired land does not change the use of the land from residential to commercial. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the case of the petitioners on the aspect of use of land is squarely covered in the aforesaid case of M.C.Mehta Vs UOI (Supra).
Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to the commercial rate of the acquired land.
16 The petitioners, in support of their claim for enhancement in compensation, have relied upon the copy of the award no.5/DC/N/ 2001- 2002 as Ex.PW1/1 and the copy of the award No.12/2001-2002 as Ex.PW1/2. PW3 has also proved the 'Schedule of Market Rate' as Ex.PW3/1. In Ex.PW1/1, the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act pertaining to the land situate at Pul Bangash- Roshanara Road Area forming part of village Delhi Patti was issued on 08.08.2000 wherein, the LAC assessed the market value @ Rs.6,930/- per sq. mtr as on 08.08.2000 and in Ex.PW1/2, the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act pertaining to the village/ area situate at Mehta Building, Old Rohtak Road, Ram Bagh, Delhi was issued on 15.10.2001 wherein the LAC assessed the market value @ Rs.6,930/- per sq. mtr. The LAC, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land in the Ex.PW1/1 & Ex.PW1/2, considered the indicative market value of the land for residential purposes as per the schedule of market rates notified by the Govt. Whereas, in the award of the present reference Ex.R-1, the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act pertaining to the village situate at Ram Bagh area forming part of Delhi village/ Delhi Patti was issued on 12.06.1997 wherein the LAC assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,247/- per sq. mtr. The LAC assessing the fair market value of the acquired land situate at Ram Bagh area Delhi Patti in the present reference also considered the method of using the 'Schedule of Market Rates' issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Govt. of India, for land transfers in Delhi and as per the schedule, the prices for land transfer for the corresponding period i.e 01.04.1996 till 31.03.1998 comes to Rs.6,300/- per sq. mtr. for residential areas and Rs.12,600/- per sq. mtr for commercial areas but the LAC considered the indicative price as per the schedule of market rate on a very higher side without giving any cogent reasons in his award and assessed the market value at Rs.1,247/- per sq. mtr on the basis of sale prices. 17 It is strange that on the one hand, the LAC in the award Ex.R-1 herein is relying upon the sale deeds for fixing the market value without giving any justified or cogent reasons for not considering the indicative rates i.e. schedule of market rates of the Govt. On the other hand, the LACs in the aforesaid award Ex.PW1/1 & Ex.PW1/2 have relied upon the schedule of market rates of the Govt. while fixing the market value of the acquired land as on 08.08.2000 & 15.10.2001 of the same area which are situated at Pul Bangash - Roshanara Road area forming part of village Delhi Patti and Rohtak Road, Ram Bagh, Delhi. The land in question is also situate at Ram Bagh forming part of Delhi village/ Delhi Patti. The counsel for the respondents have also relied upon the photocopy of the sale deed executed & registered on 26.05.1959 as Mark-A and photocopy of the sale deed dt. 04.07.1958 as Mark-B of which the attested copies have been exhibited in LAC No.56/1/06. The copy of the sale deed no.2046 executed & registered on 13.03.1995 by Ms. Shamina Khatoon & Ors in favour of Ms.Amna Bi as Ex.R-2 and copy of sale deed no.7421 executed & registered on 14.01.1997 as Ex.R-3, certified copies of which have already been filed in LAC NO.76/1/06. Mark-A and Mark-B are the sale deeds executed in the year 1958 & 1959 which cannot be considered relevant for fixing the market value of the land in question in the year 1997. Ex.R-2 & Ex.R-3 are the also the sale deeds of the land situate at village Pul Bangash & Roshanara Road which were executed on 13.03.1995 and 14.01.1997 respectively. Here, I would like to point out that the sale prices of the land or the properties for fixing the fair market value of the acquired land on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act have to be considered if the market rates of the area wherein the land situate has been acquired have not been fixed by the Govt. but in the present reference, the Govt. has already fixed the market rates of the area where the land in question situate for residential/ commercial purposes on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. Rs.6,300/- per sq. mtr. for residential purposes. Therefore, the aforesaid sale deeds relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are not applicable and cannot be considered as the basis for fixing the fair market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that the market value of the land in question situate at Ram Bagh area forming part of Delhi village/ Delhi Patti acquired vide the notification dt. 12.06.1997 u/s 4 of the LA Act was at Rs.6,300/- per sq. mtr. These issues are answered accordingly. RELIEF 18 In view of my findings on issue nos.1 & 2, the market value of the land of the petitioners situate at Ram Bagh area forming part of Delhi Village/Delhi Patti acquired vide the notification dt. 12.06.1997 U/sec. 4 of the LA Act is fixed @ Rs.6,300/- per sq. mtr. as per the details mentioned in the statement u/sec.19 of the LA Act. Besides it, the petitioners shall also be entitled to get additional amount u/sec. 23 (1A) of LA Act @ 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier. The petitioners shall also get solatium u/sec. 23 (2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest u/sec. 28 of LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex court titled Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. This reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 27.01.2007 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
LAC No. 84/1/06
27.01.2007
Present- None
Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/27.01.2007