Delhi District Court
Sh.Sanjeev Khanna vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC NO : 48/1/06 AWARD NO : 5/DC/N/2001-02
(Old No.: 446/01) VILLAGE : Delhi-Patti (Pul
Bungash), Delhi
In the matter of :
Sh.B.R.Khanna
through his LR
Sh.Sanjeev Khanna
S/o late Sh.B.R.Khanna
(Proprietor of M/s Khanna Brothers),
R/o J-131, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, Delhi
...petitioner
Versus
1 Union of India
through Land Acquisition Collector,
(District North, Delhi,
5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi
2 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
through its Chairman, N.B.C.C. Build.,
Bhishma Pitamah Marg, Lodhi Road,
CGO Complex, New Delhi.
...Respondents
AWARD REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1 Vide notification No.F7(19)2000-L&B/LA/M.R.T.S/6712 dt. 08.08.2000 U/s 4 of the LA Act (hereinafter referred to as the ACT) and declaration was also made vide notification No.F7(19)2000-L&B/LA/M.R.T.S/10647 dated 17.10.2000 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act. The land including the land of the petitioner situated in the revenue estate of village Delhi Patti (Pul Bungash Area), Delhi was acquired by the Govt. for Mass Rapid Transit System. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act passed the award 2 bearing No.05/DC/N/2001-02 awarded the compensation @ Rs.6,930/- per sq. mtr.
2 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioner herein filed reference petition U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value which was sent to the reference court. 3 In the reference petition, the petitioner has sought the enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the petitioner is a person interested as owner and in possession of property bearing no.8712 - 8713, Roshanara Road, Delhi in all measuring 665 sq. yards out of which an area measuring 317.35 sq. mtrs. has been acquired. The LAC has failed to allow additional amount, solatium and interest on the market value of the structures as assessed by him. The market value of the land assessed by the LAC is very much on lower side. The LAC has failed to assess other than damages as provided u/s 23 of the LA Act. The value of the property with all its potentialities, its current land use, nearby developed areas, use for industrial purposes, confirming and non-confirming purposes etc., was to be taken into consideration as stated by the LAC in his award while assessing the market value of the land which he has failed to do. The LAC has grossly erred in taking into consideration the market value. On these grounds, the petitioner has filed this reference petition claiming Rs.50,000/- per sq. yard as market value of the land on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act besides statutory benefits. The petitioner has also claimed Rs.5,00,000/- for repairing & re-construction of the remaining portion besides for construction of the wall, Rs.25,00,000/- as severance charges, Rs.50,00,000/- 3 for dis-mentalling and shifting of the machines, Rs.10,00,000/- on account of retrenching his staff and to pay wages to the labours withing getting any work from them till the petitioner restarts his manufacturing unit at another place and Rs.25,00,000/- for permanent loss of earnings. 4 The UOI, in its written statement has raised the objections on the ground that the Delhi Land Reform Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The correctness of the khasra nos., their area and the extent of share of the petitioner therein admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished U/s 19 of the LA Act. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or un-developed colony and can only be used for agricultural. There was no structure, tree, well, or tube well on the land in question at the time of publication of notification U/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The compensation assessed by the LAC is sufficient and reasonable and it reflects the true market value prevailing at the time of the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. The market value of the land assessed at Rs.6,930/- per sq. mtr as the conforming land use of the area is residential as per the master plan. The structures appurtenant to the land under acquisition were got evaluated by the PWD of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and received through DMRC. The Slum area (improvement and clearance Act) is applicable to the land in dispute. 5 DMRC, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the ground that the compensation for the property in question are correctly assessed by the LAC. The compensation awarded is rational and as per the fair market value, the compensation for the property in question are assessed by the LAC considering situation of land in the vicinity and thus 4 arriving at the ''Fair Market Value''. All the averments made in the reference petition have been denied except those specifically admitted in the WS by DMRC.
6 The counsel for the petitioners filed the replication to the written statement of respondent nos. 1 & 2, wherein the averments made in the reference petition have been re-affirmed and the defence taken in the WS by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 has been denied.
