Delhi District Court
Ms. Simmi Arora vs Union Of India on 10 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT AT KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Presided by SH. RAVINDER SINGH
LAC No. 27/2016 (OLD No. 14/2014)
Unique I.D. No. 02402C0310962013
Ms. Simmi Arora
W/o Sh. Ajay Arora,
R/o 1/9047, Gali no. 1,
West Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi110032
........... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
NorthEast, Delhi
2. PWD, Government of NCT of Delhi,
New Delhi.
3. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, (DMRC)
Through its Chairman,
NBCC Building, Bhisham Pitamah Marg,
Lodhi Estate, New Delhi110003
................ Respondents
LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18
Date of Institution : 23092013
Order reserved on : 21102016
Order passed on : 10112016
JUDGMENT
1. Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been made to this Court by the office of the Land Acquisition Collector (Shahdara) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the LAC). The statement under Section 19 of the Act accompanying the same states that Ms. Simmi Arora (hereinafter referred as petitioner) had not accepted the award bearing No.2/200708 rendered by the LAC under Section 11 of the Act in respect of lands acquired in village Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi. As per the details mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of the act, the name of the project for which land was acquired in village Jhilmil Tahirpur was for the 'Construction of ShahdaraDilshad Garden Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase II at GT Road, Shahdara', for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 issued on 12.4.2006 whereas notifications under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act were issued on 22.5.2006. The details of the land of the petitioner as mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of the Act are as under:
Sl. No. Name of the Field No. Total Area Share
Petitioner
1. Ms. Simmi Arora, Khasra no. 53 sq. yds.
W/o Sh. Ajay 307/2128,
Arora 30,31/2 & 37 min
2. The statement under Section 19 of the Act is accompanied with a copy of award no. 2/200708 of the LAC. The summary of the same is reproduced as under: "Summary of the Award"
1. Rate of 1 Sq.Meter (Residential) Rs.6,450/
2. Market value of the land measuring Rs.9,07,38,600/ 16 Bigha 16 Biswas i.e. 14068 Sq.Mtr.
3. Solatium @ 30% of market value Rs.2,72,21,580/
4. Additional amount @ 12% of market value w.e.f. 12.04.2006 (Date of Not. U/s 4) to 17.8.2006 (Date of Possession) (128 days) Rs. 38,18,479/
5. Cost of Structures Rs. 7,35,83,520/
6. Total amount of compensation Rs.19,53,62,179/
7. Interest U/s 34 of L.A.Act @ 9% LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 for one year Rs. 1,75,82,596/
8. Interest U/s 34 of L.A.Act @ 15% for 106 days Rs. 85,10,298/
9. Total Rs.22,14,55,073/
3. The statement under Section 19 of the Act is also accompanied with the application of petitioner filed before the LAC praying for a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, instant reference was received in this Court from the LAC on 24/09/2013.
4. Court notice was issued to the petitioner, UOI through LAC and PWD Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in response to the Court notice, petitioner, U.O.I through LAC & PWD (hereinafter referred to as respondent no. 1 and 2 respectively) filed their responses.
5. Petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead DMRC the beneficiary of acquisition as necessary party. The said application of petitioner was allowed vide order dated 31/10/2014 and accordingly DMRC (herein after called as LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 respondent no. 3) was impleaded as necessary party. Hence, respondent no. 3 also filed its response to the petition.
6. Petitioner in his application filed before LAC stated that she was actual owner/landlord in respect of property bearing no. 1/421, Khasra no. 307/2128, 30/31/2 & 37 min situated at Jhilmil Tahirpur, Friends Colony, Main GT Road, Delhi admeasuring 53 sq. yds. (herein after referred as 'property in question') as same was sold to her by her motherinlaw late Smt. Kamlesh Arora vide sale deed dated 16/12/2002. Petitioner claimed that the property in question was acquired by respondent no. 1. Petitioner further stated that inspite of her many request and completion of all formalities, the compensation amount of property in question and construction thereon has not been given to him so she requested LAC to refer the matter to the court.
7. Petitioner in her petition filed in court stated that respondent no.1 sent the reference of petition under Section 30 and 31 of the LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 act to the court. The said reference LAC no. 20A/2011 titled as Union of India Vs. Ms. Simmi Arora decided vide order dated 11/10/2012 hence petitioner received two cheques drawn on SBI bearing no. 278615 and 278616 for an amount of Rs.7,07,232/ and Rs.8,432/ respectively in the last week of January 2013. Petitioner further stated that LAC has assessed the market value at a very low rate, whereas at the time of claiming the compensation, the value of property in question was Rs.25,000/ per sq. meter of land and Rs.15 lacs as cost of construction. Petitioner claimed that the market value of property in question is about Rs.2 lacs per sq. meter and Rs. 87.36 lacs towards structure and damages. Petitioner claimed that respondent no. 1 assessed market value of property in question @ Rs.6,450/ per sq. meter under Award 2/200708 Jhilmil, Tahirpur. Petitioner claimed that the property in question is situated in authorized industrial area where plot is available at a price of not less than Rs. Two lacs per sq. meter. Further petitioner claimed that respondent no. 1 committed grave error by not giving the additional market value for the period w.e.f. date of award, till the date of LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 notification U/s 4 of the act. Petitioner further claimed that her industrial unit was closed down, so he paid her ten labourers Rs.25,000/ each which comes to Rs.2,50,000/. Further petitioner claimed Rs.40,000/ p.m. towards business loss till resettlement in the alternative accommodation. She also claimed Rs.1,50,000/ for shifting the goods to alternate accommodation. Further petitioner claimed Rs.4 lacs towards loss of his goodwill. Accordingly, petitioner claimed enhancement of Rs.1,98,12,000/.
