Delhi District Court
Sh. Nand Lal vs Union Of India on 8 March, 2007
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No. 285/04 (Old LAC No. 217/2001)
IN RE :-
SH. NAND LAL
S/O SH. JODHA RAM
R/O VILLAGE BAWANA,
DELHI.
...... PETITIONER
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING,
VIKAS BHAWAN,
ITO, NEW DELHI.
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
3. THE C.R.P.F.
THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL,
AT C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI.
........ RESPONDENTS
Award No. 1/96-97
Village Bawana
Date of Award/ Date
of Announcement of Award 23.04.1996
Page 1 of 18
Notification U/s 4 F.7 (33)95-L&B/LA/1606
dt. 21.06.1995
Notification U/s 6 F.7 (33)95-L&B/LA/2397
dt. 08.02.1996
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
Date of Order of Remand Back: 30.09.2004
Date of Decision: 08.03.2007
JUDGMENT
1.0 These proceedings have arisen out of order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30.09.2004 in RFA Nos. 356/02 and 70/2003, vide which the Hon'ble High Court set aside judgment/award of the Learned Predecessor court dated 26.02.2002. Vide abovesaid order, the Hon'ble High Court, while setting aside the award, directed this court to permit the parties to lead evidence as to yield and decide the reference in accordance with law after considering the fresh evidence recorded as well as the evidence already on record. 1.1 Accordingly the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
Page 2 of 18 2.0 The brief facts as per the reference petition are that the petitioner was in cultivatory possession of full share of land measuring 4 bigha 16 biswa as comprised in khasra no. 53/3, (4-16) situated in the revenue estate of Village Bawana, Delhi. The said land was acquired vide award no.1/96-97. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") awarded compensation @ Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre for 'A' category (Rs. 96,875/- per Bigha) and Rs. 3.36 Lacs per acre for 'B' category land (Rs. 70,000/- per bigha). The petitioner not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by LAC, challenged the same under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') before the LAC, who forwarded the same to this court, for adjudication.
2.1. The petitioner has challenged the award on the following grounds that:
i) the market value as assessed by LAC is very low and inadequate and does not represent true and correct market value of petitioner's land ;Page 3 of 18
ii) the LAC has failed to appreciate that the land of the petitioner is adjacent to Narela Township Project of DDA :
iii) the LAC has failed to appreciate that the land of the petitioner was levelled throughout and can be used for residential/commercial/industrial purpose, without incurring much investment ;
iii) all the amenities and facilities of life, like water, electricity, metalled road, general market, post office, Banking facility, Hospitals, Higher Secondary school, Fire Station, Police Station, Telephone Exchange, Narela Railway Station, Narela Anaj Mandi, Ghogha Airport are available to the petitioner's land.
Petitioner prayed for compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yard besides solatium @ 30% and other statutory benefits, Rs. 80,000/- per bigha for standing crops, Rs. 50,000/- for the trees and Rs. 3,00,000/- for well, tubewell and structure. 3.0 The reference petition was contested by the respondents Page 4 of 18 i.e. Union of India (hereinafter referred to as 'UOI') as well as by Central Reserved Police Force (hereinafter referred to as "CRPF"). UOI, vide its written statement submitted that the land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can be used only for agriculture; there was no standing crops, well and trees on the land in question at the time of publication of notification u/s. 4 of LA Act etc. 3.1 The respondents defended the award and asserted that compensation granted by the LAC is adequate, just and legal. They contended that the LAC, while making the award, had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of all the documents which were made available and produced before him. LAC had also taken into consideration the area of the land and other amenities/facilities available thereon, while assessing the compensation.
4.0 On the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. predecessor Court had framed the following issues on 29.11.2001 :- Page 5 of 18
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so to what amount ?
2. Relief.
5.0 The petitioner in support of his claim had earlier tendered the following documents:
1. Judgment in LAC No. 214/2001 titled as Shri Rajesh Kumar V/s. UOI & Ors. decided on 07.01.2002, Ex.P1.
5.1 The respondents earlier had placed on record award Ex.R1, as evidence in support.
6.0 Thereafter, arguments were heard by the ld. predecessor and vide judgment dated 26.02.2002, the ld. Predecessor had determined the market value of the land in question @ Rs. 1,55,000/-
per bigha, for 'A' category land as on 21.06.1995 i.e. the date of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, on the basis of the rate of compensation determined by him in other reference of the same village Bawana and acquired by the same notification and compensation was ascertained by the same award i.e. Judgment in Page 6 of 18 LAC No. 214/2001 titled as Shri Rajesh Kumar V/s. UOI & Ors. decided on 07.01.2002, Ex.P1, relied upon by the petitioner. 7.0 Petitioner as well as Respondent no. 2, CRPF preferred appeal against the said judgment. As mentioned in para 1 supra, the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 30.09.2004 had set-aside the order of the Ld. Predecessor court on the ground that land sought to be acquired was agricultural land and as no evidence was led as to yield, which has a bearing in determining the amount of compensation. The matter was remanded back to this court to provide opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in this regard. 7.1 Subsequently, after the matter was remanded back to this court by the Hon'ble High court, with liberty to both the parties to lead evidence, as to yield of the land, the petitioner did not lead any evidence with regard to the agricultural yield and petitioners' income therefrom. The petitioner has simply filed copy of Land & Building Department's letter dated 24.09.1998 fixing the indicative price of agricultural land Mark-P-1 and copy of Award No. 22/97-98, village Holambi Kalan Mark-P-2. Petitioner also placed Page 7 of 18 reliance upon the Hon'ble High Court's judgment dated 11.05.2006 in L.A. Appeal No.866/2005 titled as Mahender Singh v/s. Union of India and others.