7 An application u/o 22 Rule 3 r/w/sec 151 CPC for bringing on record the LRs of late Sh.B.R.Khanna, petitioner was filed wherein it is stated that the petitioner died on 18.05.2002 leaving behind seven LRs namely, Sh.Sanjeev Khanna- son, Smt.Anju Sethi - daughter, Smt.Kusum Kohli - daughter, Smt.Rajni Mehra - daughter, Sh.Sunil Nanda - husband of predeceased daughter Smt.Rita Nanda, Sh.Karan Nanda - son of Sh.Sunil Nanda & Smt.Rita Nanda, Ms.Kamna Nanda - daughter of Sh.Sunil Nanda & Smt.Rita Nanda. The mother and wife of deceased Sh.B.R.Khanna died during his life time. The other LRs namely, Smt.Anju Sethi, Smt.Kusum Kohli, Smt.Rajni Mehra, Sh.Sunil Nanda, Sh.Karan Nanda & Ms.Kamna Nanda have filed their separate affidavits deposing that they did not claim any right, title or interest in the compensation that may be enhanced relating to the acquisition of the property in question and given up their rights in favour of Sh.Sanjeev Khanna, one of the LRs of late Sh.B.R.Khanna. Separate statement of Sh.Sanjeev Khanna was recorded on 04.04.2006 who has proved the death certificate of late Sh.B.R.Khanna. The verification report of the LRs of deceased Sh.B.R.Khanna/ petitioner has also been filed 5 by the concerned LAC. Vide order dt. 04.04.2006, the LRs of deceased petitioner were brought on record. It is clarified here that since the other LRs of late Sh.B.R.Khanna have given up their rights in favour of Sh.Sanjeev Khanna, therefore, Sh.Sanjeev Khanna is entitled to receive the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court in respect of the land in question as sole legal heir of late Sh.B.R.Khanna.
8 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this court on 23.03.2006 which are as under :-
1 What was the market value of the property in question at the time of issuance of notice U/sec. 4 of the LA Act? OPP.
2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 3 Relief.
9 Sh.Sanjeev Khanna, the petitioner in support of his evidence has examined himself as PW1 and has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/1 wherein he has exhibited the brochure for converting lease-hold property to free-hold property issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation pertaining to the year June, 2003 as Ex.PW1/1, the attested/ certified award in respect of khasra no.388 min of Delhi-Patti (Pul Bungash Area), Delhi bearing award no.03/LAC/N/2006-2007 as Ex.PW1/2, photocopy of joint survey report issued by Sh.R.K.Jala, XEN of DMRC as mark-A. Sh.Rakesh Kumar Gupta has been examined as PW2 who has not exhibited any documents in his affidavit. PW3 is Sh.Mukesh Kumar, LDC from Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi who has proved the sale deed as Ex.PW3/1. The counsel for the 6 respondents have tendered in evidence the award no. 5/DC/N/2001-2002 as Ex.R-1. Copy of sale deed no.2046 executed & registered on 13.03.1995 has been marked as Mark-A, copy of sale deed no.7421 executed & registered on 14.01.1997 as Mark-B. Certified copies of the sale deeds filed in LAC No.76/1/06 titled Sheela Rani Vs UOI & Anr have also been relied upon by the counsel for the respondents.
10 I have heard the counsel for both the parties and have perused the entire records. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 11 Both the issues are inter-connected and I shall decide both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioner. The petitioner has sought enhancement in compensation on the grounds mentioned in the reference petition which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Before considering & evaluating the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. 08.08.2000 U/sec. 4 of the LA Act, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :
''The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the 7 beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes'' In P.Ram Reddy & Others Vs Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & Ors (1995) 2 Supreme Court cases 305, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that :
''Building potentiality has to be decided on the basis of material placed on record or made available and as such material must be supported by reliable documentary evidence. Therefore, if the acquired land has the building potentiality, its value, like the value of any other potentiality of the land should necessarily be taken into account for determining the market value of such land.'' In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam Vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
''In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 8 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.''
