Delhi District Court
Smt. Savitri Devi vs Union Of India on 30 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR-II,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
LAC No. 22/2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Smt. Savitri Devi,
W/o Sh. Om Prakash Goel,
D-288, Vivek Vihar,
Delhi-110095.
Erstwhile Address:
340/1, Gali No.1,
Friends Colony Industrial Area,
G.T. Road, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. .........Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
North-East Delhi.
2. Delhi Metro Rail Transport System,
Project Phase II, G.T. Road,
Shahdara,
Delhi. .........Respondents
Date of Institution : 20.04.2011
Date of reserving judgment : 20.08.2022
Date of judgment : 30.08.2022
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment, I shall decide the reference petition filed under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'L.A. Act, 1894') for the enhancement of the compensation arising out of the Award No. 2/2007-08 dated Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 1/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:20:08 +0530 31.12.2007 announced by the Land Acquisition Collector North- East Delhi with respect to village Jhilmil, Tahirpur, Delhi.
2 For deciding the reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In short L.A. Act) r/w statement U/s 19 of the Act sent by the LAC Delhi, the relevant dates and facts which are necessary for adjudication in the present matter are being given herein under:-
i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act : 12.04.2006
ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act : 22.05.2006
iii) Date of award : 31.12.2007
iv) Area of the locality : Jhilmil Tahirpur
v) Project : MRTS project
vi) The land use of the area as per the award : Commercial/Industrial
vii) Petition referred to court on : 20.04.2011
3 The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the notification dated 12.04.2006 under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 was issued by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") for acquisition of land/properties coming in the way of construction of Shahdara Dilshad Garden Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase II at G.T. Road Shahdara situated in Village Jhilmil Tahirpur, which was followed by the Notification dated 22.05.2006 under Section 6 & 17 (1) of L.A. Act, 1894. Possession of the acquired lands was taken by the LAC on 17.08.2006. Keeping in view the use of the land under acquisition as commercial/industrial, the LAC assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 6450/- per sq. mtr. with respect to 16 Bigha 16 Biswa i.e. 14068 sqr. mtr. of land which came to Rs.9,07,38,600/-. Further, solatium at the rate of 30% of market value alongwith the additional amount @ 12% of market value w.e.f. 12.04.2006 to 17.08.2006 was allowed apart from cost of structure appended to the said land and statutory Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 2/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:20:18 +0530 interest under Section 34 of the Act. Thus, an Award for total amount of Rs.22,14,55,073/- was passed by the LAC. 4 Being aggrieved from the lesser rate fixed by the LAC for the acquired land, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 18 of L.A. Act, 1894 before the LAC. The LAC sent the present reference petition to this court for adjudication on 20.04.2011 and court notices were issued to the petitioner as well as to the respondent no.1 and 2 and subsequently the present case was listed for trial and finally after adjudication of the evidence filed by all the parties, Ld. predecessor of this court finally announced an award/ judgment dated 31.05.2014 in which he relied upon the circle rates notified under the provisions of Delhi Stamp [Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments] Rules 2007 and enhanced the market value from Rs.6,450/- to Rs.21,920/- per sq. mtrs. as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the L.A. Act i.e. 12.04.2006.
5 Subsequently, the judgment passed by the trial court dated 31.05.2014 in the present case was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgement dated 13.11.2017, passed in LA Appeal No. 358/14 has set aside the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2014 thereby remanding back the matter to the reference court for recording of the additional evidence of the parties and thereafter passing fresh orders. 6 In the present petition, the petitioner has raised various grounds inter-alia stating that the petitioner has been deprived of her fundamental rights as the petitioner has been dependent on her factory together with her family and further the employee of the petitioner were also dependent and he has to pay necessary Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 3/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:20:27 +0530 compensation to the workman also and that is also part of the damages being caused to the petitioner. That the LAC has assessed the compensation merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without looking into the actual market rate of land prevailing in the area and the said land of the petitioner is situated in Jhilmil and Friends Colony Industrial Area near Patparganj Industrial Area and the value of each and every commodities have been rising day by day and the value of the land has also been increasing similarly. That the LAC has not considered the factum of intrinsic value towards the said land and the location of the land while assessing its market value and the said industrial plot has been declared industrial plot under the master plan of Delhi. That the market value of the land in the area at the time of said notification is not less than Rs.60,000/- per sq. yds. but the respondents have fixed the market price of land in a very illogical manner without taking into consideration the actual prevailing market price of the land. That the respondent took into consideration only the policy announcement and not the other factors, which have real role in determining the market price of the land, the land of the petitioner could not be tagged at any amount less than Rs.1,00,000/- per sq. yds. at present. That the LAC has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the plot of the petitioner is situated in industrial area and he has established factory for the livelihood of her family members dependent on the same. Lastly, it has been prayed by the petitioner to decide the reference in her favour.
