Delhi District Court
Shri Sri Krishan S/O Late Shri Sabha ... vs Union Of India on 6 September, 2008
-:1:- LAC No. 100/2005
IN THE COURT OF S.S.HANDA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI
LAC No. 100/2005 Award No.: 6/2004-05
Village : Ghevra
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Sri Krishan S/o Late Shri Sabha Chand R/o VPO
Ghevra, Delhi
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Land Acquisition Collector,
Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Department of Slum
& JJ, IP Estate New Delhi-2.
Respondents
Date of Institution : 21.05.2005
Date of Arguments : 06.09.2008
Date of Decision : 06.09.2008
Appearances : Shri Ravinder Dabas, Ld.counsel for
petitioner.
Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for UOI.
Shri Neeraj Kumar, Ld. counsel for MCD,
Slum & J.J.Department.
AWARD
Vide notification no. F-11(81)/2000/
-:2:- LAC No. 100/2005
L&B/LA 18032 dated 6.2.2003 under Section 4 and
F.11(81)/2000/L&B/LA/1317 dated 30.4.2003 under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after
referred to as the Act), land measuring 943 bighas and 18
biswas (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 for
rehabilitation of J.J.Clusters. The Land Acquisition
Collector after completing all the requisite formalities as
provided under the Act, announced the Award bearing
No. 6 of 2004-05 of village Ghevra and awarded
compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.15,70,000/- per
acre for the entire acquired land, in addition to
proportionate solatium, etc.
2. The above mentioned petitioner was
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
petitioner sought enhancement of compensation stating
that petitioner was co-owner/co-bhumidar in possession
in the land bearing Khasra nos. 31/12(4-12), 13/1(3-04),
19(4-16), 22/1(2-02) situated in revenue estate of Village
-:3:- LAC No. 100/2005
Ghevra, New Delhi, here in after referred to as the land in
dispute. 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 take into
consideration all the documents filed by petitioner and
ignored the potentiality of the land and the fact that the
land could be used for Industrial, commercial and
residential purposes and the rate of the land was at Rs.
2000/- per square yard if sold in the open market. He also
adopted the incorrect formula in assessing the market
value of the land. It was also stated that all facilities, like
transportation, electricity, water, hospital, railway line,
school, colleges, and restaurants were available there. It
was in proximity of PVC market and National Highways.
The land of petitioner was leveled and required only little
development. It was near the Abhor-Fazilka via Rohtak
Road. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Depot and Tikri border
were near to it. He was deprived of right of his property as
envisaged under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the
market value of the land and compensation at the rate of
Rs. 2,000/- per sq. yard for the land; Rs.25,000/- per acre
for loss and damages sustained by the petitioner for
standing crops; Rs. 950/- per quintal for timber;
Rs.50,000/- for boring besides solatium and interest with
-:4:- LAC No. 100/2005
cost of petition and other benefits as per Act.
3. In the statement under Section 19 of the Act
dated 12.05.2005, it was recorded that Shri Sri Kishan S/o
Shri Sabha Chand was recorded owner to the extent of full
share in the land comprised in Khasra No.31/12(4-12),
13/1)3-04), 19(4-16), 22/1(2-02) situated in revenue estate
of Village Ghevra, New Delhi. This statement was
admitted as correct.
4. The Union of India filed its written statement
contending that the Delhi Land Reforms Act was
applicable to the land in dispute. The land was not
surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and
could only be used for agricultural. 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. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Slum & J.J.
Department denied the material averments made in the
petition and pleaded that fair and reasonable compensation
was assessed by the land acquisition collector after
considering all the relevant factors for determination of
-:5:- LAC No. 100/2005
market value at the time of acquisition of land in dispute.
It admitted that land of petitioner was acquired. It was
further contended that there was no grounds for
enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order
dated 4.1.2007 following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the Delhi Land Reforms Act is
applicable to the land in dispute, if so to
what effect? OPD
(2) To what enhancement of compensation the
petitioner is entitled to? OPP
(3) Relief.
7. In support of their case, petitioner examined himself
only. Ld counsel for the petitioner further relied on the
evidence led in case LAC No.228/2005 titled Shri MP
Gupta Vs UOI & Anr. and the judgment passed therein.
In support of its case, counsel for the
respondent/UOI tendered in evidence copy of Award No.
