Delhi District Court
Mamchand Ors vs Uoi (Khampur Raya) on 11 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE-02
WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
LAC NO. 196/2016
Old No. 15/2015
CNR No. DLWT01-002209-2015
DLWT010022092015
1. Sh.Mamchand S/o Sh.Ram Dass
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Raj Bala,
Wd/o Late Sh.Mamchand
R/o H.No.WZ-79,
Village Khampur, New Delhi-110008
(The name of Smt.Raj Bala was deleted vide Order dated 23.03.2022)
(b). Sh.Sudhanshu,
Grandson of Late Sh.Mamchand
being son of Predeceased daughter Ms.Meenu
R/o H.No.79, Village Khampur,
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 19.03.2020.
2. Sh.Naresh Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Dass
3. Sh.Jogendra Singh S/o Sh.Bhanwar Singh
4. Sh.Raj Singh S/o Sh.Bhanwar Singh
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 1 of 66
5. Sh.Davinder Singh S/o Sh.Pritam Singh
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Manju Singh
Wd/o Late Sh.Davinder Singh
(b). Sh.Rajat Singh
S/o Late Sh.Davinder Singh
(c). Ms.Aditi Singh
D/o Late Sh.Davinder Singh
All residents of WZ-77/2, Village Khampur Raya, opposite West Patel
Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 27.05.2016)
6. Sh.Satish Kumar S/o Sh.Pritam Singh
7. Smt.Kaushalya W/o Sh.Raj Pal
D/o Sh.Pritam Singh
R/o WZ-462, Basai Darapur,
New Delhi.
8. Smt.Maya W/o Sh.Virender Singh
D/o Sh.Pritam Singh
R/o WZ-825, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028
9. Sh.Virender Singh S/o Sh.Dulichand
10. Sh.Maha Singh S/o Sh.Dulichand
11. Sh.Anil Kumar S/o Sh.Dulichand,
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Neha Rai,
W/o Late Sh.Anil Kumar
(b). Sh.Aditya Rai
S/o Late Sh.Anil Kumar
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 2 of 66
Both residents of H.No.F-13, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi-110015.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 31.03.2021)
12. Sh.Devyant S/o Sh.Mahender Verma
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Sonia Verma,
W/o Late Sh.Devyant Verma
(b). Ms.Avisha Verma
Minor Daughter of Late Sh.Devyant Verma
Through her Mother & Natural Guardian
Smt.Sonia Verma
(c). Smt.Pushpa Devi
Mother of Late Sh.Devyant Verma
All residents of C-9/48, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 10.03.2023)
13. Sh.Parmesh S/o Sh.Mahender Verma
14. Smt.Shanti Devi W/o Sh.Shri Ram
D/o Sh.Jhanda,
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Sh.Nathu Singh,
S/o Late Smt.Shanti Devi,
R/o H.No.WZ-1598G/L-46, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046
(b). Smt.Anita,
Wd/o Late Sh.Krishan Pal,
Predeceased son of Smt.Shanti Devi
R/o H.No.WZ-1598G/1A, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 3 of 66
(c). Ms.Shalini,
W/o Sh.Vivek,
D/o Late Sh.Kishan Pal,
Predeceased son of Smt.Shanti Devi,
R/o RZ-1232, Gali No.5/3, Main Sagar Pur,
New Delhi-110046.
(d). Ms.Jyoti,
D/o Late Sh.Kishan Pal,
Predeceased son of Smt.Shanti Devi
R/o H.No.WZ-1598G/1A,
Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046.
(e). Smt.Sangita,
W/o Sh.Manoj Kumar,
D/o Late Smt.Shanti Devi,
R/o H.No.A2A/43, Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 12.02.2016)
15. Sh.Satish Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Kishore
16. Sh.Krishan Pal S/o Sh.Ram Kishore
17. Sh.Anil Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Kishore
18. Sh.Satpal S/o Sh.Ram Kishore
19. Sh.Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Kishore
20. Sh.Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Kishore
21. Sh.Suresh Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Kishore
22. Sh.Balwan Singh S/o Sh.Ram Kishore
23. Sh.Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Kishore
24. Sh.Pyare Lal S/o Sh.Sultan,
Died on 06.05.2006,
Through LRs namely:-
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 4 of 66
(a). Sh.Radhey Shyam,
S/o Late Sh.Pyare Lal
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(i). Sh.Vikas Ruhella
S/o Late Sh.Radhey Shyam
(ii). Sh.Akash
S/o Late Sh.Radhey Shyam
(LRs were brough on record vide Order dated 27.11.2024)
(b). Sh.Sita Ram,
S/o Late Sh.Pyare Lal
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(i). Smt.Shashi Singh
Wd/o Late Sh.Sita Ram
(ii). Sh.Paras Singh
S/o Late Sh.Sita Ram
(iii). Sh.Shreyas Singh
S/o Late Sh.Sita Ram
All residents of H.No.2257/A-4, Village Khampur, Opp. West Patel
Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 27.05.2016)
(c). Sh.Balbir Singh,
S/o Late Sh.Pyare Lal,
(d). Smt.Premwati,
Wd/o Late Sh.Mahavir Singh,
D/o Late Sh.Pyare Lal,
R/o RZ-16C/16, Gali No.3,
Sagar Pur, New Delhi.
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 5 of 66
(i). Sh.Sunil Kumar
S/o Late Sh.Mahavir Singh & Smt.Premwati
R/o RZ-16C/6, Gali No.3, Main Sagar Pur,
New Delhi-110046
(ii). Smt.Kamlesh
W/o Sh.Raj Kumar
D/o Late Sh.Mahavir Singh & Smt.Premwati
R/o H.No.2B65, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015.
(iii). Smt.Rajesh
W/o Sh.Ravinder
D/o Late Sh.Mahavir Singh & Smt.Premwati
R/o H.No.161, Gali No.8, Laxmi Vihar,
Dwarka More, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
(iv). Smt.Monica
W/o Sh.Pawan Kumar
D/o Late Sh.Mahavir Singh & Smt.Premwati
R/o G-103, Gali No.24, Rajapuri, Delhi.
(LRs of Smt.Premwati were brought on record vide Order dated
19.11.2015)
(e). Smt.Bimla,
W/o Siri Pal,
D/o Late Sh.Pyare Lal,
R/o C-2/335, Yamuna Vihar,
New Delhi.
(f). Smt.Urmila,
W/o Sh.K.P.Singh,
D/o Late Sh.Pyare Lal,
R/o H.No.416, Jal Vayu Tower,
Sector-56, Gurgaon (Haryana).
(g). Smt.Santosh,
W/o Sh.Bir Sen,
D/o Late Sh.Pyare Lal,
R/o H.No.2, Prakash Vihar,
Dehradun (Uttaranchal).
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 6 of 66
(h). Smt.Satya Wati,
W/o Sh.M.P.Singh,
D/o Late Sh.Pyare Lal,
R/o WZ-517, Village Basai Darapur,
New Delhi.
(i). Smt.Savita,
W/o Sh.Jitender Singh,
D/o Late Sh.Pyare Lal,
R/o H.No.22-B, DDA MIG Flats,
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
25. Sh.Ajit Singh S/o Sh.Bhikan,
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Sh.Lalit Kumar Chauhan,
S/o Late Sh.Ajit Singh
(b). Smt.Tirpati Devi,
Wd/o Late Sh.Ajit Singh.
Both residents of H.No.WZ-99A, Village Khampur Raya, Near
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
(c). Sh.Jai Kishan,
S/o Late Sh.Ajit Singh
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(i). Sh.Ashish Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Jai Kishan
(ii). Ms.Nancy Chauhan
D/o Late Sh.Jai Kishan
(iii). Smt.Madhu Chauhan
Wd/o Late Sh.Jai Kishan
(iv). Smt.Tirpati Devi
Mother of Late Sh.Jai Kishan
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 7 of 66
All residents of H.No.WZ-115, Village Khampur Raya, Near West Patel
Nagar, New Delhi-110008
(d). Smt.Chander Kanta Devi,
W/o Sh.Satish Kumar,
D/o Late Sh.Ajit Singh,
R/o WP-540/1, Village Wazir Pur,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
(e). Smt.Kamlesh,
W/o Sh.Anil Kumar,
D/o Late Sh.Ajit Singh,
R/o WZ-1540, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi.