7 Both the respondents have filed their separate reply/objections. The respondent no.1 i.e. Union of India denied that the petitioner is the owner of the property forming plot No. Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 4/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:20:34 +0530 340, Gali No.1, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi as alleged. However, it is submitted that the land in question has been since acquired, therefore, no other person/s including the petitioner have got no right whatsoever over the land in question. It is further denied that the alleged land in question is announced industrial plot under the Master Plan of Delhi and even structures have been raised as per the industrial regulations. It is also denied that the petitioner has raised the construction as alleged. However, it is submitted that the land in question has been acquired for the public purpose after due notifications and it now vests with the answering respondent. It is also denied that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the land measuring 104 sq. yds. and total covered area of the premises is 174 sq yds as alleged. It is also denied that the LAC has grossly erred in not awarding the compensation by taking into consideration the market value of the land, and the alleged structure/improvements or that the said notification and the above mentioned award is illegal, bad in law and violative of all principles of natural justice and provisions of law as alleged. It is further denied that the LAC has assessed the compensation on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without looking into actual market rate of land prevailing in the are. It is also denied that the market value at the time of acquisition was Rs.60,000/- per sq. yds. as alleged. It is also denied that the method adopted by him determining the market value of the land is not practical in the present time and same is outdated or that the answering respondent took into consideration only the policy announcement and not the other factors which have real role in determining the market price of the land. It is also denied that the alleged land if Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 5/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:20:42 +0530 any of the petitioner could not be tagged at any amount less than Rs.1,00,000/- per sq. yds. at present. However, it is submitted that compensation of the land has been awarded by the answering respondent as per the fair market price of the land at the relevant time of its notification. It is further denied that the LAC has erred in not appreciating the fact that the plot of the petitioner is situated in industrial area. All other averments of claim petition are denied word by word and ultimately it is prayed that the present petition is devoid of any merits and be dismissed. 8 The respondent no.2 took various preliminary objections in its reply that the DMRC is a joint venture of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the Govt. of India for the purposes of construction and implementation of the MRTS project in the National Capital Region. It is further stated that the said project being of immense public importance, the Govt. was under an obligation to provide land for the implementation of the project. It is further stated that the land in question was acquired for construction of the Shahdara Dilshad Garden Corridor of Phase-II of the Project by the Land & Building Department. It is further stated that the LAC after affording opportunity to the claimants and the authorities to adduce evidence in support of their contentions passed the award in accordance with law, taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances. It is further stated that the present petition is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to cover up her lacunae while adducing evidence before the LAC to derive an undue advantage to which he is not entitled. On merits, it is denied that the LAC had incorrectly assessed the market value on the basis of lowest rates. However, it is stated that the LAC treated the lands in question as commercial/industrial and not as Digitally signed by LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH Page no. 6/28 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:20:52 +0530 residential as alleged by the petitioner. All other averments of claim petition are denied word by word and ultimately it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed with costs in favour of the answering respondent and against the petitioner. 9 After completion of pleadings following issues were framed vide order dated 21.07.2012:-
1 What was the market value of the land acquired as on the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP 2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to any enhancement in compensation? If so, at what rate? OPP 3 Relief.
10 In earlier proceedings ld. counsel for petitioner, Ms. Dimple Dhamija tendered in evidence copy of the award passed in LAC No. 1/2009 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh Vs UOI and Anr. as Ex.PW1/A and deposed that the date of notification in the present case matter as well as in the above noted case is the same and the properties which are the subject matter of both the reference petition have been acquired by the same award and are identical in all respects including location, potentialities and market value.
11 On the other hand, Sh. A.C. Tiwari, ld. counsel for the UOI also tendered the copy of the award no. 2/2007-08 (North-East) of the LAC which Ex.R1 and he also adopted the evidence which was tendered by UOI in LAC No.01/2009 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh Vs UOI.