6/2004-05 of village Ghevra as Ex. R 1. Counsel for
MCD, Slum & J.J. Department did not lead any evidence
and relied on the evidence led on behalf of UOI.
8. After closing of evidence by the parties, I
heard arguments of counsels for the respondents and
perused file.
-:6:- LAC No. 100/2005
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has further placed
reliance upon (i) Jasrath Vs. Union of India 130 (2006)
DLT 700; (ii) Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Rev-
enue Officer Vs. Narasaiah 2001 II AD(S.C.) 502; (iii)
Lakhimpur V. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 SC 2015;
(iv) K. S. Shivadevamma and others, v. Assistant Commis-
sioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another AIR 1996
SC 2886; and (v) Shri Mahinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors.,
LAA No.866/2005 etc.
Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for the UOI has
placed reliance upon Section 23, 24 and 25 of the LA
Act. He also relied on Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Union on
India, 77 (1999) DLT 1 etc.
9. After going through the pleadings of the parties;
examination of evidence on record; and considering the
arguments of the counsels for the respondents, my findings
on the issues are follows:
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.
-:7:- LAC No. 100/2005
However, as per statement under Section 19
of the Act which is admitted by the petitioner; it is evident
that the land in question was agricultural land and subject
to Delhi Land Reforms Act. Irrespective of that it is not
shown as to how it basically affected the market value of
the compensation to be awarded.
The issue, thus is, answered to the effect that
the land was subject to Delhi Land Reforms Act but
without prejudice to the reasons to be taken up under issue
no.2; it no way affects the market value of the awarded
land for the purposes of compensation under the Land
Acquisition act, 1894.
FINDINGS OF ISSUE NO. 2
11. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for
respondent/UOI, Shri S.K.Puri that as the award was
assailed by the petitioner; the burden to prove that they be
awarded compensation at the enhanced rate lay upon him.
12. To discharge the burden as recorded above, the
petitioner examined himself only and placed reliance on
the evidence led in case LAC No.228/2005 titled MP
Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr. In that case, petitioner examined
Shri S.K.Mudgil, Reader to SR Office, Punjabi Bagh as
PW-1, Shri Pradeep Suri, LDC, Sub Registrar, Janak Puri
-:8:- LAC No. 100/2005
as PW-2, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari, Village
Ghevra as PW-3, Shri S.C.Munjal, Office Kanungo,
record room incharge, Kanjhawala as PW-4 and Shri Ved
Prakash, Naib Tehsildar, L & Building Department,
Nirman Bhawan as PW-5.
Shri Sri Chand, petitioner in his evidence led
by way of affidavit and deposed that he was owner in
possession land bearing khasra Nos. 31/12(4-12), 13/1(3-
04), 19(4-16), 22/1(2-02) situated in the revenue estate of
village Ghevra Delhi and the same has been acquired vide
award No.6/2004-05 dated 26/06/2004 for public purpose
namely rehabilitation of J.J.Clusters. The impugned
award is not acceptable to the him and he received
compensation under protest. Hence, the petition u/s 18 of
the Act. He further deposed that LAC has not appreciated
the evidence regarding market value of the land in
question. Land of the petitioner can fetch more value than
awarded by the LAC.
This witness was subject to cross examination
in substance with the suggestion that he was deposing
falsely.
Shri S.K.Mudgil, Reader to SR Office, Punjabi
Bagh, PW-1 examined in LAC No.228/2005 has deposed
to the following effect that :
-:9:- LAC No. 100/2005
"I have brought the summoned record dated
22.5.2007 executed by Shri Suresh Kumar in favour of
Shri Shiv Mahima Township Ovt. Ltd. In respect of
the land measuring 7 bigha and 1-1/3 situated at
Zafarpur, Hirankudna for a consideration of Rs.3
crore and the same is entered at 2746 additional
Book No.1 Volume no. 691 and the same is mark K
already on record. The another sale deed dated
31.05.2007 executed by Shri Jagphool Singh in favour
of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. in respect of land
measuring about 1 bigha and 9.5 biswas of village
Hirankudana for consideration of Rs.5 crore and
same is entered at 2940 in additional book no.1,
Volume NO.700 and the copy of the same is
Ex.PW2/B. The photocopies of the above mentioned
documents have been seen and are same as per
record brought by me."