12 In the present reference, the LAC while assessing the market value of the acquired land observed in the award No.5/DC/N/ 2001-02 Ex. R-1 that while determining the market value of the land as on 08.08.2000 i.e. the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act, several factors such as location of the land, its current land use, potentiality of future land use, the proximity of the land to the nearby developed areas, price policy of the Govt. regarding acquisition of land are to be taken into consideration. The LAC in the aforesaid award has considered the claims of the 54 interested persons including the petitioners herein and decided their claims which is as under
:-
''In response to the notices issued U/s 9 & 10 of the LA Act, as many as 54 claims were received from the interested persons. The list of claims and evidence has been listed in Table No.1 furnishing the relevant details. In the claims, no documentary evidence was furnished in support of market price for land claimed. These claimed market prices are not only exorbitantly high, but also not supported by any credible documentary evidence. Hence, such claims do not reflect the true market value of land, hence rejected.
Similarly, the claimants have furnished evaluation reports which were considered but not accepted as the properties were got evaluated through the Public Works Deptt., of Govt. Of Delhi having a uniform basis. Further, the claims regarding business loss, loss towards shifting have been filed by the intetrested persons without furnishing any basis and cogent reasons. Hence, such unsubstantiated claims are also not acceptable''. 13 As per the award of this reference, for determination of the market 9 value of the land under acquisition, two methods of valuation of land were followed by the LAC to arrive at the true market value on the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act. In one method, the recorded transaction of sales of similar lands in the nearby vicinity were enquired into. It was noted that, very few registered sales transactions were carried out, which were also of very small parcels of land. Hence, the method of comparing similar lands sale transactions was found unsuitable for arriving at the fair market value of the locality, as required U/s 23 of the LA Act, 1894. In the other method, the schedule of market rates of lands in various localities of Delhi intimated/circulated by the Department of Urban Development, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment vide its notification No. J-22011/4/95-LD dt. 16.04.1999 was considered. The schedule of market rates notified as above have been given as indicative market prices and arrived at by experts after considering all the relevant factors affecting land prices in Delhi. The indicative market value of land for residential purpose in the Roshanara Road area of Delhi has been given as Rs.6,930/- per sq. mtr. which has been accepted as the true market value of land covered in this award. 14 The petitioner has claimed the commercial rates of the land in question. Whereas, the respondents have relied upon the copy of the sale deed no.2046 executed & registered on 13.03.1995 as Mark-A and copy of sale deed no.7421 executed & registered on 14.01.1997 as Mark-B. Certified copies of the sale deeds filed in LAC No.76/1/06 titled as Sheela Rani Vs UOI. The counsel for respondents have also argued that where there is a khasra number of the land, it falls under the head 'agricultural area' unless it is converted to lease hold or freehold. The area under this award comes within 10 the slum area. The counsel for the petitioner has opposed to the contention of the counsel for the respondents. On the aspect of use of the land for commercial purposes, I would prefer to place a reliance upon the judgment dt. 03.03.2005 in WP (C ) 76-79/2004 titled Chet Ram Sharma & Ors Vs UOI & Ors, the land situate in village Bahapur, New Delhi was acquired vide the notification dt. 28.11.2002 U/s 4 (1) r/w/sec. 17 (1) (4) of the LA Act, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that :
''Not much material has been placed before us which could help the court to determine the fair market value of the land in question while the petitionerss have placed whole emphasis on the fact that the land sought to be acquired by the respondents vide their notification U/s 4 dt. 28.11.2002 is part of a fully developed commercial area and has great potential and they are entitled to the present market value prevalent in the area at the relevant time.'' The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid WP ( C) 76-79/2004 held that :
''Admittedly the area has been developed by the DDA as a commercial area. However, under the lay out plan, the area was marked only for public utility services and thus it cannot get any commercial value.''
