Delhi District Court
Ram Phal (Since Deceased) vs Union Of India on 16 May, 2019
LAC No.157/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. NIKHIL CHOPRA, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
ROOM NO. 606, SAKET COURTS, SOUTH DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
In the matter of
LAC No.157/2016
Filing No.20880/2012
CNR No. DLST00006652012
Ram Phal (since deceased)
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal
Through his legal heirs:
a. Smt. Shanti Devi (widow)
b. Dilbagh Singh (son)
c. Rishi Raj (son)
d. Jagat Singh (predeceased son)
Through Lrs:
i. Smt. Saroj (widow)
ii. Rocky (son)
iii. Vicky (son)
e. Smt. Phoolwati (daughter)
f. Smt. Sunita Devi (daughter)
All:
R/o H. No.63, Maidangarhi,
New Delhi
...................... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through LAC (South)
2. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
.....................Respondents
Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 1 of 13
LAC No.157/2016
Reference received on : 28.08.2012
Date of institution : 28.08.2012
Date on which order was reserved : 15.05.2019
Date of Award : 16.05.2019
AWARD
(by the court under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, 1894)
1. The present reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was received from the office of Land Acquisition Collector on an application moved by the petitioner, who has sought enhancement of the monetary award given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the assessment of the market value of the acquired land was done on the lower side without considering the relevant factors for correctly assessing the market value of the land in question. The reference was received from the office of LAC (South) on 28.08.2012.
For answering the present reference petition, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
1. Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act 25.11.1980
2. Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act 18.06.1985
3. Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act Nil
4. for Project Planned Development of Delhi
5. Location/Name of Village Maidangarhi
6. Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC 23/198788 Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 2 of 13 LAC No.157/2016 & date of award 17.06.1987
7. Area under acquisitionin question 897504
8. Petition referred to Court on 28.08.2012
2. The present reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land situated in village Maidangarhi which was acquired for the public purpose of 'Planned Development of Delhi'. The land in question was acquired by the LAC vide award No.23/198788 dated 17.06.1987 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 25.11.1980 which was followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 18.06.1985.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after considering the relevant factors gave its Award No.23/198788 by determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition @ Rs.16,000/ per bigha for land categorized as ClassA.;
Rs.14,000/ per bigha for land categorized as ClassB; Rs.12,000/ per bigha for land categorized as ClassC; and Rs.10,000/ per bigha for land categorized as ClassD.
4. Since the petitioner did not accept the award, he preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference filed by the petitioners along with statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 (giving details of the acquired area, date of notification Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 3 of 13 LAC No.157/2016 under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, date of possession, rates of compensation, and the share of the petitioners in the acquired land) has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector for answering the same.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that Learned Predecessor vide order dated 28.05.2013, framed the preliminary issue of limitation and fixed the matter for petitioner's evidence. However, despite, number of opportunities granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, no evidence was led and vide order dated 12.11.2013, right of the petitioner to lead evidence was closed and evidence on behalf of the respondent/ UOI was recorded. Subsequent thereto, vide judgment dated 26.11.2013, reference of the petitioner was answered whereby the same was dismissed being time barred and for want of evidence on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Thereafter, legal heirs of petitioner had moved an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was allowed vide order dated 25.01.2016 and the reference was restored to its original number, while making the observations as under:
"However, there is a provision for review of order or judgment u/o XLVII rule 1 CPC when there is an apparent error or illegality on the face of record or there are sufficient reasons. This law has also been elaborated in precedent S. P. Gupta vs. UOI, 1993 RLR 606 SC. The reference petition is of 28.07.1987 it was sent to the court on 28.08.2012 and as per section 19 & 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 on receipt of Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 4 of 13 LAC No.157/2016 reference petition u/s 18 forwarded by the Collector with his statement u/s 19, the court is required to sent notice to the parties. This exercise is not found in the proceedings. Therefore, there exist sufficient reason to set aside the judgment. This also infers that since notice in the name of petitioner/applicant have not been sent, they had no knowledge about the petition and it makes out sufficient ground to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the application is condoned and for the said reasons the review application is also allowed. The petition is restored to its original number."
7. Further, Learned Predecessor also impleaded DDA, being the beneficiary party, as respondent in the present reference.
8. On 14.02.2017, application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 moved on behalf of the legal heirs of the petitioner, for their impleadment was allowed.
PETITIONERS' CASE
9. Reference was forwarded by the LAC with the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.695/121, 696/121, 218, 340, 410, 863/448, 864/448, 569, 760/596, 760/596, 926/759/596 measuring 64 bigha 10 biswa situated in Village Maidangarhi; that the LAC at the time of passing of Award did not consider the purpose and object of the acquisition as well as Government policy; that the LAC had assessed the market value of the land in Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 5 of 13 LAC No.157/2016 question at a very low rates; that all modern facilities like electricity, transportation, water etc. were available in the vicinity of acquired land; that the land in question was surrounded by developed colonies like Chhatarpur, Saket etc.; that at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, the market value of the land in question was not less than Rs.2000/ per sq. yds; and that the LAC had wrongly assessed the market value of the land in question. Petitioner, thus, prayed for grant of compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.2000/ per sq. yds along with Rs.2,00,000/ as damages and other statutory benefits.
RESPONDENTS' CASE On behalf of UOI/respondent No.1
10. In its Written Statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed the claim for enhancement in compensation by submitting that the petitioner has not brought any cogent and specific evidence on record for the same; that the present reference is barred by limitation; and that the Land Acquisition Collector has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. Respondent No.1, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present reference petition.