(f). Smt.Krishna Devi,
W/o Sh.Dharampal Singh Mahaliyan,
D/o Late Sh.Ajit Singh,
R/o WP-455, Village Wazir Pur,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 12.02.2016)
26. Sh.Ramesh Chander S/o Sh.Bhikan
Dead & represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Kela Devi,
W/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
(The Name of Smt. Kela Devi was deleted from the array of parties vide
Order dated 03.10.2024)
(b). Smt.Raj,
W/o Sh.Satya Prakash
D/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(i). Sh.Satya Prakash
S/o Late Sh.Khajan Singh
Husband of Late Smt.Raj
R/o WZ-620A, Village Naraina,
New Delhi-110028
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 8 of 66
(ii). Sh.Deepak Tanwar
S/o Sh.Satya Prakash & Late Smt.Raj
R/o WZ-620, Village Naraina,
New Delhi-110028
(iii). Sh.Nitin Tanwar
S/o Sh.Satya Prakash & Late Smt.Raj
R/o WZ-620B, Village Naraina,
New Delhi-110028
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 03.10.2024)
(c). Smt.Raj
W/o Sh.Sat Kumar Chauhan,
D/o Late Sh.Ramesh Chand
R/o WZ-99, Village Khampur Raya,
New Delhi-110008
(LRs of Late Sh.Ramesh Chand were brought on record vide Order
dated 10.02.2017)
27. Sh.Jal Singh S/o Sh.Bhikan
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(i). Smt.Raj Bala Chauhan
Wd/o Late Sh.Jal Singh Chauhan
R/o H.No.7/59, South Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
(ii)(a).Smt.Rachna Chauhan
Wd/o Late Sh.Sanjeev Chauhan
Predeceased Son of Late Sh.Jal Singh Chauhan
R/o H.No.7/59, South Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
(ii)(b).Sh.Anmol Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Sanjeev Chauhan
Predeceased Son of Late Sh.Jal Singh Chauhan
R/o H.No.7/59, South Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 9 of 66
(iii)(c). Master Ishit Chauhan
Minor Son of Late Sh.Sanjeev Chauhan
Predeceased Son of Late Sh.Jal Singh Chauhan
R/o H.No.7/59, South Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008, through her Mother & Natural Guardian
Smt.Rachna Chauhan
(iii). Smt.Navina Singh
W/o Sh.Virender Singh
D/o Late Sh.Jal Singh Chauhan
R/o RZ-1157, Gali No.5/5,
Main Sagar Pur, New Delhi-110046
(iv). Smt.Deepali Tanwar
W/o Sh.Mahesh Chand Tanwar
D/o Late Sh.Jal Singh Chauhan
R/o 74, DDA Site-I, Rajender Nagar,
New Delhi-110060.
(v). Smt.Rajni Verma
W/o Sh.Ajay Kumar
D/o Late Sh.Jal Singh Chauhan
R/o B-172, Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi-110028
(vi)(a). Smt.Gini
Wd/o Late Sh.Man Mohan Singh
(Predeceased Son of Late Sh.Jal Singh
(vi)(b). Master Kunwar
S/o Late Sh.Man Mohan Singh
(Predeceased Son of Late Sh.Jal Singh
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 08.12.2022)
28. Sh.Om Prakash S/o Sh.Bhikan Singh
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Bimla Devi
W/o Late Sh.Om Prakash
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 10 of 66
(b). Sh.Parveen Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Om Prakash
Both Residents of H.No.WZ-42, Village Khampur, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
(c). Smt.Vandana Chaudhary
W/o Sh.Subhash Chander
D/o Late Sh. Om Prakash
R/o WZ-58/5C, Shankar Park
West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 27.11.2024)
29. Sh.Rajeshwar S/o Sh.Ranjeet Singh
30. Sh.Anil S/o Sh.Ranjeet Singh
31. Sh.Bishamber Singh S/o Sh.Khima
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Kailashwati
Wd/o Late Sh.Bishamber Singh
(b). Sh.Chhatar Pal
S/o Late Sh.Bishamber Singh
(c). Sh.Tilak Raj
S/o Late Sh.Bishamber Singh
All residents of WZ-193, Shadi Khampur Village,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
(d). Smt.Sangeeta
W/o Sh.Ved Prakash Tanwar,
D/o Late Sh.Bishamber Singh
R/o WZ-908D, CB Naraina,
New Delhi -110028
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 11 of 66
(LRs were brought on record vide Order dated 02.11.2017)
32. Sh.Nahar Singh S/o Sh.Nandram
Dead & Represented by LR namely:-
(a). Sh.Jankesh Chauhan
S/o late Sh.Nahar Singh
R/o A-117, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
(LR was brought on record vide Order dated 01.08.2024)
33. Sh.Maha Singh S/o Sh.Nandram
34. Sh.Karan Singh S/o Sh.Nandram
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Kusum Lata
Wd/o Late Sh.Karan Singh
(b). Sh.Raman Chauhan,
S/o Late Sh.Karan Singh
(c). Ms.Kashika
D/o Late Sh.Karan Singh
All residents of H.No.WZ-187, Village Khampur Raya, New
Delhi-110008.
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 12.02.2016)
35. Sh.Prem Singh S/o Sh.Sada Ram
36. Sh.Hari Singh S/o Sh.Sada Ram
37. Sh.Man Singh S/o Sh.Sada Ram
38. Sh.Gajender Singh S/o Sh.Sada Ram
39. Sh.Shyam Singh S/o Sh.Loram
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 12 of 66
(a). Smt.Murti Devi,
W/o Late Sh.Shyam Singh
R/o T-47, Phase-I, New Palam Vihar,
40 Feet Road, Gurugram (Haryana)-122017
(b). Sh.Mukesh Singh Rajput
S/o Late Sh.Shyam Singh
R/o WZ-170D/1, Khampur,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(c). Sh.Mahesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh.Shyam Singh
R/o WZ-190/A, 2nd Floor (Right),
Khampur, West Patel Nagar
Near MCD School,
New Delhi-110008
(LRs brought on record vide Order dated 31.03.2021)
40. Sh.Mahaveer Singh S/o Sh.Loram
41. Sh.Hari Singh S/o Sh.Loram
42. Sh.Sakti Singh S/o Sh.Loram
43. Sh.Naresh Kumar S/o Sh.Hari Chand
44. Sh.Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh.Hari Chand
All residents of Village Khampur Raya, Opposite West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Union of India Through,
Land Acquisition Collector (West),
Office of Deputy Commissioner (West),
Raja Garden, New Delhi-110027
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 13 of 66
2. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board,
Through its Chairman/Managing Director
Punarvas Bhawan, I. P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002
(The name of Respondent No.2 was substituted in place of MCD vide
Order dated 19.11.2015)
...RESPONDENTS
AWARD NO 14/DC (W)/2006-2007
Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi
dated 02.06.2007
Date of institution of the reference : 10.07.2015
Date of reserving the judgment : 05.12.2024
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 11.12.2024
REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST
THE FINDING AND DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE OF
THE LAND ETC. ASSESSED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION
COLLECTOR (WEST) RAMPURA, NEW DELHI, VIDE THE
ABOVE AWARD.
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi has acquired the land measuring 8 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ('the Act') vide notification no. F.10(87)/02/L&B/LA/3885 dated 07.06.2004 and followed it up with the relevant notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act vide notification no. F.10(87)/02/L&B/LA/2607 dated 03.06.2005. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.10(87)/02/L&B/LA/2608 dated 03.06.2005. The public purpose for which land was acquired was the construction of Booster Pump by Slum and J.J. Department.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 14 of 662. After considering the respective claims, the Land Acquisition Collector, West (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC') passed Award no. 14/DC (W)/2006-2007 dated under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.3,500/- per sq. metre alongwith statutory benefits.
3. According to the statement filed under Section 19 of the L.A. Act filed by the Collector, petitioners were shown as recorded owners of the acquired land which is the subject matter of this Reference. Brief description of the land holding of the petitioners as culled out from the Award under challenge is as under:
Name of recorded Khasra No. Total Detail of trees owner & share Area Building/Crop Bigha- s Biswa
12. Mam Chand S/o754/21/2/2/2/2/2/2 Ram Dass share/2 (old) 2178/63648 1083/1149/754/21 (New)
13. Naresh Kumar S/o Ram Dass share 2178/63648
14. Jogender Singh S/o Bhawar Singh, share 2178/572832
15. Raj Singh S/o Bhawar Singh share 2178/572832
16. Pritam Singh S/o Yadu share LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 15 of 66 2178/286416
17. Virender Singh S/o Duli Chand, share 2178/859248
18. Maha Singh S/o Duli Chand, share 2178/859248
19. Anil Kumar S/o Duli Chand, share 2178/859248
9. Pramesh S/o Mahender, share 1073/95472
11. Smt. Shanti Devi D/o Jhanda, share 1073/47736
23. Satish Kumar S/o Ram Kishore 4352/429624
24. Krishan Pal S/o-
Ram Kishore 4352/429624 25. Anil Kumar S/o Ram Kishore 4352/429624 26. Sat Pal S/o Ram Kishor 4352/429624 27. Rakesh Kumar S/o Ram Kishore LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 16 of 66 4352/429624 28. Mukesh Kumar S/o Ram Kishore 4352/429624 29. Suresh Kumar S/o Ram Kishore 4352/429624 30. Balwan Singh S/o Ram Kishore 4352/429624 31. Sanjay Kumar S/o Ram Kishore 4352/429624 32. Pyare S/o Sultan Singh -do- 95. Ajit Singh S/o Bhikhan share 1041/222768 96. Ramesh Chand S/o Bhikhan share 1041/222768 97. Jai Singh S/o Bhikhan 1041/222768 98. Om Prakash S/o Bhikhan 1041/222768 LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 17 of 66 100. Rajeshwar S/o Ranjit Singh, share 1041/445536 101. Anil Kumar S/o Ranjit Singh 1041/445536 179. Shankar Singh S/o Kheena, share 1/576 180. Nahar Singh S/o Nand Ram Share 1/576 181. Maha Singh S/o Nand Ram -do- 182. Karan Singh S/o Nand Ram -do- 183. Prem Singh S/o Sada Ram 1/768 184. Hari Singh S/o Sada Ram 1/768 185. Man Singh S/o Sada Ram 1/768 186.Rajender Singh S/o Sada Ram 1/768 191. Mahavir Singh S/o Lak Ram 1/240 192. Sham Singh S/o Lak Ram 1/240 LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 18 of 66 193. Hari Singh S/o Lak Ram 1/240 194. Shakti Singh S/o Lak Ram 1/240 195 Naresh Kumar S/o Hari Chand 1/480 196. Dinesh Kumar S/o Hari Chand 1/480 Note: Date of possession is 02/06/2007
4. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the concerned LAC, the petitioners filed an application before the LAC, West under Section 18 of the Act for re-determination of the fair market value of the acquired land/property and requested for a Reference to this Court, for seeking enhancement/redetermination of the assessed market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification issued u/s 4 of the L.A. Act.