15 In the case of Chet Ram (Supra), the claimants claimed that the acquired land is a part of commercial area. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held that while determining the prospective use of the land or its future potential and development by itself cannot be the only basis for the court to determine the market value of the acquired land and therefore, granting of compensation is a matter of serious consequence and thus cannot be based upon the element of conjuncture. The petitioner herein has claimed that 11 the land use of the area acquired is for commercial purposes. In this context, whether the land in question may be treated either residential or commercial, a reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported in the case of M.C.Mehta Vs UOI & Ors AIR 2006 SC 1325, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :
''For dealing with the question of power of MCD to seal the premises in case of misuser, it is necessary to examine few provisions of the DMC Act. The expression 'building' is defined in Section 2 (3) of the DMC Act as a house, out-house, stable, latrine, urinal, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall) or any other structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material but does not include any portable shelter.
The expression 'land' as per section 2 (24) includes benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and rights created by law over any street.
Section 2 (26) defines 'market' as under :
'Sec. 2 (26) - ''market'' includes any place where persons assemble for the sale of, or for the purpose of exposing for sale, meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, animals intended for human food or any other articles of human food whatsoever, with or without the consent of the owner of such place notwithstanding that there may be no common regulation for the concourse of buyers and sellers and whether or not any control is exercised over the business of, or the person frequenting, the market by the owner of the place or by any other person;'' Sec. 2 (34) defines 'Occupier' as under :12
Sec.2 (34) ''Occupier'' includes -
(a) any person who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building in respect of which such rent is paid or is payable;
(b) an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using his land or building;
(c ) a rent-free tenant of any land or building;
(d) a licensee in occupation of any land or building; and
(e) any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for the use and occupation of any land or building;'' U/sec. 2 (59) 'trade premises' means :
''2 (59) - ''trade premises'' means any premises used or intended to be used for carrying on any trade or industry;'' ''Sec. 331 Definition -
(C ) to convert into a dwelling house any building or any part of a building not originally constructed for human habitation or, if originally so constructed, subsequently appropriated for any other purpose;
(h) to convert into a stall, shop, warehouse or godown, stable, factory or garage any building not originally constructed for use as such or which was not so used before the change;
(j) to convert into or use as a dwelling house any building which has been discontinued as or appropriated for any purpose other than, a dwelling house.'' Clause (c), (h) & (j) are very significant. These clauses bring in the concept of user of a building.
It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
13
''in respect of an area where the notified/ specified land use is residential, sanction for erection of a commercial building cannot be accorded, as is apparent from sub-section (2) of Section 336.
Section 347 contains a specific prohibition for change of the use of any land or building. The said section reads as under :
''Sec. 347 Restrictions on uses of buildings. - No person shall, without the written permission of the Commissioner, or otherwise than in conformity with the conditions, if any, of such permission - (a) use or permit to be used for human habitation any part of a building not originally erected or authorized to be used for that purpose or not used for that purpose before any alteration has been made therein by any work executed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the bye-laws made thereunder:
(b) change or allow the change of the use of any land or building;
(c) convert or allow the conversion of one kind of tenement into another kind.'' A bare perusal of building bye-laws shows how relevant is the user, commercial or residential, and the large impact of occupation load on various facilities including water, sanitation and drainage.
Provision for household industries in residential areas does not mean converting residential houses in the commercial shops. It only means permitting activities of household industry in a part of a residential property. It does not mean 14 that residential properties can be used for commercial and trading activities and sale and purchase of goods. Master Plan contemplates shops in District Centres, community Centres, Local Shopping Centres etc. and not in residential areas.
In respect of planning, reference can usefully be made to Section 313 of the DMC Act as well. The said section provides for the requirement of layout plan of the land. It, inter alia, provides that before utilizing, selling or otherwise dealing with any land U/sec. 312, the owner thereof shall send to the Commissioner a written application with a layout plan of the land showing various particulars including the purpose for which the building will be used. For breach of Section 313, action can be taken U/sec. 314. It has rightly not been disputed by any counsel that neither layout plan, nor the building plan, can be sanctioned by MCD except in the manner and for the purpose provided in the Master Plan. If in the master plan, the land use is residential, MCD cannot sanction the plan for any purpose other than residential.
Building Bye-Laws for the Union Territory of Delhi, 1983, in particular Bye-Law Nos. 2.17, defining the expressions 'Conversion' and ''To Erect' which reads as under:
''2.17. Conversion - The change of an occupancy to another occupancy or change in building structure or part thereof resulting into change of space or use requiring additional occupancy certificates''.