7.2 So far as the respondents are concerned, after remand back of the case, the respondents, filed in evidence, the following documents :-
1. Copy of sale deed dated 13.8.96, executed by one Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Baldev Singh in favour of one Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kishan with respet of land situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi vide registeration No. 5348, Book No. 1, Vol. No. 131 pages 187 to 194, Ex-R1.
2. Copy of judgment of the Predecessor Court dated 30.11.2004 in LAC No. 199/03 titled as Sh. Gajraj Vs. UOI relating to award No. 22/97- 98, village Bawana, Ex-R2.
3. Copy of judgment of the Predecessor Court dated 31.08.2004 in LAC No. 379/03 titled as Chajju Vs. UOI relating to award No. 1/97-98, village Bawana, Ex-R3.
8.0 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as Page 8 of 18 respondents. I have also carefully considered the record. My issue- wise findings are given hereinafter.
9.0 Findings on Issue No.1 9.1 Petitioner has contended that his land was levelled throughout and had all the facilities. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation much more than the rate fixed by the LAC.
The petitioner has neither made any submissions about agricultural yield from his land. Nor has the petitioner led any evidence as to agricultural yield/produce from the said land and his income from the same, either prior to or after the remand back of the case.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1564 has held that the onus is on the claimant/petitioner to prove that his land is capable of fetching higher compensation than what has been determined by the LAC and that he is entitled for enhanced compensation. The onus was upon the petitioner to lead evidence as to the agricultural yield of his land. Page 9 of 18 Moreso, in view of the fact that the petitioner was given an opportunity to lead evidence in this regard, by the Hon'ble High Court, while remanding the matter back to the reference court, in his own appeal/petition. The petitioner has failed to prove the produce/yield he was getting from the land in question and his income from the crops grown by him. In view of same, I find that the petitioner has failed to discharge the said onus.
In view of above, I find that the petitioner has failed to prove his claim for enhancement in compensation on the basis of agricultural yield/income.
9.2 Now coming to the petitioner's contention that his land was capable of fetching not less than Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards at the relevant time as it had great potential being fit for usage for residential purpose/commercial/industrial purpose without much investment ; and that his land had great potential due to its location in the vicinity of Narela Township, and because of availability of all the amenities & facilities of modern life viz. electricity, metalled road, markets, Bank, Post Office, Telephone, etc. which also enhanced the value of petitioner's land.
Page 10 of 18
Ld. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand argued that the land of the petitioner was basically agricultural in nature ; this court therefore, can not look into the rates of residential land of that village or of neighbouring villages for the reason that those pertain to developed colonies.
9.2.1. The respondents' plea that acquired land was purely agricultural in nature and cannot be compared with residential/commercial lands, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that UOI's said plea was duly considered and rejected by the Hon'ble High Court, in Mahender Singh's case (supra). In the said case, while disposing of appeals preferred by number of claimants, the Hon'ble High Court, after deliberating upon the potential of land of village Bawana acquired vide award no. 1/97-98 observed that it can safely be concluded that the land of village Bawana had a declared potential of user as residential and commercial purposes. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the land in question had the potential of being used for residential/commercial purposes. But at the same time, it needs to be examined whether the petitioner has Page 11 of 18 been able to demonstrate that his land was capable of fetching the market price of not less than @ Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yds. 9.2.2. The petitioner has failed to lead any evidence by way of sale instances or otherwise, in support of his claim that his land could have fetched more than Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yds.
On the other hand, the respondents have argued that if land rates of similar lands are to be considered, then the sale deed Ex.R2 be referred to. According to Ex. R2, the market value of the land of village Bawana in the year 1996 was Rs.14,117/- per bigha only. The respondents have also relied upon the judgments of Ld. Predecessor Court Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3, pleading that petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement in compensation. It would be pertinent to mention here that judgments Ex. R-2 has already been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 27.04.2006 in L.A. Appeal No.91/2005 titled as "Gajraj Singh v/s. Union of India & Others and Ex. R-3 has also been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court vide a common judgment dated 11.05.2006 in LA Appeal Nos. 874-78/05, as per LA Appeal No. 866/05 titled as titled as Mahender Singh v/s. Union of India & others . Thus Ex. Page 12 of 18 R-2 and Ex. R-3 are of no assistance to respondent no. 2.