PW-2, Shri Pradeep Suri, LDC, Sub Registrar,
Janak puri examined in LAC No.228/2005 has deposed to
the following effect that :
"I have brought the following summoned record i.e (i)
sale deed executed by Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma,
S/o Shri D.D.Sharma in favour of L&T Ltd. registered
at NO.2732 in additional book no.1, volume 7335 on
pages 67-83 on dated 23.4.1993 (ii) sale deed
executed by Shr Sandeep Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri
D.D.Sharma in favour of L&T Ltd. registered at
No.2733 in additional book no.1, volume 7335 on
pages 84-101 on dated 23.4.1993 (iii) sale deed
executed by Ms. Bimla Kumari, W/o Shri Rama Avtar
in favour of L&T Ltd. registered at No.2734 in
additional book no.1, volume 7335 on pages 102-112
on dated 23.4.1993 (iv) sale deed executed by Shri
Iqbal Singh S/o Chanan Das in favour of L&T Ltd.
registered at NO.2735 in additional book no.1 volume
7335 on pages 113-123 on dated 23.4.1993 (v) sale
deed executed by Shri Mool Chand S/o Shri Ratan
Singh and Mir Singh S/o Shri Yad Ram in favour of
Ganga Bishan Gupta, S/o Shri Kale Ram registered at
No.9466 in additional book no.1, volume 9686 on
pages 131-153 on dated 21.9.2000. The photocopies
-:10:- LAC No. 100/2005
of the above mentioned five documents have been seen
and mark A to Mark E already on record respectively
and are same as per record brought by me."
PW-3, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari,
Village Ghevra, Tehsil Saraswati Vihar, Delhi examined
in LAC No.228/2005 has deposed to the following effect
that :
"I am posting as patwari of village
Ghevra for last one and half years. The land bearing
khasra no.82/4 and 68/24 of village Ghevra is situated
at the distance of 18 acres away from the acquired
land. We maintain and prepare the record of rights
pertaining to Khasra no.82/4 and 68/24 as khatoni
prior to acquisition. Khasra no.82/4 and 68/24 are
vacant land. I can not tell the distance of National
Highway from the acquired land. The FCI godowns
are located at a distance of 12 acre from the acquired
land whereas SPG Gas Plan is located at a distance of
14 acres approximately. It is the correct that there is
railway station falling in the Revenue Esate of village
Ghevra. It is correct that land of village Ghevra is by
the side of Kanjhawala road and Rohtak Road
National Highway No.10 as well as Kanjhawala to
Bawana road and Sawda to Rasurpur road. I can not
tell the PVC market. Though it is correct that in the
land of village Mundka Metro station is being
constructed. It is correct that agricultural land get
electricity supply and water supply from concerned
authorities. It is correct that to the village Ghevra,
hospital, school, bank facilities are situated. It is
correct that nearby to the village Ghevra i.e.
approximately seven are away Industrial units are
running. However, it is not in my knowledge as to
whether the same has been approved by the NCT
Delhi or not. The original exsizra of village Ghevra
and Sawda is Ex.PW3/1 and PW3/2."
-:11:- LAC No. 100/2005
PW-4, Shri S.C.Munjal, Office Kanungo,
Record Room Incharge, Kanjhawala examined in LAC
No.228/2005 has deposed to the following effect that :
"I have brought the Khasra Girdawari of
three years of village Ghevra from the year 2000-
2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 Ex.PW5/1 to
Ex.PW5/3."
PW-5 Shri Ved Prakash, Naib Tehsildar, L &
Building Department, Nirman Bhawan examined in LAC
No.228/2005 has deposed to the following effect that :
"I have brought the attested copy of the
govt. policy fixing the minimum price of agricultural
land in Delhi from the year 1990 to 30.8.2005 and the
same are Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/7 only."
(i) The cross examination of PW-1 to
PW-5 examined in LAC
No.228/2005 above mentioned;
was of no substance as they
deposed from the record.
(ii) No question was put on policy
matter of enhancement of
compensation.
13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner summarised his
contentions in two propositions. It is submitted that either
of his propositions be accepted.
(1) The first proposition propounded by him
was that relying upon the sale deeds Ex.PW1/F
to Ex.PW1/O (In LAC No.228/2005) the
-:12:- LAC No. 100/2005
petitioner be given enhancement.