5. Brief factual recapitulation would be relevant before proceeding to the merits of the Reference claim. The petitioners are/were the persons interested being owners of land (to the extent of their shares) comprised in Khasra No.754/21/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 min. (Old No.) and New No. 1083-1149/754/21 min., ad-measuring 08 biwas situated within the revenue estate of village Khampur Raya, belonging to Shamlat Deh, which was acquired by Land Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 02.06.2007, which is the Award in question.LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 19 of 66
6. The petitioners have alleged in the reference petition that the possession of the acquired land ad-measuring 08 biswas had been taken by the Government illegally and unlawfully, more than 40 years ago without acquiring the said land under the law and even without paying compensation to the petitioners. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the land in question has been in illegal possession/occupation of the Slum and J.J. Department for the last several years.
7. The petitioners further alleged that the petitioners along with other co-villagers had filed writ petition before Hon'ble Delhi High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the respondents to take proper steps for acquisition of land under the provisions of the amended Land Acquisition Act and thereafter, after taking necessary steps for acquisition, the above award was announced.
8. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the land under award is a well developed colony, Baljit Nagar and is situated on main Patel Road and is abutting Shadipur Bus Depot, DMS Main Depot, Shadipur and very near to Police Station Patel Nagar, Ranjit Nagar, West Patel Nagar and Shadipur main Depot. It is further alleged that Shadipur Bus Depot is situated in the same Khasra number in which the acquired land is situated.
9. It has been averred by the petitioners that no person other than the petitioners has got any right, title or interest whatsoever in the aforesaid land and the compensation assessed for the same to the extent LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 20 of 66 of their respective shares shown in the revenue record and as such the petitioners alone are entitled to receive the entire compensation including enhanced compensation.
10. The grievance of the petitioners is that the compensation decided by the LAC does not represent the true market value of acquired land as on the date of notification u/s 4 of LA Act and the LAC has grossly erred in assessing the market value of the land in too low and inadequate rates.
11. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has assessed the market value of the land without making any inquiry on the spot as to whether the market value fixed by the LAC is the true and correct market value of the land under the conditions of demand and supply as compare to the land in vicinity, as on the date of notification under section 4 of LA Act.
12. It is further alleged by the petitioners that even, the LAC, West has announced award no. 13/DC (W)/2004-2005 dated 02.02.2005, by way of which, compensation @ Rs. 13,280/- per square meter was awarded for the land, which was notified for acquisition under Section 4 LA Act on 10.02.2003 i.e. more than one year prior to notification under section 4 LA Act issued in the present award. It is further averred that LAC has also passed award no. 4/DC(W)/2005-06 on 5.4.2006 and acquired the land out of the same Khasra numbers and assessed market value of the land @ Rs. 3,500/- per sq. meter and against the said award petition under section 18 L.A. Act is pending for disposal.LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 21 of 66
13. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the LAC, West has ignored the market value of the land determined vide award no. 14/DC (W)/2004-2005 dated 28.01.2005. It is further alleged that the land acquired vide award no. 14 belongs to the same very revenue estate. It is further alleged that the LAC has ignored the fact that the land acquired vide award no. 13 & 14 is similarly circumstanced land belonging to the same very revenue estate and is comparable to the land acquired in the present award.
14. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the LAC has failed to consider that the land in question is fully developed land and is surrounded by commercial and residential area of West Patel Nagar. It is further alleged that all the amenities and facilities of life such as electricity, water supply, transportation, banking, educational and other facilities were available in the surroundings of land under acquisition for the last more than 40 years.
15. The case of the petitioners is that the market value of the land under reference as on the date of notification under section 4 of LA Act is not less than Rs. 60,000/- per square yards under the condition of demand and supply.
16. It has further averred by the petitioners that various Govt. agencies such as DDA and MCD had auctioned residential plots in much more rates than the rates awarded by the LAC, even much prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and not considered the fact that a plot measuring 133.62 sq. mtrs was auctioned by the Govt. @ LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 22 of 66 40,000/- per sq. mtr. in West Patel Nagar on 23.09.1996, which is also situated on the land of Village Khampur Raya and hence the LAC should have considered this valuable evidence for determining the market value of the land in question.
17. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has not considered the fact that a plot in the same very locality quite near to the land in question was auctioned on 11.10.1996 by the DDA @ 40,000/- per sq. mtr and the said plot is comparable to the land in question.
18. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has not considered the fact that MCD had auctioned a plot measuring 174.42 sq. mtrs situated in the revenue estate of village of Khampur Raya and this plot was auctioned at Rs.10,57,000/- and was auctioned more than 20 years prior to the date of notification of the present case.
19. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has failed to considered the fact that the SDM, Patel Nagar has confirmed vide letter dated 25.10.2005, that the value of the land in Khasra no. 1249/905/788/43/5 of Village Khampur Raya is about 1 crore for 600 square yards of land.
20. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC West has erred in holding that Patel Nagar cannot said to be comparable colony. It is further averred that Patel Nagar is also situated in the revenue estate of village Khampur Raya. It is further averred that Baljeet Nagar, Ranjit Nagar, West Patel Nagar and Shadipur are situated in the land of Village Khampur Raya and are very near to each other.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 23 of 6621. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC West has grossly erred in holding that the land at Moti Nagar, Tihar I & II can at best be considered near comparable to Baljeet Nagar (Khampur Raya). It is further averred that the Moti Nagar, Tihar I & II are quite far away from the land under reference.
22. It is further alleged that the LAC has failed to award the interest to the petitioners from the date of taking over the possession of the land till the date of payment of compensation. It is further alleged that the land in reference has been in illegal and unauthorized possession of the Government/MCD/DJB for the last more than 40 years.
23. The petitioners have prayed for compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per sq. yard besides solatium, statutory interest and other benefits under the provisions of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, including interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of taking over possession of the land till the date of payment of compensation.
24. Respondent no. 1/Union of India has filed its WS taking a ground that the market value of the land in question has been assessed by taking into consideration the prevailing market rates of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of LA Act. It is further contended that the land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony at the time of publication of the notification, as alleged by the petitioners. It is further contended that the correctness of the Khasra numbers, their area and extent of the share of LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 24 of 66 the petitioners has been specified by the LAC in the statement filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act. It is further contended that the present petition is barred by the period of limitation and hence the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The respondent no. 1 has denied other contents of the petition of the petitioners.
25. Respondent no. 2/Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board also filed written statements by taking preliminary objections that the land in question was acquired vide Award no. 14/2006-07 and the compensation has been paid by the Land & Building department to the LAC ( West) vide cheque no. 096072 dated 07.05.2007 for Rs. 12,27,335/-. It is contended that the petition is not based on true facts and liable to be dismissed.
On merits all the contents of the petition has been denied. It has thus jointly prayed by the respondents that the present Reference be dismissed with costs.
26. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 27.10.2016 :-
ISSUES i. Whether Section 19 Statement filed by the Collector ( West) is true and correct? OPR1 ii. What was the fair market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act? OPP iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 25 of 66 iv. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONERS
27. Shri Vijay Kumar, Junior Secretariat Assistant, from the office of Land & Development Office, appeared as PW-1. He had brought the record i.e. L& DO Scheduled Rates w.e.f. 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000. He further deposed that after the year 2000 the rates were not revised till date. Attested copy of Scheduled rates is Ex. PW-1/1 ( 16 pages).
28. Shri Rakesh Kumar, from the office of DDA appeared as PW-2. He had brought the Conveyance Deed, Perpetual Lease pertaining to plots bearing no. 3 & 4, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He further deposed that he cannot tell the date of auction of the above said plots. The copies of the Conveyance Deed and Perpetual Lease Deeds are Ex. PW-2/1 (Colly) and Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) (OSR) respectively. The copies of challans are Ex. PW-2/3 (Colly) (running into four pages) (OSR) and copy of demand notices are Ex. PW-2/4 (Colly) (running into two pages) ( OSR).