12 Sh. Arvind Saraswat, ld. counsel for DMRC also adopted the evidence which was tendered by UOI in LAC No. 01/2009 titled as Chander Pratap Singh Vs UOI.
13 In additional evidence, in order to prove her case, the Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 7/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:21:00 +0530 petitioner examined as many as three witnesses. Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Patwari, LAC Office, West Raja Garden, New Delhi was examined as PW2 and he has proved the attested copy of award No.4/DC(W)/2010-11 dated 30.05.2011 pertaining to Ashok Park, Village Basai Darapur, Delhi as E X .PW2/A. During his cross-examination, this witness also deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the record.
14 The next witness produced by the petitioner was PW3 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Senior Secretarial Asstt., L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, who has proved the list of commercial rates issued by the Ministry dated 02.05.2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2000 of the various areas of Delhi. The attested copy of the same was exhibited as Ex.PW3/A. During his cross-
examination, this witness deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the record.
15 The next witness produced by the petitioner was PW4 Smt. Rajni Saini, Sr. Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Babapur, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, who has proved the documents pertaining to the auction of property D-31, Mansarovar Park Shahdara Delhi as Ex.PW4/A (colly. 11 pages). During her cross-examination, this witness deposed that she has no personal knowledge of the records. 16 The next witness produced by the petitioner was PW5 Sh. Kamleshwari, Kanoongo from the office of DDA (Lands), Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi, who has placed on record the extract of Aks Shizra of the Revenue Estate of village Jhilmil Tahirpur. True copy of the same was exhibited by him as Ex.PW5/A. During his cross examination, the said witness deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the Digitally signed by LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH Page no. 8/28 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:21:06 +0530 record.
17 The respondent no.1 duly admitted the location and potentiality of the acquired properties to be commercial in nature which would go in a long way for determining the actual market value of the acquired properties as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act. The respondent no.1 did not lead any additional evidence after the present reference was remanded to this court for adducing additional evidence and relied upon the earlier evidence which was the award Ex.R1. 18 The respondent no.2, in the earlier proceedings, adopted the evidence led by the Union of India i.e. respondent no.1, however when the present matter was remanded back, the respondent no.2 has examined Sh. B.M. Gupta, Office Superintendent, Land Department, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 as RW1. He has tendered certified copy of registered sale deeds as EX.RW1/C to Ex.RW1/F (colly.) along with letter dated 28.02.2019 as EX.RW1/B. The details of registered sale as produced vide Ex.RW1/B (colly.) are as follows:-
Sale Nature of Sale deed Amount Area (as Area in sq. Considerable deed sale date per mtrs. value as per Regn. document) document No. 1075 Commercial 27.02.2006 100000 441 sq. 368.73 2712.01/- sq. yds. mtr.
1081 Commercial 27.02.2006 900000 300 sq. 250.83 sq. mtr. 3588.08/- sq.
yds. mtr.
5275 Commercial 06.12.2006 490000 150 sq. 125.41 sq. mtr. 3907.18/- sq.
yds. mtr.
2860 Industrial 06.07.2007 490000 150 sq. 125.41 sq. mtr. 3907.18/- sq.
yds. mtr.
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 9/28
KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30
16:21:14
+0530
19 Ld. counsel for petitioner and Section Officer (Legal) on
behalf of respondent no.2 filed their respective written arguments and they both reiterated their same arguments as mentioned in written arguments.
20 Ld. counsel for respondent no.1 did not lead any further/additional evidence nor file written arguments despite opportunity. Hence, it is presumed that respondent no.1 i.e. Union of India has nothing to say in the present case. Even otherwise respondent no.1 has no role to play in the present case as beneficiary department in the present case is respondent no.2 i.e. DMRC.
21 I have perused the written arguments as filed by the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 and also perused the record.
On perusal of record, my issue-wise finding is as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1 & 222 Both these issue are taken up together being inter-
connected. The onus to prove both these issues was upon the petitioner.
23 First and foremost, for the ascertainment of the actual market value, it is necessary to consider the admissions made by all the parties in the pleadings as well as in their evidence led in support of their contentions. The relevant portion of the award announced by the LAC is reproduced herein under:-
"The market value of the land under acquisition is to be determined with reference to the date of notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 12.04.2006. To arrive a fair market value of the land under acquisition, the locality of the site, its current land use, the salutation of the area, the quality, the potentiality of future land use of the land are to be taken into Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 10/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:21:23 +0530 consideration under the LA Act. The properties under acquisition are situated adjacent to Shahdara Flyover and have commercial as well as Industries in the vicinity. To ascertain the land use of the land under present acquisition, the report of the joint survey conducted by the officials of the Land Acquisition Collector, Land & Building Department and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation were kept in mind. Papers submitted by the claimants shows that it is a commercial/ industrial site. The evaluation report as submitted by the DMRC and vetted by the PWD regarding the properties also confirms the above land use."