(ii) Secondly, his proposition is that petitioner
be awarded the higher compensation i.e. @
12% flat or 11.5% compounded.
14. On the other hand, Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel
for the Union of India has argued that no reliance can be
placed on sale deeds Ex.PW1/F to O (in LAC
No.228/2005) because these are either much prior to date
of acquisition or much later from the date of acquisition
Secondly, these are for small pieces of land and thirdly,
these lands were purchased for commercial purposes.
15. Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for the UOI has
placed referred to Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act and
submitted that propositions for enhancement raised by Ld.
counsel for petitioner do not hold good. Section 23 of the
Land Acquisition Act being relevant is reproduced as
under :
"Matters to be considered in determining compensation
- (1) in determining the amount of compensation to be
awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court
shall take into consideration -
First, the market value of the land at
the time of publication of the
[notification under Section 4,
sub-section(1)];
secondly, the damage sustained by the
person interested, by reason
-:13:- LAC No. 100/2005
of the taking of any standing
crops or trees which may be
on the land at the time of the
Collector's taking possession
thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained
by the person interested, at
the time of the Collector's
taking possession of the land,
by reason of severing such
land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained
by the person interested, at
the time of the Collector's
taking possession of the land
by reason of the acquisition
injuriously affecting his other
property, movable or
immovable, in any other
manner, or his earning;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the
acquisition of the land by the
Collector, the person
interested is compelled to
change his residence or place
of business,the reasonable
expenses (if any) incidental to
such change; and sixthly, the
damage (if any) bona fide
resulting from diminution of
the profits of the land between
the time of the publication of
the declaration under section
6 and the time of the
Collector's taking possession
of the land."
Shri S.K.Puri emphasised that the
compensation awarded by LAC vide Ex.R-1 was legal and
justified being based upon legal provisions and as per
settled principles. He did not dispute the ratio and
applicability of Mahinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors (Supra)
-:14:- LAC No. 100/2005
herein.
16. In the award Ld. LAC while ascertaining the
market value of the land has held that :
"In a policy announcement which came
into effect from the financial year 2001-2002,
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi fixed
the indicative prices of agricultural land @
Rs.15,70,000.00 per acre for the acquisition of
agricultural land vide their order
No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 dated 9.8.2001 which are
applicable with effect from 1.4.2001.
In view of the absence of any documentary
evidences produced by the interested persons, the copy
of sale deed in possession of this office as referred to
above, and in the light of the above discussion, I find
Rs.15,70,000.00 per acre to be the most reasonable
price for the agricultural land as on 6.2.2003. The
notification under Section 4 was issued on 6.2.2003 and
the price of the land is to be determined as on the date
of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act
itself. Hence, in view of the above facts I find Rs.
15,70,000.00 per acre to be the most reasonable price
for the land as on 6.2.2003. I, accordingly, determine
the market value of the land @ Rs.15,70,00.00 per acre.
17. The market value admittedly has to be fixed on
the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the
Act. In this case notification under Section 4 was issued
on 6.2.2003. And as per Sec.25 of the Act it can not be
less than the amount awarded by the LAC under Section
11 of the Act.
18. Counsel for respondent has relied upon case
-:15:- LAC No. 100/2005
Rameshwar Dayal, Supra; wherein it was held in that
case that fixing compensation on basis of instances
available within same village were always preferable. But
the sale deeds (in LAC No.228/2005) Ex.PW1/H & 1/I
belongs to village Tikri Kalan; Ex.PW1/J to 1/N belong to
village Hiran Kudna and Ex.PW1/O belongs to village
Savda. Hence, these sale deeds can not be taken into
consideration for the purposes of determining the market
value of the land of the petitioner.
Although certified copies of sale deeds are
admissible in evidence as held in cases Land Acquisition
Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Narasaiah and
State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, Supra, yet these will not
provide any benefit to petitioner for the reasons firstly,
that Ex. PW1/F to 1/O (in LAC No.228/2005) are not for
the relevant period.
Second reason for discarding these sale deeds
are that market value of large track of land comprising of
943 bighas 18 biswas of land in the present case can not
be decided on the basis of sale deeds only for a small
pieces of land i.e., for one to two and half bighas of land.