29. Shri Jai Kishan, UDC from the office of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, appeared as PW-3. He had brought summoned record pertaining to auction of plot no. 4, 5 & 6, 10 & 23 West Delhi District Centre, Shivaji Palace, Raja Garden, New Delhi, and proved the certified copy of the record of auction pertaining to the plot no. 4, 5 & 6 as Ex. PW-3/1 and certified copy of Perpetual Lease LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 26 of 66 pertaining to the above said plots as Ex. PW-3/2. He also proved the record pertaining to auction and Perpetual lease Deed pertaining to plot no. 10 & 23 West Delhi District Centre, Shivaji Palace, Raja Garden, New Delhi, as Ex. PW-3/3 & Ex. PW3/4 ( Colly) ( running into ten pages).
30. Shri Naveen, Record Attendant from the office of Department of Delhi Archives appeared as PW-4. He had brought the summoned record pertaining to Sale Deed dated 15.11.1996 executed by Kanishka Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in favour of TATA McGraw Hill Publishing Company Ltd. which was registered vide registration no. 719, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 9373 on pages 1 to 176 dated 3.2.1997. The certified copy of the sale deed is exhibited as Ex. PW-4/1.
31. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Patwari from the office of LAC, West appeared as PW-5. He had brought the summoned record i.e. Original Award No. 13/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 02.02.2005 of East Patel Nagar and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-5/1 (OSR), original Award No. 14/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 28.01.2005 of Main Patel Road, Patel Nagar and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-5/2 (OSR), original Award No. 1/DC(W)/2001-02 of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-5/3 (OSR), original Award No. 4/DC(W)/2005-06 of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-5/4 (OSR) and Award No. 2/2000-01 of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-5/5 (OSR) respectively.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 27 of 66PW-5 has also brought the Diary register showing the details of the application dated 01.08.2007 filed for correction of shares and names of the Co-sharers which was filed against Diary No. 4423/LAC/West for making necessary correction in Award No. 14/DC(W)/2006-07 of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi and the same is Ex. PW-5/6 (OSR).
32. Sh. Bipin Chander, UDC from the office of Land & Building Department appeared as PW-6. He had brought and proved the standing instructions dated 28.07.2005, issued by Land & Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Vikas Bhawan as Ex. PW-6/1 (18 pages) (OSR). He also deposed that copy of the same were sent to all LACs in Delhi as well as to Divisional Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Commissioner ( IM-DDA), Vikas Sadan.
33. Shri Kunj Bihari, Kanoongo from the office of SDM, appeared as PW-7. He had brought the Aks shajra of Village Khampur Raya showing that the boundaries of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi touches the boundary of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi towards western side. The copy of the relevant extract of the Aksshajra is exhibited as Ex. PW-7/1 (OSR).
34. Sh Rakesh Kumar, Patwari, appeared as PW-8. He deposed that he had been examined as witness IP1/W1 in case titled UOI vs Mam Chand & Ors bearing LAC No. 14A/10/08 on 19.03.2011 and which case was decided on 03.08.2016. He further deposed that in his previously recorded statement (as above), he had proved Jamabandi LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 28 of 66 running into nine pages which was exhibited as IP1-W1/1. The certified copy of his statement dt. 19.3.2011 was exhibited as Ex. PW-8/1 and copy of Jamabandi which was exhibited as IP1-W1/1 is now exhibited as Ex. PW-8/2 (Colly) (OSR).
35. Sh. Joginder Singh petitioner no. 3 appeared as PW-9 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-9/A. He relied upon and proved the following documents:
1. Ex.PW-9/1: is application dated 01.08.2007
2. Ex.PW-9/2: Certified copy of judgment dated 01.08.2016 in case titled Union of India Vs Mamchand & Ors.
3. Ex. PW-9/3:. Copy of order dated 03.12.2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court.
4. Ex. PW-9/4: Copy of writ petition.
5. Ex.PW-9/5: Copy of judgment passed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then ld. ADJ in case titled Virender Sood Vs Union of India
6. Ex.PW-9/6: Copy of judgment in case titled Rai Singh & Ors.
Vs Union of India & Ors in LAC No. 37/10/01.
7. Ex. PW-9/7: copy of judgment in case titled Rai Singh & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. in LAC No. 39/10/01.
He further relied upon the documents already exhibited by the petitioner's witnesses.
36. In his cross-examination, PW-9 deposed that he never sold or purchased any property during the period of 2003-2005. PW-9 denied the suggestion that he had not moved the proper and timely application for correction in the Award. PW-9 could not tell the exact LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 29 of 66 year since when DUSIB had been possession of the acquired land. However, he voluntarily deposed that DUSIB was in unauthorized possession of the land much prior to the notification issued under section 4 of L.A. Act.
37. PW-9 admitted the suggestion that in his petition, in para no. 2, he had mentioned that DUSIB was in possession of the acquired land for more than 40 years prior to filing of the present reference but he had not demanded any rent or damages for use and occupation of the land in question from the DUSIB nor had the DUSIB paid any such charges to him at any point of time. PW-9 denied the suggestion that DUSIB had become the owner by way of adverse possession. PW-9 denied the suggestion that petitioners were not entitled for any interest on the compensation awarded, u/s 34 of the L.A. Act. In response to a specific question, he replied that he had filed a sale deed dated 15.11.1996 already exhibited as Ex. PW-3/1 vide which the land in the vicinity of the acquired land was sold at about Rs. 49,000/- per sq. yards, to substantiate the averment contained in para no. 15 of his Affidavit.
38. PW-9 denied the suggestion that the land in question cannot be compared with the land detailed in Ex. PW-3/1 for the reasons that vendors and vendees were limited companies and the subject land was commercial land. However, he voluntarily deposed that the land involved in Ex. PW-3/1 was not a commercial land. He further denied the suggestion that the prices of auctioned plot/land cannot be compared with the rates of land in question.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 30 of 6639. Vide separate statement of Sh. Ravinder Singh, ld. Counsel for the petitioners, evidence on behalf of petitioners stand closed on 09.06.2017.
40. Sh. A.C. Tiwari, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 tendered in evidence copy of Award No. 14/DC(W) of 2006-2007 pertaining to Village Kampur Raya as Ex. R-1 and he also tender in evidence copies of three Sale Deeds dated 03.01.2004, 03.01.2004 and 19.12.2003 respectively as Ex. R-2 to R-4. He further submitted that the original of the above sale deeds are lying in the case titled as " Mahaveer Singh Vs Union of India" bearing LAC No. 143/16.
41. Sh. A.C. Tiwari, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1, closed evidence on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI on 02.11.2017.
42. On 02.11.2017, Ld counsel Sh Amit Kumar Mittal, ld. counsel for respondent no. 2/DUSIB, vide separate statement, adopted the evidence led on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
43. I have heard the arguments put forward by ld. Counsel for the petitioners and respondents, and have gone through the record of the case and the written submission filed on behalf of the petitioners. I have also carefully analyzed the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 31 of 66Issue Wise Findings ISSUE NO-1
1. Whether Section 19 Statement filed by the Collector (West) is true and correct? OPR1
44. The onus to prove this issue is upon respondent no. 1. In order to prove this issue, the respondent no. 1 has not led any evidence except tendering three sale deeds Ex. R-2 to R-4 and award under reference Ex. R-1.
45. PW-9 has deposed in his examination in chief by way of affidavit that the petitioners were co-owner/co-sharer in respect of land bearing Kh. No. 754/21/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 min (old Khasra number) and New Khasra number is 1083-1149/754/21 min and the respective shares of the petitioners are mentioned in the revenue record including Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 Ex. PW-7/2. PW-9 further deposed that the correct shares of the petitioners are also shown in Award no. 04/DC(W)/2005- 06 vide which the part of the land comprised in the same Khasra number had already been acquired and the copy of said Award is Ex. PW-5/4. PW-9 have deposed that the correct shares of all the petitioners in land in question is as per Jamabandi Ex. PW8/2 & as per Award Ex. PW-5/4.
46. Petitioner/PW-9 further deposed that the LAC has mentioned incorrect shares of petitioner no.1 to 14, 24 to 31 & 38 in the statement filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act despite the fact that their correct share pertaining to the same land in Khasra number has been correctly stated in earlier Award No. 04/DC(W)/2005-2006 and the LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 32 of 66 Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005. PW-9 further deposed that objections in this regard were filed by the petitioners which are on record. PW-9 further deposed that the petitioners immediately, after the passing of the award, applied for correction of shares to the LAC, West by application dated 01.08.2007 which is Ex. PW-9/1 and the diary register vide which the said application was filed is Ex. PW-5/6.
47. PW-9 further deposed that in a reference petition under section 30-31 of L.A Act titled as UOI Vs Mamchand & Ors. decided on 01.08.2016, the then ld. ADJ, West, Sh. Sanjay Kumar, has held that the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation in respect of the acquired land.