24 The LAC, while assessing the market value of the land has observed that the acquired properties were commercial in nature and for this very reason, the commercial L&DO rates/schedule of market rates in Delhi issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Department of Urban Development were made the basis for the ascertainment of market value w.e.f. 01.04.1998.
25 Accordingly an escalation of 10% was allowed w.e.f. 01.04.1999 and the amount of Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. was assessed by the LAC for the properties acquired vide the present award. The respondent no.2 admitted the said award to be correct thereby admitting the basis of ascertainment of the market value to be correct as well.
26 As per section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the market value of the acquired properties is liable to be ascertained/ determined as on the date of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the L.A. Act which in this particular case is 12.04.2006. The petitioner has duly stated that the rate of Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. as assessed by the LAC is extremely meagre for the prime commercial property of the petitioner. For the assessment of the Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 11/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:21:34 +0530 correct market value, the petitioner has relied upon the schedule of market rates issued by the Ministry of Land & Development Office published in the year 2017 i.e. 02.05.2017 as Ex.PW3/A.
27 As already stated above, the LAC while assessing the market value of land has observed that properties under acquisition are situated adjacent to Shahdara flyover and have commercial as well as industrial activity in the vicinity. He has considered the joint survey report conducted by the officials of Land Acquisition Collector (Land & Building Department) and DMRC to ascertain the use of the land under acquisition. To assess the market rate of land, the LAC had considered the schedule of rates circulated by Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Department of Urban Development (land Division) vide No. J-22011/4/95-LD dated 16.04.1999 for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 which was Rs. 2805/- per sq. meter for residential land and Rs. 5865/- per sq. meter for commercial land in Jheel Khuranja; Rs. 2805/- per sq. meter for residential land and Rs. 5865 per sq. meter for commercial land in Geeta Colony; Rs. 1980/- per sq. meter for residential land and Rs. 4140/- per sq. meter for commercial land in Narela and other outlying colonies. The LAC has applied the rate of Rs. 5865/- per sq. meter for commercial land in Jheel Khurenja and Geeta Colony by stating that area of Jheel Khuranja and Geeta Colony though not in immediate proximity of the land under acquisition, but are nearest in terms of distance and gave 10% escalation over the rate effective from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 and held that rate of Rs. 5865/- per sq. meter after escalation of Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 12/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:21:45 +0530 10% comes to Rs. 6451.50/- which was rounded off to Rs. 6450/-.
28 The assessment of market value of acquired land on the basis of rate effective for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 as circulated by Land Division of Ministry of Urban Development is not legally sustainable as the LAC was required to assess the rate as prevalent on 12.04.2006 i.e. date of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act, 1894. The grant of escalation of 10% on Rs.5865/- per sq. meter for the period of six years would not justify the assessment of fair market value of land in question.
29 Section 23 of L.A. Act, 1894 provides that in order to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act.
30 In Kapil Mehra Vs. UOI (MANU/SC/0947/2014), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase, and where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighborhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4 (1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidence have to be considered. It has been further observed that for the purpose of fiXation of fair and reasonable market value of any type of land, abnormally high value or abnormally low value sales should be carefully discarded".
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR
Page no. 13/28
KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30
16:22:29
+0530
The factors have also been mentioned in para 10, which are required to considered in determining the market value of the land as:-
a. existing geographical situation of the land;
b. existing use of the land; c. Already available advantages, like proXimity to national or
state highway or road and/or developed area and;
d. Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the acquired land.
31 In Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board & Ors. Vs. K.S. Gangadharappa & Anr.
(MANU/SC/0598/2009), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"11. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made as:-
i. when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4 (1);
ii. it should be a bona fide transaction;
iii. it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and iv. it should possess similar advantages."
32 The respondent no.2 on the other hand has also admitted that the award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector is true and correct and reflects the actual market value of the property of the petitioner.