The introduction of the ad hoc Registration Scheme would not only regularize the illegalities but further encourage more illegalities to take place by sending a wrong message underlying the press release. This ad hoc scheme has been 15 stayed by this Court.
Mr. Ashwini Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for MCD, also contended that since there is a large scale misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes, it is a physical impossibility to remove the misuser. The contention deserves outright rejection.''
16 It is pertinent to mention here while considering the nature and use of the acquired land, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case of M.C.Mehta Vs UOI (Supra) has held that the provision for household industries in residential areas does not mean converting residential houses in the commercial shops. It only means permitting activities of household industry in a part of a residential property. It does not mean that residential properties can be used for commercial and trading activities and sale and purchase of goods. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case that it has rightly not been disputed by any counsel that neither layout plan, nor the building plan, can be sanctioned by MCD except in the manner and for the purpose provided in the Master Plan. If in the master plan, the land use is residential, MCD cannot sanction the plan for any purpose other than residential. Therefore, misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes has outrightly been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, adhoc registration schemes have also been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present reference, perusal of the award Ex.R-1 by which the land of the petitioner was acquired reveals that the petitioner in support of her claim has filed the documents i.e. copy of sale deed, copy of dissolution deed and relinquishment deed 16 before the LAC. Sh. Sanjeev Khanna who has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit as PW1 has neither appeared for his cross- examination nor proved any document which have been exhibited in his affidavit as Ex.P1/1, Ex.P1/2 and mark-A. However, Sh.Rakesh Kumar Gupta, PW2 has appeared and cross-examined by the counsel for the respondents. PW2, during his cross-examination, has deposed that he has no share in the land under the present reference and he has not been given any authority by the petitioner to appear in this case. PW2 has further deposed that his factory was beside the factory of Sh.B.R.Khanna and he does not know the names of the LRs of Sh.B.R.Khanna except Sh.Sanjeev Khanna. PW2 has also deposed that he does not know whether he has taken any licence for running the factory or not. PW2 even does not know the amount of sale tax which Sh.B.R.Khanna used to deposit. PW2 deposed that he cannot say as to how much amount was claimed by Sh.B.R.Khanna. PW2 has further deposed that no sale transaction had taken place in respect of the area measuring 5600 sq. mtrs. of total award land however, the said area was usually given on rent. PW2 has denied the suggestion and deposed that he is not aware whether any judgment titled M.C.Mehta Vs UOI was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2001 restricting the industrial & business activities with the territory of Delhi. PW2 even does not know whether Sh.B.R.Khanna has filed any sales tax receipts. PW2 also does not know whether the petitioner has deposited any sales tax or not. PW3 has proved the sale deed executed on 04.08.1995 pertaining to the property no.9 measuring 500 sq. yards situate in Attur - Rehman Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi. PW3, during his cross-examination, deposed that he does not have any knowledge about the similarity and building potential falling in 17 Alipur Road, Civil Lines, vis-a-vis Pul Bungash, Delhi. PW3 has also deposed that he does not have any knowledge that the rates of the land and property falling in civil lines is much more than the land and property falling in Pul Bungash, Delhi. The sale deed Ex.PW3/1 cannot be considered as the basis for assessing the market value of the land in question since the land situate in Ex.PW3/1 and the land in question are not adjoining the lands and areas. The petitioner has neither proved the documents relied upon by him nor PW2 has been able to establish that the land in question was being used for commercial purposes. In a similar reference in LAC No.32/1/06 titled M/s H.S.Hyde & Co. Vs UOI & Anr, the AEN, DMRC was examined as PW3 who specifically deposed in his cross-examination that as per the award as well as the master plan, the land use is residential in nature. It is clear from the testimony of PW2 that the claim sought by the petitioner of the land use for commercial purposes is without any basis and therefore, the evidence produced and relied upon by the petitioner does not support the case of the petitioner for commercial rates in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.C.Mehta Vs UOI (Supra). The petitioner has not been able to prove by the documentary evidence that the acquired land was the commercial land allotted by the Govt. as per the master plan. Even otherwise, the commercial and business activities on the acquired land does not change the use of the land from residential to commercial. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the case of the petitioner on the aspect of use of land is squarely covered in the aforesaid case of M.C.Mehta Vs UOI (Supra). Thus, the petitioner herein is not entitled to the commercial rates of the land in question. 18 17 The counsel for the respondents, in the present reference, have relied upon the award no. 5/DC/N/2001-2002 as Ex.R-1, copy of sale deed no.2046 executed and registered on 13.03.1995 as mark-A, copy of sale deed no.7421 executed & registered on 14.01.1997 as Mark-B. In Ex.R-1, the LAC has specifically stated that the confirming land use of the area under the present acquisition is residential as per master plan. With respect to the sale deeds relied upon by the respondents, I would like to place reliance upon the judgment dt. 29.04.1997 reported in the case of Special Deputy Collector & Anr Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors (1997) 6 SCC 41, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that marking of certified copies of sale deeds per se not admissible in evidence unless duly proved by witnesses. Therefore, the aforesaid sale deeds relied upon by the counsel for the respondents cannot be considered as the basis for fixing the fair market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 08.08.2000.
18 Vide the notification dt.12.06.1997 u/s 4 of the LA Act followed by declaration u/s 6 on 28.07.1997 pertaining to the land situate at Ram Bagh area forming part of Delhi village/ Delhi Patti, the LAC vide award no.3/1999-2000 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,247/- per sq. mtr. The LAC while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land vide the said award no.3/1999-2000 also considered the method of using the 'Schedule of Market Rates', issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Govt. of India, for land transfers in Delhi and as per the schedule, the prices for land transfer for the corresponding period i.e 01.04.1996 till 31.03.1998 comes to Rs.6,300/- per sq. mtr. for residential 19 areas and Rs.12,600/- per sq. mtr for commercial areas but the LAC considered the indicative price as per the schedule of market rate on a very higher side and assessed the market value at Rs.1,247/- per sq. mtr on the basis of sale prices. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioner therein filed reference petitions U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value which were sent to the reference court. The reference court considered that the LAC, in the award no.3/1999-2000, relied upon the sale deeds for fixing the market value without giving any justified or cogent reasons for not considering the indicative rates i.e. schedule of market rates of the Govt. Whereas, the LAC in the present award has relied upon the schedule of market rates of the Govt. while fixing the market value of the acquired land as on 08.08.2000 of the same area which are situated at Pul Bangash - Roshanara Road area forming part of village Delhi -Patti, Delhi. In the present reference, the LAC has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6930/- per sq. mtr. on the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act i.e. 08.08.2000 on the basis of the indicative schedule of market rates notified by the Govt. It has been held in the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that there has been steep rise in prices of land throughout national Capital Territory of Delhi and while fixing the fair market value, it has to be assessed whether the lands in acquisition are possessed of potential value on the date of notification. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of India have also held in various judgments that escalation of prices given at 12% per year is proper. In this context, I would further place reliance upon the judgment reported in Rameshwar Solanki Vs UOI AIR 1995 Delhi 358, it was held that 20 past practice of High Court to give escalation at rate of Rs.1000/- per bigha discarded and escalation given at 12% per year by High Court in earlier decision was proper. In Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & Ors Vs Balwant Singh & Ors (1995) 5 SCC 433, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that agricultural lands situated with the municipal units and near to the built up area are possessed of potential value. In Vijay Singh & Ors Vs UOI & Ors 111 (2004) DLT 751 (DB), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that there exists no hard and fast rule or strait jacket formula having firm legal backing for computing rate of escalation in price of acquired land and exercise depends on various factors viz. period for which escalation required to be computed, general rate of growth of money during that period. It was further held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in case at hand relevant period is of about 5 years from 1979-1984 and rate of 12% per annum would form just and reasonable basis for computing escalation during this period. 19 This reference court, while considering and assessing the potential, nature & location of the acquired land vide award no.3/1999-2000 fixed the market value at Rs.6,300/- per sq. mtr. on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 12.06.1997. The land in question acquired vide the notification dt.08.08.2000 u/s 4 of the LA Act is also situate and forming part of village Delhi- Patti, Delhi as the land acquired vide the award no.3/1999-2000. Between the aforesaid two awards i.e. award no.3/1999-2000 and 5/DC/N/2001-2002, relevant period is of about 3 years from 1997 to 2000. The reference court has assessed Rs.6,300/- per sq. mtr. market value of the acquired land as on 12.06.1997 vide award no.3/1999-2000 and the LAC, vide award no.5/DC/N/2001-2002 has assessed Rs.6,930/- per sq. mtr of the 21 acquired land as on 08.08.2000. There is a difference of 3 years in the said both notifications dt. 12.06.1997 & 08.08.2000 and escalation in prices at Rs.630/- i.e. (Rs.6,930 - Rs.6,300 = Rs.630/-) for three years of the lands situate in the same area would not be just & reasonable. Therefore, relying upon the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India & the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, adding escalation in price at the rate of 12% per annum would be the reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the land in question over the rate of Rs.6,300/- per sq. mtr. till the date of acquisition of the land in question. Further, the area under acquisition has been found to be in a fast developing part of a municipal town and development activity was in progress. Therefore, deduction towards development costs to the market value of the acquired land would not be justified. In this context, I would further place reliance upon the judgment dt. 26.09.1996 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 554 of 1992 in the case of Dharamvir & Ors Vs UOI, it was held that acquired land was surrounded by developed area which had already roads and railway line, therefore, there was no justification for deduction towards development cost to the extent of 30% or to the extent of 25%. In the case of Anil Kumar Sharma Vs UOI 86 (2000) DLT 825 (DB), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that acquired land was already developed and possessed of amenities. No reason to hold that fair market value of the land in vicinity as on the date of notification for similar plots would less than Rs.800/- per sq. mtr or less than Rs.345/- sq. yard. No scope for further deductions. This reference court, considering the location, nature, potential & topography of the lands acquired vide the notification dt.08.08.2000 u/s 4 of the LA Act pertaining to the award no.5/DC/N/2001-2002 has already 22 assessed the fair market value at Rs.8,568/- per sq. mtr. in similar references. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that it would meet ends of justice if the fair market value of the acquired land in the present reference is assessed @ Rs.8,568/- per sq. mtr. on the date of its acquisition as on 08.08.2000. 20 Now, let us examine whether the petitioner is entitled to the claim for Rs.5,00,000/- for repairing & re-construction of the remaining portion besides for construction of the wall, Rs.25,00,000/- as severance charges, Rs.50,00,000/- for dis-mentalling and shifting of the machines, Rs.10,00,000/- on account of retrenching his staff and to pay wages to the labours withing getting any work from them till the petitioner restarts his manufacturing unit at another place and Rs.25,00,000/- for permanent loss of earnings. The petitioner has neither filed any documentary evidence nor produced any witness and failed to prove the claim for repairing & re- construction of the remaining portion besides for construction of the wall, severance charges, dis-mentalling and shifting of the machines, retrenching his staff and to pay wages to the labours withing getting any work from them till the petitioner restarts his manufacturing unit at another place and for permanent loss of earnings. Therefore, the petitioner is also not entitled to the claim for the aforesaid claims. These issues are answered accordingly. RELIEF 21 In view of my findings on the above issues, the market value of the land of the petitioner situate at Pul Bangash -Roshnara Road area forming part of village Delhi - Patti acquired vide the notification dt. 08.08.2000 U/sec. 4 of the LA Act is fixed @ Rs.8,568/- per sq. mtr. as per the details 23 mentioned in the statement u/sec.19 of the LA Act. Besides it, the petitioner shall also be entitled to get additional amount u/sec. 23 (1A) of LA Act @ 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall also get solatium u/sec. 23 (2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest u/sec. 28 of LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. The petitioner is further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex court titled Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. This reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioner within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 20.02.2007 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
24
LAC No. 48/1/06
20.02.2007
Present- None
Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioner within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/20.02.2007