48. PW-9 was duly cross-examined by ld. Counsels for respondents. During his cross-examination, ld. Counsel for the respondents have not disputed the correctness of Jamabandi Ex. PW-8/2 and the findings of Award No. 4 Ex. PW-5/4. During cross-examination of PW-9 no question regarding the shares of petitioners no.1 to 14, 24 to 31 & 38 in the acquired land has been asked by ld. counsel for respondents and even no suggestion has been given to PW- 9 to the fact that correct shares of petitioners no.1 to 14, 24 to 31 & 38 qua their shares in the acquired land have been mentioned in Award as well as in statement filed under section 19 of the L.A Act. The respondents have not disputed the testimony of PW-9 regarding their shares mentioned in the Jamabandi Ex. PW-8/2.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 33 of 6649. PW-8 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Patwari has appeared in witness box and deposed that he had been examined as a witness in a case titled UOI Vs Mam Chand & Ors, decided on 03.08.2016 and he proved the certified copy of his statement given in the above reference as Ex. PW-8/1 and he also proved the copy of Jamabandi of year 2004-05 of Village Khampur Rai as Ex. PW-8/2. During his cross-examination, ld. Counsel for the respondents have not disputed the said Jamabandi.
50. That during trial on 23.09.2016, ld. counsel for the petitioner no. 1 to 14, 24 to 31 and 38 has filed objections to the statement filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act. Thereafter on 06.07.2018 again revised statement was filed on behalf of LAC, West.
Revised Memorandum filed on 06.07.2018 Name of recorded owner Khasra No. Total Detail of trees & share Area Building/Crops Bigha-
Biswa
1. Mam Chand S/o Ram754/21/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 Dass share 1092/31824 (old) 1/2 1083/1149/754/21
2. Naresh Kumar S/o(New) Ram Dass share 1092/31824, 1/2
3. Joginder Singh S/o Bhawar Singh, share 1073/286416, 1/2
4. Raj Singh S/o Bhawar Singh share 1073/286416, 1/2
5. Devender Singh S/o Pritam Singh, share LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 34 of 66 1073/572832, 1/2
6. Satish Singh S/o Pritam Singh, share 1073/572832, ½
7. Koushlaya D/o Pritam Singh, share 1073/572832, 1/2
8. Maya Devi D/o Pritam Singh, share 1073/572832, 1/2
9. Virender Singh S/o Duli Chand, share 1073/429624, 1/2
10. Maha Singh
- do -
11. Anil Kumar
- do -
12. Pramesh S/o Mahender, share 1073/95472, 1/2
13. Devant S/o Mahender, share 1073/95472, 1/2
14. Smt. Shanti Devi D/o Jhanda share 1073/47736, 1/2
15. Mam Chand S/o Ram Dass share 2178/63648, 1/2
16. Naresh Kumar S/o LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 35 of 66 Ram Dass share 2178/63648, 1/2
17. Joginder Singh S/o Bhawar Singh, share 2178/572832, 1/2
18. Raj Singh S/o Bhawar Singh share 2178/572832, 1/2
19. Devender Singh S/o Pritam Singh, share 2178/1145664, 1/2
20. Satish Singh S/o Pritam Singh, share 2178/1145664, 1/2
21. Koushlaya D/o Pritam Singh, share 2178/1145664, 1/2
22. Maya Devi D/o Pritam Singh, share 2178/1145664, 1/2
23. Virender Singh S/o Duli Chand, share 2178/859248, 1/2
24. Maha Singh
- do -
25. Anil Kumar
- do -
26. Pramesh S/o Mahender, share 2178/190944, 1/2 LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 36 of 66
27. Devant S/o Mahender, share 2178/190944, 1/2
28. Smt. Shanti Devi D/o Jhanda share 2178/95472, ½
29. Satish Kumar S/o Ram Kishore 4352/429624, 1/2
30. Krishan Pal S/o-
Ram Kishore
-do-
31. Anil Kumar S/o Ram Kishore
-do-
32. Sat Pal S/o Ram Kishor
-do-
33. Rakesh Kumar S/o Ram Kishore
-do-
34. Mukesh Kumar S/o Ram Kishore
-do-
35. Suresh Kumar S/o Ram Kishore
-do-
36. Balwan Singh S/o Ram Kishore
-do-
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 37 of 6637. Sanjay Kumar S/o Ram Kishore
-do-
38. Radhey Shyam S/o Pyare, share 4352/429624, 1/2
39. Sita Ram S/o Pyare, share 4352/429624, 1/2
40. Balbir S/o Pyare, share 4352/429624, 1/2
41. Premwati D/o Pyare, share 4352/429624, 1/2
42. Bimla D/o Pyare, share 4352/429624, 1/2
43. Urmila D/o Pyare, share 4352/429624, 1/2
44. Santosh D/o Pyare, share 4352/429624, 1/2
45. Satyawati D/o Pyare, share 4352/429624, 1/2
46. Savita D/o Pyare, share 4352/429624, 1/2
103. Ajit Singh S/o Bhikhan, share 456/111384, 1/2
104. Ramesh Chand S/o Bhikhan
-do-
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 38 of 66105. Jai Singh S/o Bhikhan
-do-
106. Om Prakash S/o Bhikhan
-do-
107. Smt. Bhagwati Devi W/o Bhikhan
-do-
108. Rajeshwar S/o Ranjit Singh, share 456/222768, 1/2
109. Anil Kumar S/o Ranjit Singh
-do-
119. Ajit Singh S/o Bhikhan, share 1041/222768, 1/2
120. Ramesh Chand S/o Bhikhan
-do-
121. Jal Singh S/o Bhikhan
-do-
122. Om Prakash S/o Bhikhan
-do-
123. Smt. Bhagwati Devi W/o Bhikhan
-do-
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 39 of 66124. Rajeshwar S/o Ranjit Singh, share 1041/445536, ½
125. Anil Kumar S/o Ranjit Singh
-do-
215. Bishambhar Singh S/o Kheema share, 1/288, 1/2
216. Nahar Singh S/o Nand Ram Share 1/288, 1/2
217. Maha Singh S/o Nand Ram
-do-
218. Karan Singh S/o Nand Ram
-do-
219. Prem Singh S/o Sada Ram 1/384, 1/2
220. Hari Singh S/o Sada Ram
-do-
221. Man Singh S/o Sada Ram
-do-
222.Gajender Singh S/o Sada Ram
-do-
227. Mahavir Singh S/o LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 40 of 66 Lou Ram 1/240
228. Sham Singh S/o Lou Ram
-do-
229. Hari Singh S/o Lou Ram
-do-
194. Shakti Singh S/o Lou Ram
-do-
231. Naresh Kumar S/o Hari Chand, 1/480, 1/2
232. Dinesh Kumar S/o Hari Chand
-do-
51. During arguments, ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that the shares of only petitioners no. 1 to 14, 24 to 31 & 38 have been mentioned incorrect by the LAC, in the award as well as in the statements earlier filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act. He further submits that thereafter revised statement under section 19 L. A Act was filed by LAC West on 06.07.2018 and the said revised statement u/s 19 of the L.A. Act is correct and shares and names of the petitioners have been correctly mentioned in the said revised statement.
52. I have perused the Jamabandi of year 2004-05 Ex. PW-8/2 . As per the above Jamabandi the total land in the above said Khasra LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 41 of 66 numbers is 332 bighas & 7 biswas and out of this total land, land of 8 biswas has been acquired in the present award. The shares of the petitioners are mentioned in the Jamabandi Ex. PW-8/2 and the said Jamabandi has already been relied upon by the court while deciding reference u/s 30 -31 of L.A. Act in a case titled UOI Vs Mamchand & Ors. on 01.08.2016.
53. In view of the above said facts and observations, it is held that petitioners are co-owners and having share in the acquired land as per revised statement filed by LAC on 6.7.2018 and also as per Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 Ex. PW-8/2. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
54. Findings on Issue no. 2 Issue no 2: What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
55. The burden to prove the issue no. 2 is upon the petitioners and in order to prove issue no. 2, the petitioners have examined total 10 witnesses.
56. PW-3 Jai Kishan, has proved the record of auction and lease deeds pertaining to the plots no. 4, 5, 6, 10 & 23, West Delhi, District Centre, Shivji Palace, Raja Garden, New Delhi as Ex. PW-3/1, Ex. PW-3/2, Ex. PW-3/3 (Colly) and Ex. PW-3/4 (Colly) respectively.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 42 of 6657. PW-2 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, has proved the copy of Conveyance Deed and Perpetual Lease deed pertaining to plots no 3 & 4 as Ex. PW-2/1 (Colly) & Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) respectively ( OSR).
58. PW-4 Sh. Naveen has proved the sale deed dated 15.11.1996 exhibited by Kanishka Builders & Promoters Private Limited in favour of Tata Mac Graw Hills Publishing Co. Ltd. Ex. PW-4/1.