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
RAMESH KUMAR
LAC No. 22/2020 KUMAR Date: Page no. 14/28
2022.08.30
16:22:40
+0530
33 Going by the admissions of all the parties, the land use of
the acquired property is commercial and therefore, it is not a matter of doubt that commercial land rates are required to be assessed for the properties acquired vide award No.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi.
34 During the proceedings pending with respect to the present reference petition, the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Development itself published the revised rates dated 02.05.2017, exhibited as Ex.PW3/A, with respect to the various localities in Delhi w.e.f. 01.04.2000 onwards. Perusal of the aforesaid schedule shows that the rate for commercial land for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 (the period of the date of notification U/s 4 in the present case) was Rs.30,000/- per sq. mtrs. for Jheel Khurenja, Rs.30,000/- per sq. mtrs.; for Geeta Colony; Rs.12,000/- per sq. mtrs. for Narela & other outlying colonies. It is pertinent to mention here that the said rates have been made the basis for ascertainment of the market value even by the respondents and therefore this can very well be taken as a safe principle to ascertain the actual market value for the acquired properties.
35 In written arguments it is contended by the respondent no.2 that the document Ex.PW3/A i.e. copy of Schedule of Commercial Land Rates w.e.f. 01.04.2000 onwards in different ares of Delhi/New Delhi issued by Land and Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi is not reliable on the following grounds:-
a. That the same has been notified on 02.05.2017 after 11 year of the date of the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act in the instant case i.e. dated 12.04.2006.
Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 15/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:22:47 +0530 b. That the above Schedule of Commercial Land rates is not applicable in the instant case reason being the same will be applicable based on 100 FAR.
c. That it has not been mentioned anywhere in the covering letter No. L&DO/F-24013/3/2013-CDN/107 dated 02.05.2017 that for what purpose the said Schedule of Commercial Land rates was notified/issued.
d. That the witness PW3 admitted during cross examination that he does not have any personal knowledge how this schedule was prepared and for which area it is applicable or not applicable.
e. That the rates mentioned in the letter is for the land administered by the L&DO only.
f. That the above Schedule of Commercial Land rates is not applicable in the instant case reason being the same will be applicable only for Commercial nature of property while the instant case the nature of acquired land was industrial only.
Thus, it is contended that in view of the above reasons, the document Ex.PW3/A cannot be relied upon for determination of market value of the land in question.
Be that as it may, I am not inclined to agree with the aforesaid contentions raised by the respondent no.2 to this effect as LAC himself in his award found that the acquired lands are having commercial as well as industrial user and further, on the basis of same LAC has awarded compensation as per commercial L&DO rates.
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
RAMESH KUMAR
LAC No. 22/2020 KUMAR Date: Page no. 16/28
2022.08.30
16:22:54
+0530
36 The other evidence produced by the petitioner which is the
award of Village Basai Darapur, exhibited as Ex.PW2/A, shows that the additional benefits have also been awarded to the value of structures assessed vide the said award and the petitioner has contended that he is also liable to receive the said benefits as per award Ex.PW2/A. The respondent no.2 on the other hand, has contended in written arguments that for the said award, the notification under section 4 (a) of the Act dated 06.05.2009 was in vogue, while for the present case, the applicable notification was issued on 12.04.2006 and as per settled law, the market value of the land is required to be assessed on the date of notification issued under section 4 of the Act, which in the instant case, it was notification dated 12.04.2006 and as regards Ex.PW2/A, this exemplar/award is not relevant as this admittedly have been passed after 03 years of the notification and the land acquired vide said award Ex.PW2/A is situated 30 km away from the land in question. I am inclined to agree with the contentions raised by the respondent no.2 and therefore the award Ex.PW2/A cannot be accepted as evidence in the present case.
37 The petitioner has also placed reliance on the extract of Aks Shizra of the Revenue Estate of Jhilmil Tahirpur, Ex.PW5/A, which shows the location of the acquired properties. Since the location and potentiality of the acquired properties is admitted to be commercial, the documents Ex.PW5/A is of no consequence and is liable to be negated.
38 Ld. counsel for petitioner has also relied upon various judgments in support of her contentions and specifically relied upon a judgment passed by this court itself as Monika Gupta Vs. Digitally signed by LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH Page no. 17/28 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:23:04 +0530 Union of India & Anr., LAC No.07/2020 which is in respect of the properties acquired vide the same notification and same award i.e. award No.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi announced on 31.12.2007. The property under the present reference has been acquired under the same notification and it is the admitted case of the parties that all the properties acquired vide the above award are identical in terms of potentiality, location and use as in the properties of LAC No. 07/2020.
