Delhi District Court
Sh.Devinder Raghav vs Union Of India & Others on 9 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No.1/18
Area: MUNDKA
Award No.: 02/DCW/1999-2000 dated 07.04.1999
Notification u/s 4: no. F.7 (35)/95/L&B/LA/7526 dated 25.02.1997
Notification u/s 6: no. F.7 (35)/95/L&B/LA/901 dated 09.04.1997
Sh.Devinder Raghav
S/o Sh. J.S. Raghav,
R/o H.No. 2205/168, Tri Nagar,
Delhi-35. ....Petitioner
versus
1. Union of India & Others
To be served through
L.A.C. West Rampura,
Delhi-35.
2. D.M.R.C.
Through its Director
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi, Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 20.01.2018
Date of reserving of judgment : 05.10.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.10.2018
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 1348 Bigha 14 Biswas of village Mundka under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7 LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 1/13 (35)/95/L&B/LA/7526 dated 25.02.1997 also under Section 6 vide notification no. F.7 (35)/95/L&B/LA/901 dated 09.04.1997. In view of the urgency of the scheme the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act were also made applicable to this land. The land was acquired for the purpose of Mass Rapid transit System, Delhi (MRTS).
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 02/DCW/1999- 2000 dated 07.04.1999 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.8,96,640/- per acre or Rs.1,86,80__/- per bigha for A-Block land and @ Rs.8,06,640/- per acre or Rs.1,68,050/- per bigha for B-Block land.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector petitioner was shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
Item Name of recorded Khasra Total Details of
No. of owner & share No. Area trees/
NM in Buildings/
Bigha- Crops
Biswa
141 Ram Kumar 29//2 min 00-12 As per Award
& S/o Jyot Ram ½ share 9 min 00-07
142 Satya Pal 10min 00-06
S/o Jyot ram ½ share 01min 00-06
30//4 00-09
5min 00-10
6min 00-08
02-18
Note : Date of possession is 02/07/1998
LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 2/13
4. The petitioner filed the reference under Section 18 of the Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Land Acquisition Collector, West has been referred to the reference court.
5. In brief the facts stated are that the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No.29/9 total measuring 1 Bigha i.e. 100- sq. yards situated within the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi has been acquired vide the aforesaid award.
6. It is stated that the petitioner had purchased the land through registered Sale Deed dated 10.01.1989 from the recorded Bhumidhar Sh. Ram Kumar and Sh. Satyapal both sons of late sh. Jyot Ram, which was acquired vide the aforesaid Award. The name of the present petition could not be mutated in the revenue record so, no notice was served by the LAC to the petitioner and thereafter the the petitioner filed objection against the recorded owner/Bhumidhar and finally the matter sent to the court for adjudication under Section 30-31 of the Act, which was decided by the court on 19.03.2010 and the court has awarded compensation to the extent of 1000 sq.yards land to the petitioner and same has been received by the petitioner on 08.04.2010 from the Court. The petitioner came to know about the acquisition of the actual land and got constructive knowledge on the date on which he has received the compensation from the Court and hence, the present petition is within limitation. The petitioner was neither present at the time of announcement of the award nor any notice under section 12 (2) of the Act was ever served upon the petitioner.
LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 3/13
7. It is stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector does not represent the true and correct market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the petitioner assailed the same on the grounds that the Collector failed to consider that the acquired land is very much even and as good as the surface/level of the land as provided by the DDA for setting up the residential colony. No part of the land in question is dug up or no earth has been removed from the land.
8. It is stated that the Collector has failed to consider the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of 'Rameshwar Solanki' that 12% appreciation per annum of the market value has to be transaction of the previous years. In the present case market value has been based on the basis of policy which was prevailing in the year 1989 and in the present case notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 11.06.1996 and there should have been appreciation for the intervening period of 7 years on the market value determined by the Government under the policy of 1989.
9. It is stated that the land of the petitioner yields three to four crops in a year and it give handsome income to petitioner amounting to Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1 lac per acre per annum. The water level in the land is at very upper level and tubewells are being bored/installed very frequently and water is available for tubewell, resulting good yieling of the crops.