59. PW-1 Sh. Vijay Kumar, has proved the attested copy of Schedule rates issued by L & DO department as Ex. PW-1/1. The respondents have not disputed the genuineness of the above said details of rates brought by the witness.
60. PW-5 Shri Rakesh Kumar, Patwari from the office of LAC, West had brought the certified copy of award No.2/2000-01 and original Award No. 4/DC(W)/2005-06 of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi and proved the copy of the same as Ex-5/5 & Ex. PW-5/4 respectively. He has also brought the certified copy of Award No. 1/DC(W)/2001-02 of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi and proved the copy of the same as Ex-5/3 (OSR) and also brought the original Award No. 13/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 02.02.2005 of East Patel Nagar, original Award No. 14/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 28.01.2005 of Main Patel Road, Patel Nagar and proved the copy of the same as Ex-5/1 and Ex-5/2 (OSR).
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 43 of 6661. PW-9 has exhibited the copy of Judgment passed in a reference case u/s 30-31 L.A. Act, titled UOI Vs Mamchand and Ors. as Ex. PW-9/2, Certified copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 3.12.2001, passed in a writ petition titled as Phool Singh and Ors. Vs UOI & Ors. as Ex. PW-9/3 and certified copy of the Writ Petition Ex. PW-9/4. PW-9 further exhibited the copy of Judgment passed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, ld. ADJ, in the reference case titled Sh. Virender Sood Vs UOI & Anr. Ex. PW-9/5.
62. The petitioners have primarily placed reliance on sale deeds, lease deeds, auction proceedings, previous LAC Awards of Village Khampur Raya and of adjoining areas and also placed reliance upon previous Reference Court Awards of the same village as in the present case i.e. Khampur Raya and also of adjoining village Basai Darapur. Additionally, they have also placed reliance on the notification issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment dated. 16.04.1999 wherein indicative rates for residential and commercial properties (in sq. meters) in Delhi were notified and which were in force on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 Land Acquisition Act of the acquired land. The petitioners are also mainly putting reliance upon the sale deed executed between Kanishka Builders P. Ltd. (vendor) and Tata McGraw Publishing Company (vendee) in respect of property situated on main road, West Patel Nagar Ex PW-4/1.
63. All the exhibited sale deed/Conveyance deed/lease deed on behalf of petitioners except Ex. PW-4/1 (Colly) & Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) relate to the transaction of commercial in nature. The factors that go in LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 44 of 66 towards purchase of a commercial property in a developed area cannot be considered to be a good indicator of the prevailing market price at the relevant time for land situated in the vicinity unless there is clear evidence to prove that the land in question was having the same use, potential and location as the one on which reliance is being placed.
64. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that the acquired land is fully developed and has proper road and other amenities. The petitioners have also failed to prove that there are commercial properties near to the acquired land, on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and has, thus, failed to prove its commercial use and potentiality. The sale deed Ex PW-4/1 is a sale deed dated 15.11.1996 executed between two corporates and subject matter of the sale deed has already been constructed up to three floors i.e. basement, ground floor, first floor, ad- measuring 800 sq. yards. This property is a commercial property being purchased by two corporators and it is purchased by Tata Mac Graw Hills Publishing Co. Ltd for its special needs and this sale deed cannot be equated as transaction between an average buyer and an average seller. Therefore, the sale deed Ex PW-4/1 cannot be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land of present reference.
65. The Perpetual lease deeds pertains to plot No. 4, 5, 6, 10 & 23 Ex. PW3/2 (OSR) & Ex. PW3/3(Colly) were result of auction proceedings of commercial plots in a commercially developed area i.e. District Centre, Raja Garden and hence, cannot be equated with the potential of acquired land in any manner, as per the observations given in the above para.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 45 of 6666. The petitioners have relied upon Award passed in respect of land acquired in village Basai Darapur, which is adjoining the revenue limits of the village Khampur Raya, where the acquired land is situated. PW-7 proved the copy of Ask sajra Ex PW-7/1(OSR) showing the boundary of village Khampur Raya touching boundary of village Basai Darapur.
67. LAC Awards covering Village East Patel Nagar, Main Patel Road, Village Basai Darapur and Khampur Raya, New Delhi, were exhibited Award No. 13 as Ex. PW-5/1, Award No. 14 as Ex. PW-5/2, Award No.1 as Ex. PW-5/3, Award no. 4 as Ex, PW-5/4 and Award No. 2 as Ex. PW-5/5 respectively. The dates of notifications issued under section 4 of the L.A. Act in the above said acquisition proceedings were 10.02.2003, 01.06.2004, 05.04.1999, 17.03.2004 and 14.05.1997 respectively. In the LAC Awards Ex. PW-5/1 the compensation was assessed @ Rs.13,280/- per sq. meter, In the LAC Awards Ex. PW-5/2 the compensation was assessed @ Rs.13,280/- per sq. meter, in the LAC Awards Ex. PW-5/3 the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 5799.16 per sq. yards, In the LAC Awards Ex. PW-5/4 the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 3500/- per sq. meter.
68. The Judgment Ex PW-9/5 given by Ld ADJ, Sh. O.P. Gupta in a case titled as "Virender Sood Vs Union of India relates to Award no. 16 of village Basai Darapur. But this judgment cannot be considered because the award in above said reference judgment was pertaining to the land which is commercial in nature and petitioners of above case had also filed writ petition in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 46 of 66 for giving direction to MCD to sanction him plan for construction of commercial complex and the acquired land of the said award was situated in Kirti Nagar, which is a hub of timber market. Award no. 13 and Award no. 14 Ex. PW-5/1 & Ex. PW-5/2 are also of commercial land and pertained to the above-said acquired land and can not be considered for assessing market value of the acquired land of present award on the same analogy.
69. The two judgments in reference case of the award no. 2/2000-2001 and award no. 3/2000-2001, of the same village i.e Khampur Rai have been pronounced therein by Ld ADJ, Sh. Sanjay Kumar and the copy of the judgments of said answered reference are Ex PW-9/6 and Ex PW-9/7. In the above-said awards, the LAC, West has determined the market value of the acquired land in the above-said awards as Rs. 2000/- per sq. yards and the said market value was redetermined in the above-said judgments @ Rs. 8663/- per sq. meter, after deducting the development charges. The court has relied upon scheduled rates issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment dated. 16.04.1999 Ex PW-1/1 for determining the market value of the land in above judgments. The market value of the acquired land, in the present reference, is determined @ Rs. 3500/- per square meter, which is very less from the market value of the land of the same village determined by the court in the above-said both judgments.
70. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 has tendered photocopies of three sale deeds dated 3.1.2004, 3.1.2004 and 19.12.2003 respectively as Ex. R-2 to R-3. Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 has relied upon LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 47 of 66 the sale deeds for assessing the market value of acquired land. It is settled law that there is no need to call vendor or vendee to prove the sale deed in order to relying upon said sale deeds for determining the market value of the acquired land. But the respondent no. 1 should have called some official with original record pertaining to the said sale deeds from the Sub-Registrar office, in order to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the above said sale deeds. Even no certified copy of the above said sale deeds has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. The above said sale deeds being photocopies are inadmissible in evidence. These sale deeds have not been tendered in evidence so petitioners have not got right to cross-examine witness on the said sale deeds. Moreover, the LAC West has also not determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the above said sale deeds. Even the rates issued by L & DO department are more than the value of the land mentioned in the said sale deeds.
71. The comparison of sale deeds of the land of the same village and the land of adjoining villages, for determining the market value of the acquired land is an established norm, the other relevant factors being the area, nature, location, advantages, disadvantages, soil quality, demand for land, availability of land for development in the area and nature of development in surrounding area thereof. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court given in a case titled as "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs Nemi Chand Damodar Dass & Anr"
2022 livelaw (SC), 603.LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 48 of 66
72. In a judgment titled as "Bhola Nath Sharma through Lrs Vs Union of India through LAC & Anr, LA.AAP. 109/2013 decided on 23.03.2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows:
"69. It has been the practice to adopt the comparable sales method for determining the market value of the land as aforesaid method is more preferable than computing the valuation of the land on the basis of capitalization of net income method or by taking expert opinion. The reason for the same is that a willing purchaser would always put pay the same price which was fetched of other land with same geographical location and advantage."
73. In the above-said judgment, it is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the sale transaction under the registered sale deeds are to be assumed as normal sales by a willing seller to a willing purchaser. However, in the absence of such registered sale deeds, even auction sales, which stand on a different footing, can be accepted if they are the only comparable sale transactions a vailable in terms of proximity in situation and proximity in time to the acquired land.
74. The Supreme court in a titled as " Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board Vs Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & ors", (2011) 2 SCC 246, the Supreme Court held as hereunder:-
"7. But where an open auction sale is the only comparable sale transaction available (on account of proximity in situation and proximity in time to the acquired land), the court may have to, with caution, rely upon the price disclosed by such auction sales, by providing an appropriate deduction or cut to off-set the competitive-hike in value. In this case, the Reference court and High LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 49 of 66 Court, after referring to the evidence relating to other sale transactions, found them to be inapplicable as they related to far away properties. Therefore, we are left with only the auction sale transactions. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a deduction or cut of 20% in the auction price disclosed by the relied upon auction transaction towards the factor of 'competitive-price hike' would enable us to arrive at the fair market price."