39 The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment titled Nandram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana cited in Judgments Today 1988 [4] SC 260 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that "The State cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date. "
40 The petitioner has also relied upon another judgment titled Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. Vs. State of J&K reported in AIR 2017 SC 1518 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons."
In view of the said judgments, the petitioner claims the same amount of compensation as assessed in case titled as Monika Gupta Vs. Union of India bearing LAC No.07/20, Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs UOI & Anr. bearing LAC No.14/20, and Sushil Kumar Jain Vs UOI & Anr. bearing LAC No.15/20 Digitally signed by LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH Page no. 18/28 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:23:11 +0530 which pertains to the same notification and same award i.e. Award No.2/2007-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi which have been decided by this court on 26.07.2022.
41 RW1 Sh. B.M. Gupta exhibited as many as 04 sale deeds in his testimony pertaining to the area of Jhilmil Tahirpur, which is Ex.RW1/C to Ex.RW1/F (colly.).
42 In the written arguments, the contention raised by the respondent no.2 is that the several regular sale transactions tendered by respondent no.2 in evidence are from the similar situated land in the same area i.e. Jhilmil Tahirpur Industrial Area which established the average rate of value of sale about Rs.3528.61/- per sq mtr. at the time of notification which is less than the market value fixed by the LAC @ Rs.6450/- per sq. mtr. based on facts, circumstances and prevailing market rates at the time of acquisition, hence it does not warrant any enhancement in the market value fixed by the LAC and therefore, the reference petition may be dismissed.
43 I have perused the said sale deeds. The said sale deeds pertain to the year 2006 and 2007. Two out of the four sale deeds relied upon by the respondent no.2 pertain to the subsequent dates i.e. 06.12.2006 and 06.07.2007 and only two sale deeds are prior to the date of notification U/s 4 i.e. 12.04.2006. It is surprising that both the sale deeds were registered on the same very date i.e. 27.02.2006 and the market value in both the said sale deeds are very different from each other. The sale deed registered vide Regn. No.1075 reflects the market value of the property to be Rs.2712.01/- per sq. mtrs. whereas the property sold vide sale deed registered vide Regn.
Digitally
signed by
LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH Page no. 19/28
RAMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30
16:23:22
+0530
No.1081 reflects the market value to be Rs.3588.08/- per sq. mtrs. which is a lot higher than the earlier sale deed executed on the same very date. This glaring difference in the market value of the two properties sold on the same very day creates a grave suspicion and doubt with respect to the prevailing market value and can in no manner be relied for the determination of the actual market value. Even otherwise, the value of the sale deeds relied upon by the respondent no.2 are almost 1/3rd in value as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and it is improbable that the commercial properties in the prime areas of Jhilmil Tahirpur were being sold only at a nominal rates of two to three thousand rupees per square meter only.
Also, by relying upon the sale deeds of the commercial land use, the respondent no.2 has itself admitted the land use of the area to be commercial. So the stand taken by the respondent no.2 is controverted by their own evidence.
45 As already stated above, a careful perusal of the sale deeds exhibited by the respondent no.2 as Ex.RW1/C to Ex.RW1/F shows that since there was a great variation in the market value reflected in the said sale deeds and the amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondent no.2 ought to have proved the sale deeds by examining either the vendor or the vendee in order to show that the same were executed between a willing purchaser and a willing seller which is the ground rule for relying on the same. For this very reason, even the judgment cited and relied upon by the respondent no.2 in its written arguments reported as Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Purya & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6986/2003) is of no relevance Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 20/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:23:31 +0530 since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only broadly enumerated the reason for accepting certified copies of sale deeds U/s 51-A, however in the present case since there is extreme discrepancy in the market value of the sale deeds exhibited by the respondent no.2, the same cannot be considered and appreciated without proper evidence and examination of the respective vendor and vendee.
46 The sale deeds relied upon by the respondent no.2. do not specify the detail regarding the nature and proximity of the said industrial properties to the commercial properties in question.
47 It is also not out of place to mention here that the LAC himself has not relied upon the sale deeds exhibited as Ex.RW1/C to Ex.RW1/F in order to arrive at the market value of the property in question due to the fact that there was a great suspicion with respect to the authenticity and validity of the sale deeds and in fact, the said sale deeds provide lower rates than awarded by the LAC.
