Delhi District Court
Balwan Singh vs Union Of India Through on 28 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH GUPTA:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1 (NORTHWEST):
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No. 294A/12
UID No. 02404C0248682012
IN RE :
BALWAN SINGH
S/O SH. ROSHAN LAL
R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. SHAHBAD DAULATPUR,
DELHI
...... PETITIONER
V.
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
NORTH WEST, DELHI.
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VIKAS SADAN, DELHI.
(D.D.A.)
........RESPONDENTS
Award No. 29/200203
Village SHAHBAD DAULATPUR
Date of Award/ Date of
Announcement of Award 01.11.2002
Notification U/S 4 F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/11394
dated 27.10.1999
Notification U/s 6 F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/20
dated 03.04.2000
LAC No.294A/12 Page 1 of 7
Date of Receipt of Reference :04.08.2012
Date of Arguments : 26.02.2014
Date of Decision: 28.02.2014
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
JUDGMENT
1. This is a reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation awarded vide award no. 29/0203 pertaining to the land as mentioned in the reference u/s 18 LA Act acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 27.10.1999; declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made on 03.04.2000 Award bearing no. 29/0203 was announced by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC") on 01.11.2002. The LAC determined the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.12.16 lacs per acre.
2. The petitioner has challenged the market value of the land determined by the LAC primarily on following grounds : i. that the LAC had not taken into consideration that the potentiality of the land while determining the market value of the land and assessed the market value on the basis of surmises and conjectures;
ii. that the LAC has not considered the fact that land is surrounded by Industrial Area Bawana, GT Road, Industrial Area of Narela, Residential Area of Rohini;
iii. that the LAC has failed to appreciate that government has provided all civic amenities like roads, electricity, telephone, bus services, hospitals, school etc. near and around the land; LAC No.294A/12 Page 2 of 7 iv. that the LAC has erred in not appreciating the fact that land is very fertile and productive and gives at least three crops in a year and the land was having water course connected with the canal; v. that the market value of the land is not less than Rs. 5000/ per sq. yards.
vi. That the LAC has failed to consider that when the land was taken in possession there were vegetables crops on the land and there were standing trees also and LAC has erred in not awarding the sufficient compensation for crops and trees;
3. The petitioner prayed the compensation as under: i. Rs. 5,000/ per sq., besides interest @ 15% and solatium as per law with other statutory benefits;
ii. Rs. 10,000/ per bigha for damage of the standing vegetables; iii. Rs. 20,000/ on account of loss of trees; iv. Rs. 2 lacs for severing charges;
v. Rs. 2 lacs for change of business place.
4. The respondent no. 1 / Union of India and respondent no. 2 / Delhi Development Authority contested the reference petition by filing their respective written statements.
5. The respondents denied the averments pleaded in the reference petition and asserted that the LAC while passing the award has taken into consideration all legal requirements and material on record and has rightly assessed the true market value of the land on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act and compensation awarded by the LAC is just, legal, proper, sufficient and reasonable, therefore, the reference is liable to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner admitted the statement u/s 19 of the Act. The following LAC No.294A/12 Page 3 of 7 issues were framed : i. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount?
ii. Relief.
7. The petitioner has not led any evidence and only relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in LA Appeal no. 358/07, titled as Hem Chander Malik V. UOI.
8. On the other hand respondents have not led any evidence and only counsel for the UOI tendered the award Ex. R1 and closed RE.
9. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1
10. The petitioner has contended that valuation of land determined by the LAC is not reasonable as the LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation. The petitioner in support of his case has relied upon the judgement titled as Hem Chander Malik V. UOI & Others, LA Appeal no. 358/2007 and connected matters passed by the High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 26th September, 2001. The counsel for the petitioner argued that decision in Hem Chander Malik pertained to the same Village, Notifications, Award by which the land is acquired. The counsel for petitioner prayed that same market value LAC No.294A/12 Page 4 of 7 of the land be determined.
11. In Hem Chander Malik case the High Court of Delhi has maintained the market value determined by Reference Court i.e. Rs.12,96,455/ per acre. The relevant observations in Hem Chander Malik case are as under:
"12. The decision highlights that by the year 1997 i.e. when w.e.f. 01.04.1997 minimum price determined by the Government was Rs.10,00,000/ per acre, building potentiality impacting the value of agricultural lands in Delhi had already been factored in and thus I hold that pertaining to the notification dated 27.10.1999, the land value determined by the learned Reference Court is correct."
12. The petitioner has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Hem Chander Malik case. There is no ground/reason to differ from the findings of said judgment. The market value of the land as mentioned in the statement u/s 19 of LA Act is determined @ Rs.12,96,455.89 per acre.
13. The petitioner has also claimed compensation for loss and damages to the standing vegetables, trees, severing charges, and for change of business place. The petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that he is entitled to any compensation for vegetables, trees etc. The petitioner in the absence of any cogent evidence is not entitled to any compensation for vegetables, trees, etc.
14. The petitioner shall also be entitled to statutory benefits i.e. 12% Additional Amount as per section 23(1A), 30% solatium u/s 23 (2), and interest LAC No.294A/12 Page 5 of 7 @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% for subsequent years till the making of payment of enhanced compensation by the LAC as per of Section 28 of the Act.
15. The findings of issues no. 1 are as under : i. Market value of land as mentioned in the statement u/s 19 of LA Act is fixed @ Rs.12,96,455.89 per acre as such giving an enhancement of Rs. 80,455.89 per acre. ii. The petitioner in the absence of any cogent evidence is not entitled to any compensation for vegetables, trees, etc.
16. Issue No. 2 - RELIEF i. Market value of the land as mentioned in the statement u/s 19 of LA Act is fixed @ Rs.12,96,455.89 per acre giving an enhancement of Rs. 80,455.89 per acre;
ii. Additional amount u/s 23 (1A) of the Act @ 12% p.a. from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
iii. Solatium u/s 23(2) of the Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation;
iv. Interest under Section 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 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 payment.
LAC No.294A/12 Page 6 of 7
17. The reference is disposed of accordingly. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room. PASSED & ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY.
(MANISH GUPTA) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1 NORTH WEST/ ROHINI COURTS, DELHI 28.02.2014 LAC No.294A/12 Page 7 of 7