8. Respondent no. 1 filed written statement to the claim of petitioner stating therein that it has already assessed the correct market value of land in question at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the value assessed by it is quiet reasonable and sufficient as property in question is not surrounded by any developed colony. Further petitioner has failed to furnish any evidence in her favour in respect of relief claimed in the present petition and in response to the notice issued by it under Section 9 & 10 of LA Act. Further respondent no. 1 stated that LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 petition is barred by limitation and averments made in the reference petition are wrong and denied. Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the petition with cost.
9. Respondent no. 2 also filed written statement to the reference petition on one and same ground as to the written statement filed by respondent no. 1.
10. Respondent no. 3 also filed written statement to the reference petition stating therein that petition is barred by limitation and compensation assessed by respondent no. 1 is sufficient, reasonable and legally based on cogent evidence. Further respondent no. 3 stated that petitioner's claim is excessive and exorbitant and based on surmises and conjunctures. Accordingly, respondent no. 3 prayed for dismissal of the reference petition.
11. The petitioner filed separate replications to the written statements of respondents no. 1,2 and 3 in which she denied the LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 averments made in the same and reiterated the contents made by her in her petition.
12. On completion of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 16102015 : i. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any enhancement in the compensation? If so, at what rate? OPP iii. Whether petitioner is entitled for interests on the enhanced compensation, if so, at what rate and for what period. OPP IV. Whether petition is time barred? OPD V. Relief
13. In support of her claim, petitioner examined one witness i.e. she herself as PW1.
14. PW1 led her evidence on affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She relied upon her application to the respondent no. 1 dated 29/01/2008 as Ex.PW1/1, certified copy of judgment dated 11/10/2012 passed in LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 LAC no. 20A/2011 as Ex. PW1/2, certified copy of judgment dated 24/05/2014 passed in LAC no. 01/2009 as Ex. PW1/3,certified copy of judgment dated 19/12/2014 passed in L.A.APP no. 401/2014 as Ex. PW1/4, Copy of notice dated 03/03/2011 as Mark A, copy of covering letter dated 22/01/2013 received from SBI as Mark B, copy of two banker's cheque both dated 22/01/2013 as Mark D.
15. Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 got recorded their statement on 30/09/2016 whereby he adopted the evidence led by respondent no. 1 in LAC no. 01/2009 case titled as 'Chander Pratap Singh v. UOI and ors.'. Further Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 also got recorded his statement on 30/09/2015 to the effect that respondent no. 3 also adopted the same evidence as has been given by UOI.
16. The LAC bearing no. 1/2009 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh Vs. UOI was another reference made by the LAC to the Court and same was decided by the Court of Ld. ADJ, on 24.5.2014. In the said LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 matter it was held that the market value of the acquired lands was Rs.21,920/ per sqmtr and the petitioner therein would be entitled to enhancement of compensation by Rs.15,470/ per sq. mtr.
17. The lands which were the subject matter of the reference of LAC 01/2009 were in khasra no. 1183/20/1 village Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi. The land which is the subject matter of the present reference is also situated in the same village i.e. Jhilmil Tahirpur. The date of notifications under the Act in LAC No. 01/2009 as well as the present reference are the same.
18. I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
19. My issuewise findings are as under: Issue No. iv
a) Admittedly, there is no pleading of respondents, how the claim petition of petitioner is barred by limitation. Further it is pertinent to LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 mention that respondents neither led any evidence nor advance any argument on aforesaid issue, accordingly the aforesaid issue is decided against respondents.