48 The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Lal Chand Vs. UOI (supra) that "the distance between the two properties, the nature and situation of the property, proximity to the village or a road and several other factors may all be relevant in determining the market value. Mere production of some exemplar deeds without 'connecting' the subject matter of the instrument, to the acquired lands will be of little assistance in determining the market value".
49 The aforesaid judgment has also been relied upon by the respondent no.2 itself and the said judgment has to be construed as a whole and cannot be read in piecemeal.
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 21/28
KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30
16:23:48
+0530
50 The respondent no.2 has not disputed the award of the
LAC in which the commercial L&DO rates have been made the basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired properties and in view thereof, the said sale deeds fall out of zone of consideration in view of the reasons and findings stated above for the purpose of assessing market value of the land in question.
51 In Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State Of Goa & Anr, 2010 (2010) 13 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"13. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons."
52 It is again relevant to note herein that the LAC has also not relied upon the sales deeds Ex.RW1/C to Ex.RW1/F. The LAC has passed the award on the basis of schedule of rates circulated by Ministry of Urban Development (Land Division) vide Circular dated 16.04.1999 for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000, though the relevant date for the said purpose was 12.04.2006 i.e. date of notification under section 4 of L.A. Act, 1894. The LAC had given 10% escalation on the rate of Rs. 5,865/-, which was the rate notified for Jheel Khuranja and Geeta Colony having considered the fact that Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 22/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:23:55 +0530 notification under section 4 (1) of L.A. Act, 1894 was issued on 12.04.2006. Since the Schedule of commercial land rates by L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development, EX.PW3/A had already come into operation w.e.f 01.04.2000, which provides rate as Rs. 30,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 for Jheel Khuranja and Geeta Colony, therefore, the rate assessed by LAC is apparently on lower side. In view thereof, this referral court will be well within its jurisdiction to take note of the same in considering the prayer of the petitioner in seeking the enhancement even though the said rates are only for 100 FAR and not for 300 to 350 FAR which is the FAR of the area Jhilmil Tahirpur.
53 The petitioner has also relied upon the judgments passed in case titled as Monika Gupta Vs. Union of India bearing LAC No.07/20, Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs UOI & Anr. bearing LAC No.14/20, and Sushil Kumar Jain Vs UOI & Anr. bearing LAC No.15/20 which pertains to the same notification and same award i.e. Award No.2/2007-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi which have been decided by this court on 26.07.2022, in which the market value of the acquired properties acquired vide same notification and same award have been enhanced from Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. to Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as on 12.04.2006.
54 The respondent no.2 in written arguments vehemently contended that the earlier judgments relied upon by the petitioner and other property holders titled as Ashwani Arora Vs. UOI & Anr., Kanta Kumari Arora Vs. UOI & Anr., Amit Arora Vs. UOI & Anr. which also pertain to the same Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH Date:Page no. 23/28
KUMAR 2022.08.30
16:24:03
+0530
notification and same award have been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appeal Nos. 196/2022, 197/2022 & 198/2022 vide order dated 03.08.2022.
55 I have carefully gone through the said order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has only stayed the operation of the impugned orders on the score that the decreetal amount with respect to the said judgments and decree has already been deposited by the respondents with the reference court and only for this reason, the orders impugned in the said appeals have been stayed. No finding or reasoning has been given in the said order by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with respect to the arriving of the market value of the said properties and has not debarred the courts below in any manner.
56 The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed in case titled Narain Dass Aggarwal vs. UOI and Anr. bearing LAC No.27/17 which pertains to properties acquired vide award No.12/LAC/N/2012-13 in which the court of Ld. Addl.
District Judge has also granted the same enhancement which was granted by its predecessor court even though the said judgment has been impugned by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the petitioner has tried to show that any appeal filed with respect to the properties acquired vide same notification and same award shall not debar the courts to determine the market value on the basis of the evidence led by the petitioner. I have gone through the said judgment and I am in total agreement with the petitioner on this score. Since the same evidence has been led by all the Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 24/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:24:11 +0530 petitioners whose properties have been acquired by the same award, I am inclined to give the same amount of compensation which has been given to the other petitioners on the basis of the said evidence. I am not inclined to deviate from the enhancement granted to the other petitioners whose properties have been acquired vide the same notification and same award.