My decision finds support by a decision of
Apex Court in case of Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban
Chandra Dutta wherein it was held that:
"In determining compensation, the value fetched
for small plot of land cannot be applied to lands
-:16:- LAC No. 100/2005
covering a very large extent. The large area of land
cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at
which small plots are sold."
This principle was again reiterated by the
Supreme Court in cases of Land Acquisition Officer and
Sub-Collector, Gadwal, Supra wherein it set aside the
order of High Court that had relied on sale deed relating to
small piece of land and determined compensation per sq.
yard and K. S. Shivadevamma and others, Supra, wherein
it was held that a Sale deed of small piece of land relied
on by petitioner cannot form basis for determining
compensation for large extent of land.
Third reason for discarding valuation on the
basis of Ex. PW/F to 1/O (in LAC No.228/2005) is that
situation of particular land plays an important role in
fetching the value of it. For example, if the land is situated
just near the metal led road on a developed place it may
fetch more value than the land which is situated far away
from the metal led road and near the less developed area.
In the present case no evidence has been adduced to prove
existence of favorable factors to fetch more value of the
land in dispute.
The arguments of counsel for the Union of
India is convincing that purchaser paid higher side of
price of land as lands were purchased for commercial
purposes. The counsel for the petitioner further failed to
-:17:- LAC No. 100/2005
prove on record that there was similarity of situation,
position and advantages attached to the land purchased by
purchaser and land in dispute and acquired in the present
case.
19. I have examined the evidence and material
produced on record from different angles in order to find
out whether after applying the principles as discussed in
cases Smt. Tribeni Devi and others v. The Collector;
Ranchi Adusumilli Gopalkrishna, v. Spl. Deputy Collector
(Land Acquisition); and Suresh Kumar, v. Town
Improvement Trust, Bhopal, etc., some enhancement of
compensation could be made? And I have come to the
conclusion that petitioner could not establish on record
that either potentiality or market value or the advantages
attached to the land subject matter of this case could fetch
more value than the land acquisition collector awarded for
the land in dispute and referred to in the award. In other
words, it could not be established that market value as on
the date of notification for acquisition of land was more
than what the Land Acquisition Collector assessed in his
award. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner is entitled
for enhancement of compensation on the basis of the sale
deeds Ex.PW1/F to Ex.PW1/O (in LAC No.228/2005) .
20. From the analysis of PW1, Shri Sri Krishan to PW-
1 to PW-5 examined in LAC No.228/2005 and the
-:18:- LAC No. 100/2005
documents above referred proved by them, it emerges as
below :
(i) The land falling in village Ghevra is
surrounded by Kanjawala, Hirankudna,
Tikra, Mundaka, Rasulpur, Sawda and
Tikri Kalan and is connected by road and
civic amenities.
(ii) The awarded land was fertile agricultural
land.
(iii) That there was considerable jump in the
minimum compensation fixed by the
Government of NCT, Delhi each time.
(iv) There has been continuous and consistent
increase in agricultural land prices in the
NCT, Delhi.
The above factors, thus, support the claim of
the petitioner for higher compensation than what was
awarded by Ld. LAC at the minimum acquisition rate as
there was gap of 22 months when the minimum
acquisition rate of the agricultural and was notified. The
land rates steadily increased as emerges from the letters of
Dy Secretary (LA) to the Secretary (Revenue) Divisional
Commissioner (filed in LAC No.228/2005) which being
relevant is reproduced as under:
"No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 Dated
9.8.2001
The Secretary(Revenue)/ Divisional Commissioner,
Govt of NCT of Delhi
Tis Hazari,
Delhi.
-:19:- LAC No. 100/2005
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural
land/land situated in river bed between forward
bunds.
Sir,
In supersession of this office letter
NO.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/12358 dt. 21.11.2000, the
Government has approved the following rates to be
the minimum rates in the National Capital Territory
of Delhi effective from 1.4.2001 for the purpose of
acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894:-
1. Rs.15,70,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs seventy
thousand only) per acre for all agricultural land
(excluding lands situated in river bed between the
forward bunds).
****
****"
"F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA 6720 Dated: 30.8.2005 The Secretary(Revenue)/ Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land situated in river bed between forward bunds.