10. It is stated that the land is situated on main Railway Station at Mundka and near to Mundka Karala Road LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 4/13 and has a good potentiality and all amenities/facilities of daily life such as roads, electricity, schools, hospitals, colleges, telephones, post office and police assistance etc. are available. The market value of the land bordering NH 10 is about Rs.10,000/- per sq. yards and the land of the petitioner is very close to the above said land, so the market value of the land in question is not less than Rs.5000/- per sq. yards. The land of the claimant is also close to a large Timber Market and PVC market along with various godowns situated near the NH-10. The land of the petitioner is also close to Nangloi residential colonies such as Swarn Park, Rajdhani Park, Nangloi, Industrial area of Nangloi and one of the best colonies i.e. Paschim Vihar, Ghevra, Bahadurgarh and the marketable value of the land there is more than Rs.8000/- per sq. yards.
11. It is stated that locationwise importance attached to the land of the petitioner is evident from the facts that this land has been acquired for Delhi Metro (MRTS) purposes which has to pass through major towns/ sub towns of the Metropolitan City of Delhi.
12. The petitioner seeks that market value of the acquired land be fixed @ Rs.5000/- per sq. yard with further statutory benefits such as inter, solatium and additional amount under the L.A. Act.
13. Respondent no.1/ Union of India filed written statement and taken the preliminary objections that the petitioner was having knowledge of the award when the reference under Section 30-31 of the Act was sent to the LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 5/13 court, in which the petitioner appeared as a witness as IP43W-1, which shows that he was having the knowledge of the award. The suit is barred by limitation and it may be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
14. On merits, all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied and it is reiterated that the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. Respondent no.2/DMRC also filed written statement and taken the preliminary objections that the reference petition need to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The present reference petition is time barred and not maintainable. The Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question. The petitioner has failed to furnish any evidence in his favour in respect of the relief claimed.
16. On merits, all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied and it is reiterated that the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Petitioner has filed replications to the written statements of respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2. In which the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition. It is stated that the petition is not barred by limitation.
LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 6/13
18. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 12.04.2018:
1. Whether petition is barred by limitation? OPR1 & 2
2. What was the fair market value of the land in question on the date of Notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
4. Relief.
19. In support of his case, petitioner Sh. Devender Raghav got examined himself as PW1. Thereafter, as per his statement the evidence of petitioner was closed on 09.08.2018.
20. From the side of respondent no.1/ Union of India, Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha, Counsel for the respondent no.1 relied upon and tendered in evidence copy of award No. 2/DC (W)/1999-2000 pertaining to Village Mundka as Ex. R-1.
21. Sh. Vijay Kumar, Sr. Legal Assistant for the respondent no.2/DMRC vide statement dated 05.10.2018 adopted the evidence led by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/UOI and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.2/DMRC on 05.10.2018.
22. I have heard Sh. G.K. Kaushik, counsel for the petitioner; Sh.Sunil Kumar Jha, Counsel for the respondent LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 7/13 no.1/UOI; and Sh. Vijay Kumar, Sr. Legal Assistant for respondent no.2/ DMRC and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE NO. 123. The issue is framed on the basis of preliminary objection taken by both the respondents that the present petition is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the award was passed on 08.04.1999. The petitioner filed the reference petition on 05.05.2010. It is further submitted that a reference also made by LAC under Section 30-31 of the Act having LAC No. 171/08/02 titled 'UOI vs. Nafe Singh & Others' and petitioner has the knowledge as he was IP No. 43 in the said petition and also appeared in the witness box. The reference petition under Section 30-31 of the Act was decided on 19.03.2010. Therefore, the knowledge of award was with the petitioner since beginning. Therefore, reference petition is barred by limitation.
24. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the land from Bhumidhar Sh. Ram Kumar and Sh. Satyapal vide registered sale deed dated 10.01.1989. At the time of acquisition of the land his name was not included in the award and no notice was served upon him. He submitted that thereafter, petitioner filed objections and reference was made under Section 30-31 of the LA Act. The reference petition was decided on 19.03.2010 in favour of petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the constructive knowledge of the award when award amount was received. Therefore, petition filed is within limitation.
LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 8/13
25. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied on three judgments i.e. (i) Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquistion Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500; (ii) State of Punjab vs. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604; and (iii) Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Dr. Sheshrao Baliram Ingole, FA (O) No. 518/2003 decided on 02.02.2016. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record. The judgment of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (Supra) referred to other judgments of Apex Court Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (Supra) as well as State of Punjab (Supra). The principle of limitation as per Section 18 of LA Act has been discussed in detail. I would like to refer to para 47 to 50 of the judgment:
"47. The Court, acting under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, has to determine the objections as regards - (i) the true area of the land, (ii) the compensation, which, in his opinion, should be allowed for the land, and (iii) the apportionment of compensation amongst all the persons to whom it is payable or the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. Such and award passed under section 11 of the said Act is merely an offer for compensation by the Collector. The offer has to be communicated to the persons having a right to receive compensation. A statutory right to approach the Court for determination of the market value of the land, provided under section 18 of the said Act, accrues only upon communication of the essential contents of the award. The limitation prescribed under section 18 of the said Act, therefore, starts running from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of the award.
48. Section 18 of the said Act provides an opportunity to raise grounds on which the objection to the award is taken and it confers a LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 9/13 power upon the court, rather than the collector, to determine the market value of the land under acquisition. This opportunity to raise objection is not an empty formality, but it is for effectively exercising the fundamental right under the second proviso below clause (1) of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India for determination by the Court of the true market value of the land under acquisition. Such a fundamental right cannot be effectively exercised without knowing actually or constructively the essential contents of the award, i.e. the mode, manner and the basis of determination of the offer received from the Collector. In the absence of such knowledge, no protest can be raised, as contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 18 of the said Act, and there is no jurisdiction with the Collector or the court, acting under section 18, to permit the amendment of the Reference to raise additional grounds or additional compensation after getting knowledge of the essential contents of the award.
49. The very object of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the said Act to give notice of award only to such persons interested as were not present personally or by their representatives when the award was made, is to enable them to raise effective objections to such award to have a market value of their land under acquisition. Otherwise, it would produce curious result of making ineffective this right, and such result could not possibly have been intended by the Legislature, as observed by the Apex Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh's case, cited supra.
50. Applying the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Apex Court, it will have to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case the date from which the period of limitation prescribed under clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso below sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act shall start running. The question No. (i) is, therefore, answered accordingly."
LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 10/13
26. The Apex Court laid sown principle that period of limitation prescribed under Clause (a) and (b) of the proviso below Sub section 2 of Section 18 of the L.A. Act shall start running in the facts and circumstances of each case. The date from which the period of limitation would start is dependent upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, it is admitted by the petitioner that he had filed reference under section 30-31 of the Act being the purchaser of the land to the extent of 1000 sq. yards from Bhumidhar Sh. Ram Kumar and Sh. Satyapal vide registered sale deed dated 10.01.1989. Reference under Section 30-31 of the Act cannot be referred unless complete knowledge of award is not known to the petitioner. The petitioner must have gone through the award and its contents and finding that his name is not included as one of the beneficiary, then objections must have been filed. In my considered opinion, the constructive knowledge of the award was gained by the petitioner when he had filed objections under Section 30-31 of the Act, therefore, in my considered opinion, it is wrong interpretation of the facts and circumstances that the petitioner being IP No. 43 gained constructive knowledge after the judgment on 08.04.2010. If the petitioner is believed then it was not possible for the petitioner to raise objections under Section 30-31 of the Act, unless he had constructive knowledge of the award.
27. As per Section 18 of the Act, there was no bar to file reference under Section 18 of the Act by the petitioner. There is no bar under the law that if a person raises objection under Section 30-31 of the Act, he cannot file objections to the award under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, in my LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 11/13 considered opinion, the limitation started as per Section 18 (2) of the Act from the date of filing of the objections under Section 30-31 of the Act and not from the date of final judgment in the reference under Section 30-31 of the Act on 08.04.2010. The limitation starts in the year 2002 or prior on the day of filing of objections under Section 30-31 of the Act by the petitioner. The limitation was not started from the date of decision in the matter 'Union of India vs. Nafe Singh' which was decided on 19.03.2010.
28. On the basis of above observations and discussion, the petition is barred by limitation. Therefore, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of respondents and against the petitioner.
ISSUE Nos. 2 & 329. In the present case the market value cannot be enhanced in view of finding of issue no.1 that the present petition is barred by limitation. The issues no. 1 & 2 are decided accordingly against the petitioner in favour of respondents.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
30. In view of my findings on Issues no.1 to 3, the present reference petition is barred by limitation and petitioners are not entitled for any enhancement.
31. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 12/13
32. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
33. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 9th October, 2018.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 09.10.2018 LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 13/13