75. In the present reference, the sale deeds, lease deeds and auction proceedings except lease deed/conveyance deed Ex PW-2/1 (Colly) and Ex PW-2/2 ( Colly) are not equitable for assessing the market value of the land in question as already held above. Hence, in the present reference, lease deed/conveyance deed Ex PW-2/1 (Colly) and Ex PW-2/2 (Colly) are remained to be examined as to their applicability in the present reference for determining the market value of the acquired land.
76. PW-9 has deposed in his examination in chief by way of affidavit that the land of the petitioners touches the land of West Patel Nagar, Main Patel Road, Shadipur Metro Station, Patel Nagar Railway Station, Shadipur Bus Depot, Delhi Milk Scheme Plant Shadipur and is surrounded by various developed colonies known as Baljeet Nagar, West Patel Nagar etc. etc. All the facilities and amenities of life such as metalled road, railway station, metro station, bus depot, sewage facility, electricity facility, telephone facility, rail road transport etc. etc. were available in the land in question much prior to date of Section 4 notification.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 50 of 6677. PW-9 further deposed that the land of the petitioners was fully developed land and is surrounded by education institutions, residential area, commercial area of Patel Nagar as well as industrial area of Rama Road, Kirti Nagar and Naraina. The land in the aforesaid colonies were being sold at the rate of more than Rs. 1 lac per sq. yards as on Section 4 Notification date in 2004. Ld counsel for the respondents has only given a general suggestion that the facilities alleged in para no. 11 and 12 of the affidavit of petitioner were not available to the land in question prior to the notification issued under section 4 Of land Acquisition Act. The respondents have not led any evidence to rebut the above-said contents of para no. 11 and 12 of the affidavit of PW-9.
78. PW-7 has brought Aks Shajra of village Khampur Rai which prove that the boundary of village Khampur Rai touches the boundary of village Basaidara pur and the said Aks Shajra is Ex PW-7/1 (OSR).
79. In view of the above-said testimonies, it has been proved that the land in question is surrounded by developed residential colonies and it is also proved that there was also existing a constructed building up to 3 floors (basement, ground floor and first floor) on the land of West, Patel Nagar before the issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in the present award. In the award of present reference, the LAC has also mentioned the fact that the acquired land falls in an unplanned colony but respondents have not led any evidence to prove that the colony where acquired land situated is an unplanned LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 51 of 66 colony. The above-said facts prove that on the date of notification i.e. 07.06.2004, the acquired land has the potential to be developed and be used for residential purpose. Though, it has not been proved that the acquired land is equally developed, as per the surrounding developed residential colonies.
80. In a reference on the present Award, the lease deed/conveyance deed Ex PW-2/1 and Ex PW-2/2 relate to auction of residential plots of West, Patel Nagar which is situated on the land Village Khampur Raya. As the above said lease deed/conveyance deed are the only comparable sale transaction in the present reference and the auction sale transaction can be compared for determining the market value of the acquired land as these transactions are of residential plots and are of the same village. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of "Bhola Nath Sharma through Lrs Vs Union of India through LAC & Anr, LA.AAP. 109/2013 decided on 23.03.2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi"
81. PW-9 has deposed that in his examination in chief that the DDA had auctioned plot no 3 and 4 of West, Patel Nagar, Delhi on 23.09.1996 and 11.10.1996. He further deposed that the reserve price of the above-said plots in the auction was Rs. 26,877/- per square meter. As per lease deed the above-said plots were auctioned for Rs. 39,027/- per square meter and Rs.37,894/- per square meter respectively. It is also fact that the above-said residential plots were auctioned after substantial development by the development authority and the above- said plots also situated in a developed area. In a case titled as LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 52 of 66 "Executive Engineer, Karnatka Housing Board (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex court has observed that while considering the auction sales for determining the market value of acquired land, the court should be cautioned while relying upon the price disclosed by such auction sales by providing an appropriate deduction or cut to off-set the competitive hike in value. Hence, the auction sale amount cannot consider as the sale amount paid by as an average buyer. However, in the said auction sale, the DDA has reserved the sale price of Rs. 26,877/- per square meter and below this price the DDA was not ready to sell the abovesaid plots. So, this reserve price can be safely considered as an average sale price to be paid by an average buyer for purchasing the residential plots in West Patel Nagar.
82. The plot no 3 and 4 have been auctioned on 23.09.1996 and 11.10.1996 respectively, therefore, these auction proceedings do not reflect the true value of the acquired land in year, 2004 but these transactions are relevant for showing that as per the conveyance deed/lease deeds executed much prior in time, the market value of the nearby developed land of the same village was much higher than the market value determined by LAC under the present award. The notification for acquiring the land of present reference has been issued after 7 years and 7 months from the date of auction of plot no 4 i.e. 11.10.1996 and the petitioners were awarded compensation at the meager rate of Rs. 3500/- per sq meter, which has worked great in justice to the petitioners. The petitioners are also entitled for appreciation of land rates at the rate of 12% per annum on the reserve price of plot no 4 which effect from 11.10.1996 to 07.06.2004, which is LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 53 of 66 approximately for about 7 years and 7 months and 26 days. The reliance is placed upon the judgment of "Vedi Ram Vs Union of India & Anr,"
93 (2001) DLT, 150, decided on 23.03.2021.
83. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments that the sale deeds of the highest market value must be considered for determining the market value unless there are strong reasons for deviation. It is also held in a number of judgments that deduction up to 1/3rd of the highest sale deed consideration may be made on account of largeness of the acquired land, due to the fact that the acquired land has not still developed though the property in the compared sale deed is fully developed. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments:
i. Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. UOI, 176 (2011) DLT 361; ii. Sri Ram M. Vijayalakshamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of Madras C.A. No. 410 of 1962, decided on 24.04.1963, by Hon'ble Supreme Court; and iii Pratap Singh, through LRs. Vs. UOI & Ors. LA Appeal No. 193/2006 alongwith many other LA appeals, decided on 19.12.2008.
iv Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs Nemi Chand Damodar Dass & Anr" 2022 livelaw (SC), 603.
84. So, it is clear that as per settled law the deduction of around 1/3rd may be made vide fixing compensation payable on account of difference in the level of development between the area of acquired land and the neighbouring area, the sale deed of which is relied for LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 54 of 66 comparison, to make out a case for enhancement of compensation.
85. Hence, in the present case, the deduction on account of development of acquired land for the public purpose would have to be factored in especially keeping in view the hilly terrain of the acquired land and significant engineering skill required for creating an underground water reservoir and water pump house in a hilly terrain. Huge amount is required to be spent on the acquired land for making it plain and for further develop it and to make it suitable for creating an underground water reservoir and water pump house in a hilly terrain and further for creating an underground water reservoir and water pump on the acquired land. Considering the above-said facts, this court deems it fit to make deduction of 1/3rd from the above-said reserve price of Rs. 26,877/- as development charges. After giving appreciation @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.26,877/-, the amount came as Rs 52,567/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount as development charges from the above- said amount, we reached the amount of Rs. 34,378/-.
86. Accordingly, it is held that the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was Rs. 34,378/- per square meter. Therefore, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
87. Findings on Issue no. 3.
Issue no. 3: Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate?OPP LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 55 of 66
88. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no. 1/UOI has taken objection that the present petition is barred by the period of limitation but no issue in this regard has been framed at the time of framing of issues. The onus to prove this issue is upon the petitioners. The petitioners have examined total 10 witnesses in the present petition.
89. Ld. counsel for the UOI has argued that the present reference petition has not been filed within the period prescribed under section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ld. counsel for the UOI has also not apprised the court as to how the reference petition is time barred.
90. As per proviso 'a' of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners are entitled to file reference before the Collector within 6 weeks from the date of Collector's order, in case the petitioners are present or represented before the Collector at the time of passing of award.
91. As per proviso 'b' of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in other cases, the petitioners are entitled to file reference before the Collector within 6 weeks of the receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12 sub section 2 or within 6 months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
92. In the present reference, the award has been passed by the LAC on 02.06.2007 and the application under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act for sending the reference to the court, has been received by the office of LAC, West on 10.07.2007 and there is also receiving of the office of LAC, on the original application filed by the petitioners wherein receiving number 4146 dated 10.07.2007 has been mentioned.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 56 of 6693. In the present matter the application for sending the reference to the court has been filed before LAC, WEST within 6 weeks from the passing of the Award dated 02.06.2007. Hence, the present reference petition is within period of limitation as prescribed under Section 18 of the L.A. Act.
94. It has already been held above that the petitioners are co- owner/co-sharers of the acquired land to the extent of their shares as mentioned in Revised Statement filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act by LAC on 6.7.2018 and also as per Jamabandi Ex. PW-8/2 and the market value of acquired land for compensation is determined @ Rs. 34,378/- per square meter.