57 Even otherwise, I am inclined to agree with the basis taken for the arrival of the market value of the acquired property. The said court has relied upon the schedule of market rates Ex.PW3/A which was notified w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and the rates for the relevant period are Rs.30,000/- per sq. mtrs. for the leasehold properties of the various localities of Delhi. The revised rates for conversion of commercial properties from leasehold to freehold for the financial year 2006-2007 for East Delhi is Rs.18,000/- per sq. mtrs. and adding up the said rates to the value of Rs.30,000/-, the said court has fixed the market value of the acquired property with respect to the same award at Rs.48000/- per sq. mtrs. In the present case also, the petitioner has categorically contended that the acquired property was freehold which has not been denied or controverted by the respondents in any manner. The schedule of market rates has been taken to be the admitted basis for arrival of the market value by all the parties and I find no reason to rebut the said reliance in any manner.
58 The respondent no.2 have repeatedly contended that the judgment passed in case titled as Ashwani Arora & Ors. Vs. Union of India (supra) as well as the judgments passed by this court are not binding upon me, however in terms of the Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 25/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:24:17 +0530 evidence led in the present case and in the present award, I do not wish to differ from the same. Also as per the judgments titled Nandram vs. State of Haryana & Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. Vs. State of J&K (Supra), I hold that the same amount of market value as assessed in cases titled as Monika Gupta & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr., Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr. and Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. UOI & Anr. should be awarded to the petitioner in this case as well.
59 The written arguments filed by the respondent no. 2 has failed to satisfy this court with respect to the discrepancies in the rates of sale deeds Ex.RW1/C to Ex.RW1/F. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no reason to rely on the sale deeds Ex.RW1/C to Ex.RW1/F since said sale deeds had not been relied upon by the collector himself for assessment of the market value.
Furthermore, the said sale deeds are pertaining to the commercial properties executed on the same very date i.e. 27.02.2006 also do not reflect the actual market value since admittedly the value arrived at in the said sale deeds are also extremely different from each other and neither the buyer nor the seller have been examined in order to determine the genuineness of the said transactions. The extreme difference in the rates of the sale deeds persuade me to neglect the sale deeds Ex.RW1/C to Ex.RW1/F and rely upon schedule of market rates exhibited as Ex.PW3/A as the most authentic basis for determination of the market value. Hence for the foregoing reasons recorded above, this court deems it fit to award Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as the actual market rate with respect to the acquired properties duly acquired vide award No.2/2007-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 26/28
KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30
16:24:24
+0530
60 The LAC has awarded an amount of Rs.6450/- per sq.
mtrs. A perusal of the file also reveals that the petitioner has already received the enhancement of compensation @ Rs.21920/- per sq. mtrs. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled to a further enhancement of Rs.26080/- per sq. mtrs. over and above Rs.21920/- per sq. mtrs. [Rs.21920 + Rs.26080 = Rs.48000/- per sq. mtrs.].
61 I further hold that the original documents submitted by the petitioner as surety in compliance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India be also returned to the petitioner with immediate effect since the market value of the acquired property is now fixed at Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as against Rs.21920/- per sq. mtrs.
RELIEF 62 In view of the findings of issue No.1 & 2, the petitioner is entitled to the market value @ Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as on 12.04.2006. In addition, the petitioner would also be entitled to all statutory benefits i.e. 30 solatium on the market value in view of the compulsory nature of acquisition U/s 23 (2) of the LA Act and an additional amount of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act till date of possession or award whichever is earlier as per section 23 (1A) of the LA Act. Besides the petitioner would also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of dispossession till expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of the balance amount. It is made clear that the statutory benefits shall be available to the petitioner on the balance amount of Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 22/2020 RAMESH KUMAR Page no. 27/28 KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:24:32 +0530 Rs.26080/- per sq. mtrs. since in the present case, the petitioner has received the enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs.21920/- per sq. mtrs. along with statutory benefits.
63 The original documents submitted as surety by the petitioner be returned to the petitioner on filing of appropriate application.
64 Reference is answered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 65 A copy of this judgement be sent to the concerned LAC for information and necessary compliance within three months of its receipt. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally (Typed to the dictation directly corrected signed by and pronounced in open court on 30.08.2022). RAMESH RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.30 16:24:38 +0530 (RAMESH KUMAR-II) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHADARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI LAC No. 22/2020 Page no. 28/28