Issue No i & ii
a) Both the aforesaid issues are taken up together as they are interconnected.
b) The lands which are the subject matter of this reference have been acquired under the same notification issued under the Act in respect of the lands which were the subject matter of LAC 1/2009 Ex. PW1/3. PW1 relied upon the award passed in LAC 1/2009 and she also relied on the evidence led in the said reference. Respondents have also relied on the award Ex. PW1/3 and evidence led by respondent no. 1 in the said award. Thus, it is admitted by the parties that the lands which are the subject matter of this reference are identical in all respects to the lands which were the subject matter of LAC 1/2009 EX. PW1/3. Hon'ble Supreme Court in of Krapa Rangiah versus Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition reported in (1982) 2 LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 SCC 374, was pleased to hold that where similar lands are acquired under the same notification, the same rate of compensation should be awarded for other lands acquired under the same notification. Further in the case of Goa Housing Board versus Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar reported in (2011) 10 SCC 371, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to reiterate that similarly situated land in the same area having the same advantages and acquired under the same notification should be awarded the same compensation.
c) In the case in hand, the LAC itself in his award has found that the acquired lands are having commercial as well as industrial user. The land under the instant reference has been acquired under the same notification as in Ex. PW1/3. It is the admitted case of the parties that the acquired land under the instant reference is identical in terms of potentiality, location and user as in Ex. PW1/3. Hence in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to herein above, the petitioner will be entitled to the same compensation as assessed in Ex. PW1/3. It is pertinent to mention that LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 Judgment Ex. PW1/3 was upheld by Hon'ble High of Delhi in case title Ashok Kumar Sharma VS Union of India & Anr. , L.A.APP. 401/2014, Ex. PW1/4, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held "The reference court in the impugned judgment and the deposition of the revenue officials has been also considered in the proper perspective. The evidence led by the parties has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment by the Reference court in the right perspective and thereafter, the Reference court has rightly concluded that there is no proximity between the acquired land and the land in respect of the sale instances relied upon. Since the L&DO rates for acquired land in question are lesser than the minimum circle rates of the year 2007 for evaluation of the land and immovable properties in Delhi (which are relied upon by the reference court to determine the market value of the acquired land in question), therefore, I find that there is no scope for enhancement of the compensation already awarded to appellant".
d) The relevant portion of the award in Ex. PW1/3 is reproduced as under :
"89. Hence for the foregoing reasons recorded above, this Court deems it proper to place reliance on the circle rates notified by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 18.7.2007 under the provisions of the Delhi Stamps (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 2007. As per the same, the circle rates for category "G"
in respect of lands with Industrial use has been prescribed to be Rs.27,400/ per sqmtr. As the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act is 12.4.2006 while the circle rates were notified on 18.7.2007, I deem it proper to deduct 20% from the prescribed rate of Rs.27,400/ per sqmtr. Hence the market rate of the acquired lands comes to Rs.21,920/ per sqmtr.
90. The LAC has awarded an amount of Rs.6,450/ per sqmtr. As the market value of the acquired lands has been found to be Rs.21,920/ per sqmtr, the petitioner will be entitled to enhancement of compensation by Rs.15,470/ per sqmtr."
e) PW1 also deposed that she had paid Rs. 25,000/ each to her ten labourers on close down of his Industrial Unit and she incurred the loss of Rs. 40,000/ p.m. towards her business till resettlement in alternative accommodation and she also spent Rs. 1.5 lakh for shifting of goods from acquired land to alternate accommodation and also suffered losses of Rs. 4 lakh towards goodwill of her business. Admittedly, PW1 has not disclosed the name and address of her labourers to whom she has paid Rs. 25,000/ each. Further PW1 has not placed any receipt on record to show that she had spent Rs. 1.5 lakh for shifting of goods from acquired land to the alternate LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 accommodation. Further PW1 has not disclosed the name by which she was carrying on her business from her acquired premises. In view of this, petitioner is not entitled for aforesaid amount.
f) In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that petitioner shall be entitled to enhancement of compensation by Rs. 15,470/ per sq. meter. Accordingly, Issue no. 1 & 2 are decided. Issue No. (iii) It is held vide findings recorded on issue no. (I) & (ii) that petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation by Rs. 15470/ per sq. meter. So in term of section 28 of the Act, petitioner is also entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of dispossession till expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till realization of the amount. Accordingly, aforesaid issue is decided.
Issue No. (v) R E L I E F LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18
a) In view of the findings on issue no. (i) and (ii), the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation by Rs.15,470/ per sqmtr. In addition, the petitioner would also be entitled to all statutory benefits, being 30% solatium on the market value in view of the compulsory nature of acquisition as per section 23 (2) of the Act and an additional amount of 12% per annum on the market value as provided under Section 23 (1A) from the date of notification till the date of possession or award whichever is earlier. She would also be entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of dispossession till expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till realization of the amount.
20) Reference is answered accordingly. Statement under Section 19, which is duly admitted by the petitioner be annexed along with the same. Copy of the award be sent to the LAC (Shahdara), Delhi for information and necessary compliance within three months. The respondent no. 2 is nothing to do with the acquired land, but as the same i.e., the acquired land has been placed at the disposal of LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18 Delhi Metro Railway Corporation being the ultimate beneficiary, so, the liability of respondent no. 1 & 3 would be joint and several.
21) File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (RAVINDER SINGH)
TODAY 10112016 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
(SHAHDARA), KARKARDOOMA
COURTS DELHI
LAC NO. 27/2016 SIMMI ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA 18 of 18