95. The petitioners are also claiming damages under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have alleged in the reference application that the possession of the acquired land ad measuring 8 biswas had been taken by the Government illegally and unlawfully, more than 40 years ago without acquiring the said land under the law and even without paying compensation to the petitioner. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the land in question has been in illegal possession/occupation of the respondent no. 2/Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board for the last several years.
96. It has been argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the MCD, Delhi after notification on 13.11.1959 without waiting the announcement of award, took the possession of the land in question, immediately after notification issued under section 4 of the Land LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 57 of 66 Acquisition Act, on 13.11.1959. It is further argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to interest under Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act from 13.11.1962 as the possession of the land was taken immediately by respondent no. 2 even prior to the declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.
97. PW-9, who is one of the petitioner has been examined himself in the court by filing his affidavit by way of examination-in- chief. In the affidavit, Ex PW-9/A, PW-9 has not mentioned any date and year on which the respondent no. 2 has taken possession of the land in question from the petitioners. The Affidavit of PW-9 is completely silent about the date, month and year of taking possession of the land in question by the respondents. In the affidavit, the averments regarding taking of possession has been mentioned in para no. 9, wherein it is mentioned that "since the possession of the petitioners' land have been illegally and unauthorizedly obtained/taken over by respondents, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for interest on compensation under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, from the date of possession till the date of payment of compensation".
98. In his cross examination, PW-9 deposed that he cannot tell since when DUSIB was in possession of the acquired land since the notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act. He voluntarily deposed that DUSIB was in unauthorized possession of the land much prior to the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act. He further deposed that he cannot give the exact year since when DUSIB was in unauthorized possession of the land.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 58 of 6699. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ petition "Phool Singh Vs Union of India" has held that since the respondents had already utilized the land for public purpose, therefore, inquiry under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, is dispensed with.
100. Ld. counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners are entitled to receive damages u/s 34 of the L.A Act at least from 07.06.2004 for taking the possession of the land from the petitioners by the respondents even before issuance of notification u/s 4 of the L. A. Act. He further argued that it is admitted in award Ex. R-1 by the LAC, West that the possession of the land in question has been taken from the petitioners on 07.06.2004.
101. Now the question arises whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of interest since the date of their dispossession which is prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bhola Nath Sharma through Lrs Vs Union of India through LAC & Anr ( Supra) held that, "If the possession is taken prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) it would not be in accordance with Section 16 or 17 and will be without any authority of law and consequently cannot be recognized for the purposes of the Act".
"Strictly speaking, interest is payable since the date of dispossession after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, taking into consideration that appellants are surely to be compensated for the number of years for which they were dispossessed prior to the notification, I deem it expedient to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of dispossession in the year 1972 till the date of LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 59 of 66 notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. This would take care of the damages to which the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, would be entitled to".
102. In the present reference no evidence has been led by the petitioners to prove from which date, month or year, the respondents have taken possession of acquired land from them prior to issue of notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act. There is no evidence before the court to determine the date, month & year on which possession of acquired land has been taken by respondents.
103. In the present reference the LAC has mentioned in Award no. 14 Ex. R-1 that, " in the present proceedings, the formal taking over and handing over proceedings were not carried out though the possession is already with the Slum & J.J. Department so the additional amount @ 12 % is calculated from 07.04.2004 to 02.06.2007. The LAC West has admitted the taking of possession of the acquired land before issuance of notification under section 4 in the present reference and has given additional amount @ 12% from 07.04.2004 to 02.06.2007. It means it has been admitted on behalf of LAC, West that the possession of the acquired land has been taken from the petitioners on 07.04.2004.
104. In view of the above-said evidence, the petitioners are held entitled for receiving damages from the respondents at the rate of 6 % per annum from 07.04.2004 till date of issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act i.e. 07.06.2004.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 60 of 66105. As per above said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioners are entitled for interest @ 9% per annum under section 28 of the L.A. Act from the date of notification. Further petitioner are entitled for interest @ 15% p.a after the expiry of one year.
106. Ld counsel for the Union of India has argued that the Government should not be burdened with interest at the rate of 15% per annum, as per Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act because there was no fault on the part of Union of India for delay in deciding the present reference and the delay in deciding the present reference took place due to title dispute between the co-sharer of the land in question.
107. He further argued that as per settled law the petitioners are not entitled for interest of the period during which their petition under section 30-31 of L.A. Act remained pending for deciding title dispute between them. He further argued that the legal heir of deceased petitioners who filed delayed application for impleadment, should not be granted interest of the delayed period in moving applications.
108. The case file reveals that during the pendency of present reference petition, some of the petitioners were died and the applications for impleadment of legal heirs of deceased petitioners were filed at belated stage after the expiry of limitation period, therefore, it is held that the legal heirs of the deceased petitioners, for whose impleadment applications have been filed at belated stage, after expiry of limitation period shall not be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 61 of 66 compensation, for the delayed period in moving application for impledment as legal heirs of deceased petitioners.
109. The second contention of ld. counsel for Union of India is that the petitioners should not be granted interest on the enhanced compensation of the period, during which their petition under section 30-31 of L.A. Act was remained pending for deciding their iner-se dispute of title as it would unnecessary and without any justification burdened the State Exchequer to pay interest @ 15 % p.a. without any lapse on the part of government.
110. In the present case, the application for sending the reference to the court, has been filed by the petitioners before the LAC, West on 10.07.2007 but the reference to this court has been sent by LAC West on 10.07.2015 after expiry of 8 years. The government authority i.e. LAC West has taken 8 years in sending reference to court.
111. In an appeal ( civil) 667 of 2002, titled Khazan Singh (dead) by LRs vs Union of India, decided on 24.01.2002, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"Section 18 of the Act empowers a person interested in the land to move by a written application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the person interested. If the application for reference is in order the Collector is bound to make a reference of it to the Court."LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 62 of 66
112. In a case titled as K. Kankarathnamma and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1965, AIR 304, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"We say unfortunately because this is not 'a kind of plea which the State ought at all to have taken. Quite clearly applications objecting to the rates at which compensation was allowed were taken in time by persons interested in the lands which were under acquisition and it was no fault of theirs that a reference was not made by the Land Acquisition officer. Indeed, whenever applications are made under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference unless there is a valid ground for rejecting the applications such as for instance that the applications were barred by time. Where an officer of the State is remiss in the performance of his duties in fairness the State ought not to take advantage of this fact "
113. There is no just/reasonable grounds with government authorities to keep the application of petitioners pending for 8 years. There is no justification as to why the application was kept pending for so long. There is unwarranted delay on the part of the officials who have dealt with the application of the petitioners for forwarding the present reference to this court and due to the lapse of the government authority in timely not sending the reference petition to the court, the petitioners can not be dis-entitled from receiving interest of such period as there is no lapse on their part. The petitioners have filed application which is required by law to be filed by the petitioners and thereafter it is the duty of LAC, West to send the reference timely to the court. So there is clear negligence on the part of officers who have dealt with the present reference application. Due to negligence of the officers of government, in not sending the reference to the court timely, the State has been LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 63 of 66 burdened unnecessary to pay interest @ 15 % p.a for which the erring officers are liable to compensate the government.
114. In view of the above said fact, this court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled for interest for the entire period.
115. The petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land, as per their shares mentioned in the Revised Statement filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act by the LAC on 6.07.2018 and as per Jamabandi Ex. PW-8/2. Accordingly, issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
116. ISSUE NO-5 (RELIEF):-
117. In view of above discussion and observation, petitioners are held entitled to following reliefs :-
(i) Enhanced Compensation @ Rs. 30,878/- (Rs. 34378 - Rs.
3500.00) per sq. meter. over and above the compensation determined by LAC, West, @ Rs. 3500/- per sq. meter.
(ii) In addition to the above, the petitioners shall also be entitled for 30% solatium on the enhanced amount.
(iii) The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount @ 12 per cent per annum, on the market value fixed in this case, u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of award.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 64 of 66(iv) The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9% from the date of Section-4 notification till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment.
(v) The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount @ 9% from the date of Section-4 notification till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment as per directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it has been held that the person entitled to compensation awarded would also be entitled to get interest on the additional amount as well as on solatium.
(vi) In addition to above, the petitioners are also entitled to damages @ 6% P.A. on the market value of the acquired land w.e.f. 07.04.2004 till the Section 4 Notification i.e. 07.06.2004.
(vii) The legal heirs of the deceased petitioners, for whose impleadment applications have been filed at belated stage, after expiry of limitation period shall not be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced compensation, for the delayed period, in moving application for impleadment as legal heirs of deceased petitioners.
(viii) The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands allowed accordingly.
LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 65 of 66118. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Copy of the judgment and decree sheet be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for intimation and compliance.
119. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed SHIV by SHIV KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.11 17:02:46 +0530 Announced in the open court on 11th December, 2024 (SHIV KUMAR) Addl. District Judge-02 (West), Delhi LAC-196/16 Mamchand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 66 of 66