Sir, In supersession of this office letter NO.F.9(20)/80/L&BLA6696 dated 9.8.2001, the Government has approved the following rates to be the minimum rates in the National Capital Territory of Delhi effective from 30.8.2005 for the purpose of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:-
1. Rs.17,58,400/- (Rupees seventeen fifty eight thousand four hundred only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
**** -:20:- LAC No. 100/2005 ****"
"No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/15065 Dated :
24.01.2008 The Secretary(Revenue)/Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land situated in river bed between forward bunds.
Sir, In supersession of this office letter NO.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/12358 dated 30.8.2005, the Govt. has approved the following rates to be the minimum rates in the National Capital Territory of Delhi effective from 18.12.2007 i.e. the date of decision of the cabinet, for the purpose of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:-
1. Rs.53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty three lacs only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
**** **** It is also emphasized that the above rates are the minimum rates for compensation. The actual rates for compensation will be determined by the Land Acquisition collector in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the prevalent case law"
In all the above letters, it was emphasized that the rates notified as minimum rates and accordingly rates can not be lowered and rather implied to be higher in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition -:21:- LAC No. 100/2005 Act, 1894 and the prevalent case law.
21. In case of Shri Mahinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors., Supra of the Hon'ble Division Bench of His lordship Hon'ble Mr Justice Swantanter Kumar and Mr. Justice S.L.Bhayana dated 11th May, 2006 held that :
"the Court while granting very limited enhancement again because of non-availability of proper and cogent evidence, it specifically granted the relief of interest on solatium and the benefit for a period of 7 to 8 months in computation of market value of the land on the basis of the Government Policy. It again may not be necessary for this Court to reiterate the entire discussion on this aspect of the case. In fact the learned counsel appearing for the respondents did fairly state that these two reliefs, the petitioners would be entitled to and more particularly in view of the judgment of this court in Gajraj Singh case.
It was for the claimants to produce on record the relevant and cogent evidence by sale instances, judicial pronouncements, which would considerably support their case for enhancement of compensation. The claimants have failed to completely discharge their onus on this issue and claim on the basis of agricultural produce having been given up, there is hardly any basis for the claimants to claim enhancement in compensation for acquisition of their land, on their own strength. The policy of the Government in relation to grant of minimum price payable for acquisition of agricultural land would continue to be relevant factor on the basis of which, the Court would have to determine the compensation -:22:- LAC No. 100/2005 payable to the claimants."
It was further held by their lordships :
"We hold that the claimants are entitled to the following reliefs:-
(a) The order maintaining the categorisation of the acquired land into grounds A and B is set aside. All claimants, whose lands have been acquired vide notification dated 15th November, 1996 in the revenue estate of Village Bawana would be entitled to uniform rate of compensation.
(b) The claimants would be entitled to increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November 1996 (the date of notification under Section 4 under the Act) @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the reference Court/Collector that would roughly given them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68p. per Bigha."
(ii) This proposition was reaffirmed and followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of their lordships Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Ms. Justice Veena Birbal in the latest judgment in case RFA No.48/95 titled Shri Sher Singh & Ors. Vs UOI dated 17.9.2007. These were latest judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble High -:23:- LAC No. 100/2005 Court and have to be followed.
(iii) Having dealt with all the plausible propositions; in the light of relevant provisions; in my considered opinion the latest case law above referred lays the best possible proposition to be applied to the case in hand for ascertaining the market value of awarded land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, enhancement on Govt. policy of minimum acquisition rate is applied herein. I am, therefore, of the view that petitioner is entitled for appreciation of 22 months over and above the value fixed by LAC. On calculation the amount of interest for 22 months @ 11.5% compounded annually on 96,875/- comes to Rs. 1,18,367.122 i.e. Rs. 1,18,367/-.
RELIEF
22. As settled in Mahender Singh's case, petitioner is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,18,367/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand three hundred sixty seven only) per bigha to the extent of full share in the land comprised in Khasra nos. 31/12(4-12), 13/1(3-04), 19(4-
16), 22/1(2-02) situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, New Delhi as mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of LA Act dated 12.05.2005. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the solatium of 30% on market -:24:- LAC No. 100/2005 value and 12% additional amount from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 till the date of Award/taking of possession under section 23(1A) whichever is earlier. The petitioner would also be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking of possession and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter till the enhanced compensation is paid.
23. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector for his information The parties are left to bear their own costs.
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 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI