Delhi District Court
Additional District Judge (Lac) vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2007
-:1:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
LAC No. 123-A/2006
LAC No. 128-A/2006
Village Bharthal
Award No. 19/1986-87
Date of Notification U/s 4 :27.01.1984
LAC No. 123A/2006
1 Kirpa Ram s/o Kuria @ Kure (since deceased through LRs)
a) Mohinder Partap Singh
s/o Kirpa Ram
b) Smt. Shanti Devi
c) Smt. Tara Devi
d) Smt. Shakuntla Devi
e) Smt. Prem Lata
all d/o late Shri Kirpa Ram
2 Shri Siri Lal s/o Shri Ratti Ram (since deceased through LRs)
i) Darshan Kumar
ii) Krishan Kumar
Both s/o Siri Lal
iii) Lalit Kumar minor son of Siri Lal
through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Chameli
iv) Smt. Chameli wd/o Shri Siri Lal
v) Smt. Usha
vi) Smt. Anju
both d/o Shri Siri Lal
-:2:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
3 Shri Sant Lal s/o Shri Ratti Ram (since deceased through LRs)
a) Smt. Sheela Devi
wd/o Shri Sant Lal
b) Pardeep Kumar
s/o Shri Sant Lal
c) Master Parveen minor son of Shri Sant Lal
through his mother and legal guardian Smt.
Sheela Devi
4 Shri Sultan s/o Bhartu ( since deceased through LRs)
a) Smt. Jeevni wd/o late Sultan Singh
b) Bhupinder Singh
c) Surinder Singh
d) Narender Singh
e) Satpal
f) Harinder Singh
All s/o late Shri Sultan Singh
5 Shri Sarjit
s/o Shri Bhartu
All r/o Village Bharthal, Delhi.
... Petitioners
Versus
1 Union of India
2 Shri Partap Singh
3 Shri Narender Singh
Both s/o Shri Nand Lal
r/o Village Bharthal,
Delhi.
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 29.01.1990
Judgment reserved on : 24.07.2007
Judgment delivered on : 02.08.2007
-:3:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
LAC No. 128A/06
1 Shri Partap Singh
s/o Shri Nand Lal
2 Shri Narinder Singh
s/o Shri Nand Lal
Both r/o Village & Post Office Bharthal,
Delhi. ... Petitioners
Versus
1 Union of India
through Land Acquisition Collector (PS),
Tis Hazari, Delhi.
2 Kirpa Ram (since deceased through LRs)
a) Mahender Partap Singh
s/o Kirpa Ram
b) Smt. Shanti Devi
c) Smt. Tara Devi
d) Smt. Shakuntla Devi
e) Smt. Prem Lata
all d/o late Shri Kirpa Ram
all r/o Village Bharthal, Delhi.
3 Shri Siri Lal (since deceased through LRs)
i) Smt. Chameli wd/o Shri Siri Lal
ii) Darshan Kumar
iii) Krishan Kumar
s/o Siri Lal
iv) Lalit Kumar minor son of Siri Lal
through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Chameli
-:4:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
v) Smt. Usha
vi) Smt. Anju
both d/o Shri Siri Lal
4 Shri Sant Lal (since deceased through LRs)
a) Smt. Sheela Devi
wd/o Shri Sant Lal
b) Pardeep Kumar
s/o Shri Sant Lal
c) Master Parveen minor son of Shri Sant Lal
through his mother and legal guardian Smt.
Sheela Devi
r/o Police Officers Quarters No. 6,
Police Station, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
5 Shri Sultan s/o Bhartu ( since deceased through LRs)
a) Smt. Jeevni wd/o late Sultan Singh
b) Bhupinder Singh
c) Surinder Singh
d) Narender Singh
e) Satpal
f) Harinder Singh
All s/o late Shri Sultan Singh
6 Shri Surjeet
s/o Shri Bhartu
All r/o Village Bharthal, Delhi. .... Respondents
Date of Institution : 14.11.1990
Judgment reserved on : 24.07.2007
Judgment delivered on : 02.08.2007
-:5:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
JUDGMENT:
1. This Judgment answers the references bearing LAC No. 123A/06 and LAC No. 128A/06.
2. Government of Delhi acquired the land vide Notification no. F.9 (16)/84/L&B dated 27.1.1984 pertaining to Village Bharthal for development purposes and an area of 604 bighas and 2 biswas was acquired vide aforesaid notification.
3. According to section 19 statement the land measuring 17 bigha and 01 biswa is in the name of Kirpa Ram, Siri Lal, Sant Lal, Sultan and Sarjit bearing Kh. No. 18/2/2 (4-02), 3 (4-12), 8/1 (3-18), 9/1 (3-19), 13/27 (0-10). Kirpa Ram was having 1/4th share whereas Siri Lal and Sant Lal were having 1/8th share and Sultan and Sarjit each were having 1/4th share.
4. Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the Collector") passed the Award no. 19/1986-87 dated 05.09.1986 u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition at the rate Rs.13,000/- per bigha.
-:6:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
5. The LRs of the petitioners challenged the market value which is fixed @ Rs.13,000/- per bigha. The petitioners allege that the Collector failed to consider that land of Village Bijwasan which was acquired and also ignored the award of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur no. 10/1986-87. Another instance given is relating to Village Bagrola of award no. 1/1980-81.
6. It is further stated that the approach of the Collector is fully wrong in view of High Court Judgment regarding award no. 103 of 1972-73 where market value was fixed @ Rs. 12000 per bigha. Thereafter there must be appreciation of price which is not considered by the Collector.
7. The petitioners pray that compensation of land be given @ Rs. 500/- per square yard, compensation of tubewell @ Rs.20,000/-, compensation for well @ Rs.25,000/-, for room boundary wall @ Rs.5,000/- and compensation for five trees @ Rs.2500/-. In addition to this compensation, additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value as per section 23 (1A) may also be granted along with solatium and interest as per rules.
8. The petitioners Partap Singh and Narender Singh filed LAC No. 128A/06 belonging to above said award. The petitioners claim to be owner and bhumidar of Khasra no. 13/22 (4-16), 23 (4-16), 24/1 (3-2), 18/2/1 (0-
14) of Village Bharthal. As per section 19 statement there is a dispute of measurement of Khasra No. 23 which shows 4 bigha 10 biswas.
-:7:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
9. The petitioners Partap Singh and Narinder Singh state that at the time of consignment of record of Village Bharthal during consolidation proceedings a mistake was committed in respect of Killa bearing no. 13/23 whose measurement has been shown 4 bigha 10 biswas in stead of 4 bigha and 16 biswas. Although there is no resolution of withdrawal of land from this killa. The register karwai of consolidation authorities also mention the measurement of Killa no. 13/23 as 4 bigha 16 biswas.
10.The petitioners Partap Singh and Narinder Singh stated that during consolidation proceedings in Khasra No. 13/27 land of 10 biswas was allotted, 6 biswas was taken from khasra no. 13/23 belonging to the petitioners and 4 biswas from 18/3 of Kirpa Ram and others. The land measuring 6 biswas which was taken from Partap Singh's land having boring and room but by mistake the consolidation authorities shown deficiency of 6 biswas in 13/23 belonging to Partap Singh.
11.The petitioner Partap Singh challenged the award on the grounds that Collector did not consider that adjoining land to the village having all the facilities such as road, electricity, regular bus service, transport , hospital, market, petrol pump etc. and the village is surrounded by developed residential and commercial sites. It is stated that M/s Bharat Petroleum purchased the land of village about 10 years ago @ Rs. 1 lac 800 per acre. The petitioners Partap Singh and Narinder Singh prayed that
-:8:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06 market value may be fixed @ Rs.70,000/- per bigha and Rs.50,000/- for tubewell etc. along with additional compensation of 12 per cent per annum from the date of notification till the award and solatium along with statutory interest may also be awarded.
12.Union of India in both the cases filed written statement and taken preliminary objections that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. All the averments in the claim are denied. It is stated that compensation has been legally and correctly assessed by the Collector which is adequate and just, therefore, petitions are liable to be dismissed.
13.Delhi Development Authority also filed the written statement. It is stated that the Collector has fixed perfect, just and proper market value as he considered the sale deeds of the adjoining land and other amenities and facilities. It is stated that acquired land was transferred to Dwarka Project. The petitions are liable to be dismissed.
14.As per record of LAC no. 123A/06 which is reference petition in the name of Kirpa Ram and others, Partap Singh and Narinder Singh vide order dated 24.09.1993 were allowed to be impleaded as respondents. Similarly, in LAC No. 128A/06 Kirpa Ram and others were allowed to be impleaded as respondents 2 to 6. They filed their respective written statements belonging to the disputed land of Khasra No. 13/27
-:9:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06 measuring 10 biswas shown in the name of Kirpa Ram and others. Partap Singh and others claim 6 biswas of land out of Khasra No. 13/27.
15.As per record initial issues were framed on 16.07.1999. Thereafter again reframed vide order dated 05.07.2001 by my learned predecessor which are common in both the petitions and are as follows :-
ISSUES 1 To what extent of the compensation in respect of Khasra No. 13/27 measuring 0-10 is the claimant entitled to ?
2 Whether the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the suit land, if so, to what effect?
3 What was the market value at the time of the issuance of the notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act?
4 Relief.
16.In LAC No. 123A/06, Kirpa Ram and others examined AW-1 Sarjeet Singh. In LAC No. 128A/06 Partap Singh & others examined PW-1 Kailash Kumar, PW-2 Partap Singh, PW-3 Dharambir Patwari from LAC South West and PW-4 Daya Nand, Office Kanoongo, Record Room, Najafgarh, Distt. South West.
-:10:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
17.I have heard the learned counsel for Kirpa Ram and others Shri S.C. Dhamija and Ms. Dimple Dhamija and counsel Shri I.S. Dahiya for Partap Singh and others, Shri S.K. Puri counsel for UOI and Shri R.L. Goel counsel for DDA.
My findings on the issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 in both the petitions
18.Issue no.1 is the most contentious issue between the parties in both the reference petitions. Dispute of title of the land raised by Pratap Singh in respect of Khasra No. 13/27 having the measurement of land of 10 biswas which is admitted case of the parties that during consolidation proceedings this khasra came into existence on the common land of both the parties. This khasra is having 6 biswas of land taken from khasra no. 13/23 belonging to Partap Singh and 4 biswas of land taken from khasra no. 18/3 belonging to Kirpa Ram and others. It is pertinent to mention here that Pratap Singh and others filed a petition u/s 42 read with section 43 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 before the then Financial Commissioner Shri Madan Jha in respect of above measurement of the land belonging to his khasra no.13/23. Shri Madan Jha then Financial Commissioner, Delhi vide order dated 23.09.1997 held that
-:11:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06 "After going through the papers and irrespective of the fact that the land stands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, I find that the petitioner is under the impression that the area of kila number 13/23 which was allotted to him during the consolidation operations was 4 bighas and 16 biswas and no portion of it came or was convered by the Kaimi No. 13/27. Since the Kaimi No.13/27 (0-10) is stated to have existed on the common dol of Khasra numbers 13/23 and 18/3 as such six biswas of land out of kila number 13/23 and four biswas probably out of khasra number 18/3 is covered by the Kaimi. According to the consolidation officer there is no mistake in recording the area of the khasra number 13/23 which fact appears to me to be true.
This being the position, I do not consider it a fit case deserving any correction in the records. In and result, the present revision stands dismissed."
19.Another revision petition was filed by Partap Singh before Shri S.R. Sharma, Financial Commissioner and Financial Commissioner vide order dated 30.05.1991 held that In result, I accept the revision petition and direct that out of 0-10 biswas of Reservation No. 13/27, an area of 0-6 biswas falling in Killa no. 13/23 consisting of a pucca room and tubewell shall stand allotted in the name of the petitioners exclusively and the remaining area of 0-4 biswas falling in killa no. 18/3 consisting of old well and tube-well shall stand in the exclusive allotment of the respondents.
-:12:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
20.Shri Mahender Singh LR of Kirpa Ram challenged the Financial Commissioner's order dated 30.05.1991 in view of the order dated 23.09.1987 passed by another Financial Commissioner before the High Court of Delhi. In the High Court, Division Bench comprising of "Hon'ble Justice Sundanda Bhandare, J and Hon'ble Justice P.N. Nag, J" decided the writ petition and held herein under :-
The question of apportionment of compensation is pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi in a reference under Section18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since both the parties agree that apportionment of compensation will have to be made on the basis of rights determined by order dated 23.09.1987, the parties will be at liberty to produce the judgment of the Financial Commissioner dated 23.09.1987 before the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge will decide the question of apportionment on the basis of rights determined by the said order.
21.The learned counsel for Partap Singh and Narinder Singh Shri I.S. Dahiya submitted that the question of title is not decided in respect of apportionment of compensation regarding Khasra No. 13/27. He submitted that consolidation authorities committed an error. The land of Partap Singh and Narinder Singh measuring 6 biswas was taken but
-:13:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06 there is no resolution of making up of the deficiency as there is no resolution. He submitted that resolution proved on record in LAC No. 128A through Ex. PW4/R1. Ex. PW4/1 clearly shows that Partap Singh's land was taken away but it was never covered up by the covering of deficiency in their favour. The Kirpa Ram's entries in the resolution no.
83 and 84 dated 09.02.1981 and 27.04.1981 clearly shows that the land which was taken from their khasra 18/2 was covered by deficiency. He further submitted that Partap Singh's land deficiency never covered up.
He submitted that the gross mistake committed by consolidation authorities again deprived him for the compensation for 6 biswas of land which is the part of Khasra No. 13/27.
22.The learned counsel Shri S.C. Dhamija on behalf of Kirpa Ram's LRs submitted that the controversy of apportionment of compensation in respect of Khasra No. 13/27 has been settled by the High Court vide order dated 23.04.1992. He submitted that High Court clearly mentioned that both the parties agreed that apportionment of compensation will have to be made on the basis of rights determined vide order dated 23.09.1987. He submitted that High Court has given direction to this court to determine the apportionment on the basis of Financial Commissioner's order dated 23.09.1987. He further submitted that there is no question of reopening of consolidation proceedings before this court. The court may award compensation as per directions of the High Court.
-:14:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
23.I have gone through the record and given thoughtful consideration to submissions of both the learned counsel. The material on record shows that disputed khasra no. 13/27 having measurement of 10 biswas which is shown as per section 19 statement belongs to Kirpa Ram and others. Partap Singh and others challenged the composition of Khasra No. 13/27. According to order of Financial Commissioner shri Madan Jha dated 23.09.1987 wherein he has clarified the impression of Partap Singh and held that there is no mistake by consolidation officer. There is no need for correction of the record regarding Khasra No. 13/23 belonging to Partap Singh. He also explained how Khasra No. 13/27 having land of 10 biswas came into existence. He dismissed the petition of Partap Singh.
24.This controversy went up to the High Court as discussed herein above. The Division Bench of High Court settled the dispute and directed the present court for apportionment of compensation on the basis of consent order of both the parties. The rights of both the parties settled to be determined as per order dated 23.09.1987 of the Financial Commissioner. It is pertinent to mention here that in the High Court's order dated 23.04.1992 following direction was given to this court.
The Additional District Judge will decide the question of apportionment on the basis of rights determined by the said order.
-:15:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
25.On the basis of above observation and discussion, the rights of both the parties and question of compensation of apportionment to both the parties shall rest upon order dated 23.09.1987 of Financial Commissioner. This court is bound by the decision of the High Court which had set at rest the controversy of Khasra No. 13/27. Accordingly, I hold that Kirpa Ram and others are entitled for compensation for the land belonging to Khasra No. 13/27 having measurement of 10 biswas. Hence this issue is decided in favour of Kirpa Ram and others and against Partap Singh and others.
Issue No.2 in both the petitions.
26.The onus of this issue is on the respondent UOI to show that applicability of Delhi Land Reforms Act had any adverse effect on the market value of the land acquired vide the award under consideration. In the absence of any material on record, there is no reason to hold that mere applicability of Delhi Land Reforms Act had an adverse effect on the market value of the land. Hence this issue in both the petitions is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
-:16:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06 Issue no.3 in both the petitions.
27.Counsel for parties submit that market value of the land in question has been settled by High Court in RFA No. 724/1995 titled as Balak Ram & Ors. Vs. Union of India. The certified copy of the judgment is filed on record. Hence on the basis of judgment of High Court the market value of the land of claimants in both the petitions on the date of notification u/s 4 of Act was Rs.47,224/- per bigha. Hence issue no.3 in both the petitions is decided in favour of claimants.
Relief.
28.The petitioners Kirpa Ram and others and Partap Singh and others are entitled to compensation @ Rs.47224/- per bigha. Besides this, the petitioners are also entitled to 30 % solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of the Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year.
29.The petitioners are also entitled for interest @ 15 per cent per annum till the payment. The law is well settled that 15 per cent interest on the enhanced compensation as per section 28 of the Act is discretionary relief. This proposition of law is well settled in Raghubans Narain Singh Vs. The UP Government AIR 1967 Supreme Court 465.
-:17:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
30.Our own High Court in Chander Vs. Union of India & Anr. 122 (2005) Delhi Law Times 517 (FB) exercised the discretion in respect of payment of interest during the period of proceedings before the reference court.
31. In another case of Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2003 8 SCC 673 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "statutory provisions are made for payment of interest with a view to compensate the party who had suffered damages owing to a positive action or inaction of the other resulting in blockade of money which he would otherwise have received. A party who himself represents before the court of law cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong."
32.In a recent judgment of our own High Court in the case of Jagmohan and ors. Vs. UOI RFA no. 623/1988 decided on 25.07.2006, the petitioners were denied interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay.
33.In my opinion, in the present case Partap Singh and others were well aware of the dispute regarding 10 biswas of land of Khasra No. 13/27. Both the parties were well within the knowledge of their consent order dated 23.04.1992 that the apportionment of compensation rights shall be determined by the High Court order on the basis of Financial Commissioner's order dated 23.09.1987. Moreover, both the parties were well aware that High Court has settled down the fair market value
-:18:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06 of the land in November, 1998. However, Partap Singh again pressed before this court and got reframed the issues in the year 2001 when the rights were already determined by the High Court. As per record, Partap Singh led his evidence in the year 2007 and his evidence was closed but reopened again.
34.Kirpa Ram and others also completed their evidence in the year 2006. In my opinion Partap Singh and others have major role to play in delaying the adjudication as compared to Kirpa Ram and others. Hence in these peculiar circumstances, Partap Singh and others shall not be entitled to 15 per cent per annum interest from July 2001 to June 2007. Kirpa Ram and others are also not entitled to 15 per cent per annum interest from July 2001 to September 2006.
35.The petitioners are further entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
36.The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
-:19:- LAC 123A/06 & 128A/06
37.While making the calculations, due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. No orders as to costs. The petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Copy of the judgment shall be placed in each file.
38.A copy of this judgment be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for information. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on 02nd August, 2007 ( Sanjay Kumar )
Additional District Judge (LAC)
Delhi.