So far as Ex. R-1, is concerned, the same pertains to sale of land measuring about 4 bigha 5 biswas for a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 13.08.1996. As per the same, the rate of land per bigha would come to nearly Rs.14,117/- per bigha. It is seen that LAC has already awarded rate much more than Rs.14,117/- per bigha. CRPF has not explained, how does this sale deed support their contention about prevalent rate. Further, it would also be pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court while considering the same sale deed, in Mahender Singh's case (supra) , has observed that this amount (Rs. 14,117/-) can no way be considered even relevant for determining the compensation payable to the claimants as the Collector himself has given much higher value which cannot be disturbed by the Court.
In view of the above, as the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence in support of his claim, I find that the petitioner has failed to prove his claim that his land would have fetched a minimum price of Rs. 10,000/- per square yards.
9.3. Now coming to petitioners' contention that LAC has Page 13 of 18 awarded inadequate compensation completely ignoring the fact that due to development in the area, the land prices were going up.
I have perused the award Ex. R-1. It is seen that with regard to assessment of market value LAC at page 12 of the award has observed that :-
".............. The interested persons have claimed exorbitant prices of their land by making claims from Rs. 500/- per sq. yds., to Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yds., and Rs. 60 lacs per acre. They have, however, not filed any documentary evidence in support of their claims. The claims, therefore, cannot form the basis of determination of market value.
In a policy announcement which came into effect from 27.4.90 the Government of Delhi fixed the minimum price of agricultural land @ Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre for the acquisition of agricultural land.
In view of the absence of any documentary evidence on record to the contrary, I find Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre to be the most reasonable price for best land i.e. Land falling in 'A' Block. I accordingly determine the market value of the 'A' Block land @ Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre or Rs. 96,875/- per bigha."Page 14 of 18
From the above, it is clear that LAC has assessed the market value of the land on the basis of policy of Govt. of NCT, Delhi dated 03.05.1990, as per which minimum price of agricultural land was determined as Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre w.e.f. 27.04.1990.
The market value of the land has to be determined as on the date of notification U/s 4 LA Act. The said notification in the instant case was issued on 21.6.95. Whereas, the LAC has determined the market value as on 27.4.90. Further, LAC has failed to take into account the trend in land prices during the period between 27.04.1990 and the date of notification u/s 4 LA Act in the instant case i.e. 21.6.95. It cannot be denied that land prices were going up during the period, due to development in the area. LAC has not taken the same into account. Thus, to arrive at a fair market value of the said land, I am of the considered opinion that escalation of 12% p.a. on the minimum agricultural price of Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre for agricultural land from 27.4.90 till 21.6.95 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 LA Act, shall be reasonable. In this regard, I find support from the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Rameshwar Solanki & another Vs UOI & another, AIR 1995 DELHI 358, Page 15 of 18 wherein also escalation at the rate of 12% per annum was allowed to arrive at a fair market value. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Tindey Vs Ors. VS UOI & Ors, 2000(54) DRJ(DB) 384. The Division Bench of Hon"ble High Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr., 93 (2001), DLT 150 (DB), has held the increase of 12% p.a., to be reasonable.
Giving the escalation of 12% p.a., on the amount of Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre w.e.f 27.4.90 to 21.6.95, i.e., for the period of 5 years and 2 months, the amount of compensation for 'A' category of land would be Rs. 7,53,300/- per acre, i.e. Rs. 1,55,000/- per bigha (Rs. 4,65,000/- x 12/100 x 5 yrs. 2 months + Rs. 4,65,000/-).
The above market price of Rs. 7,53,300/- gives enhancement of Rs. 2,88,300/- per acre [ Rs. 7,53,300/- - Rs. 4,65,000/- ] i.e. Rs. 58,125/- per bigha.
As the petitioner's entire land is of category 'A', the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs. 7,53,300/- per acre or Rs. 1,55,000/- per bigha.
9.4 The findings on Issue no.1 may be summarized here Page 16 of 18 under:
i) Petitioner has failed to prove his claim for enhanced compensation (a) on the basis of agricultural yield; and
(b) on the basis that his land would have fetched higher price , being fit for residential/commercial purpose.
ii) Petitioner is entitled to increase in awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,88,300/- per acre ;
10.0 Findings on Issue No.2 - RELIEF 10.1 In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to the following reliefs: -
i) enhancement in compensation @ Rs. 2,88,300/- per acre ;
ii) additional amount u/s 23 (1A) @ 12% p.a., on the market value from the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
iii) solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation ;
iv) interest under Section 28 of L.A Act at the rate of 9% Page 17 of 18 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 the payment ;
10.2 Reference is disposed of accordingly.
10.3 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (POONAM A. BAMBA) today on 08.03.2007 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI Page 18 of 18 Page 19 of 18