On behalf of the DDA/respondent No.2 Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 6 of 13 LAC No.157/2016
11. DDA in its Written Statement submitted that the LAC had correctly and adequately assessed the market value of the land in question; and that the present reference is barred by limitation. On merits, the Reference claim was denied and prayer for dismissal of the same was made.
ISSUES
12. On 06.12.2017, following issues were framed for proper adjudication of the present reference:
1. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on parties
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation for the acquired land along with other statutory benefits? OPP
3. Relief EVIDENCE ADDUCED On behalf of the petitioners
13. Petitioners examined Sh. Dilbagh Singh as PW1, who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the copy of the judgment dated 27.04.2011 titled as Maha Singh vs. Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 7 of 13 LAC No.157/2016 UOI in LAC No.261/2011 as Ex.PW1/1.
14. He deposed on the lines of the reference. During his cross examination, PW1 stated that the land in question was being used to agricultural purposes; and that they used to sow maize, wheat and vegetables but did not maintain any record of the expenses & profits. He denied the suggestion during rainy season water used to collect there; and that the land of village of Maidangarhi was not capable of raising construction or running commercial or industrial. He stated that the land was surrounded by agricultural land of other people of the village or that there is no Government college or hospital in the village.
15. Learned counsel for the DDA adopted the cross examination conducted on behalf of the UOI.
No other witness was examined on behalf of the petitioners.
On behalf of the respondents
16. In evidence, on behalf UOI/respondent No.1, statement of Sh. S. K. Puri, Learned counsel for UOI was recorded whereby he tendered the Award No.23/198788 of Village Maidan Garhi as Ex.R1.
17. No evidence was led on behalf of respondent No.2/DDA.
Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 8 of 13 LAC No.157/2016FINDINGS
18. I have heard the Learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
19. Before proceeding further, the question of limitation needs to be dilated upon.
20. It transpires that the Award in question was passed by the LAC on 17.06.1987 and petitioner preferred his reference application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act on 28.07.1987 which is well within the limitation period.
21. The findings on the other issues is as under:
ISSUE NO.1 What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on parties
22. The onus to prove this issue was on the parties.
23. Respondent, to prove the same, relied on the Award passed by the LAC as R1. No other document has been brought on record to prove that Reference filed by the petitioner for enhancement of the compensation is without cause of action since the LAC vide Award in question, assessed the correct market value of the acquired land of Village Maidangarhi. On Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 9 of 13 LAC No.157/2016 the other hand, legal heirs of petitioner in support of their claim for enhancement in the compensation, relied on the judgment dated 27.04.2011 passed by Learned Predecessor in the reference bearing LAC No.261/2011 titled as "Maha Singh vs. UOI" wherein market value/compensation of the land pertaining to Village Maidangarhi, acquired vide Award No.23/198788 and notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act dated 25.11.1980, was assessed @ Rs.59,770/ per bigha alongwith other benefits.
24. Consequently, since the Award, date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act as well as the Village of the relied upon judgment as well as the present reference are same, the judgment Ex.PW1/1 squarely covers the present reference.
25. It transpires that in the Award Ex.PW1/1 the judgment passed by the Hon'be Supreme Court in Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvar vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore & Ors AIR 1979 SC 869 had been relied upon wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the process of determination of market value in any case must depend largely on evaluation of any imponderables and hence, it must necessarily be to some extent a matter of conjecture or guess work. Learned Predecessor, therefore, fixed the market value of the land in question @ Rs.59,770/, on the basis of market value assessed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi of Land of Village Ladha Sarai as on 04.05.1975 @ Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 10 of 13 LAC No.157/2016 Rs.32,750/ per bigha and by enhancing the same with simple interest of 15% for 51/2 years i.e. from May, 1975 to November, 1980.
26. Accordingly, since the relied upon judgment squarely covers the present reference, the market value of the land in question can be safely assessed @ Rs.59,770/ per bigha.
27. It is important to highlight that the respondents did not offer any counter to the judgment of the Learned Predecessor pertaining to the same village i.e. Village Maidangarhi and pertaining to the same Award and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as in the present reference petition. No evidence was led to show that the said judgment/award has been set aside or modified.
28. Consequently, the correct market value of acquired land in the present reference petition is also assessed at Rs.59,770/ per bigha, irrespective of the nature of land. Accordingly, the legal heirs of petitioner are held entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.59,770/ per bigha.
29. This issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the legal heirs of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO.3 Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed? OPP Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 11 of 13 LAC No.157/2016
30. In view of the finding returned under issue No.1, legal heirs of petitioner are held entitled to receive compensation @ Rs.59,770/ per bigha. Consequently, issue No.2 is decided in favour of legal heirs of petitioner.
RELIEF
31. In view of the above discussion, legal heirs of petitioner are held entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.59,770/ per bigha with respect to the land acquired as mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 alongwith 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land; interest @ 12% per annum under section 23(1) from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC or date of taking of possession whichever is earlier; 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court from the date of possession of land for period upto one year; and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period till amount is deposited in court under Section 28 of the Act. They are also held entitled for other benefits allowed in the Award by Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The compensation will be disbursed to petitioners as per their shares in the land as detailed in the statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894. The DDA/respondent No.2 is a beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings and therefore, both the respondents are held liable Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 12 of 13 LAC No.157/2016 to pay the compensation, jointly and severally.
32. The reference petition stands answered as above. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to the concerned Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance on his part for remitting of amount payable to the petitioners. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (NIKHIL CHOPRA)
COURT ON 16.05.2019 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Ramphal vs. UOI & Anr. Page 13 of 13