Delhi District Court
Sh. Bhupender Kumar Jain vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2015
In The Court of Virender Kumar Goyal
Additional District Judge01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
LAC (New) No. 20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07
Unique Case ID No.02402C0 82097 2007
In the matter of :
Sh. Bhupender Kumar Jain,
S/o Late Sh. Sumat Prakash Jain,
R/o 100, Gajju Katra, Shahdara,
Delhi110032. .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through: The Land Acquisition Collector
East District, L.M.Bandh
near Geeta Colony, Delhi110051.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Town Hall
Chandni Chowk, Delhi110006. .....Respondents
Date of institution : 26.11.2007
Arguments heard on : 17.07.2015
Judgment announced on : 27.08.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of the present petition, are that the petitioner has filed the petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the findings, determination of market value and consequent LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.1 of 33 award for acquisition of land etc. published by the Land Acquisition Collector, on the averments that the land comprised in Khasra No. 10/16 (4 bigha 5 biswa) is the ancestral land of the petitioner in which the petitioner, admittedly, had one fourth undivided share; that this land has been acquired by the Government through the Land Acquisition, Collector (East), Delhi, vide Award No. 01/200708/East dated 3rd May, 2007; that the petitioner is aggrieved not only by the aforesaid acquisition but also by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in terms of the aforementioned Award; that the petitioner has 1/4th undivided share in the aforesaid land of which 1 bigha 12 biswa(1,345 square metre) has been acquired in terms of the said award; that the LAC has awarded compensation for the afore land @ Rs. 3,647/ per square metre; that except for the petitioner, who has 1/4th share in the aforesaid land, there is no other person (except his coowners to the extent of 3/4th) having any right, title or interest in the said land or any part thereof; that the petitioner (along with others) being the owners of land admeasuring 4 bighas 5 biswa comprised in Kila No. 16 of Rectangle No. 10 (Khasra No. 16/10) situated in the revenue estate of Village Khureji Khas, Illaqu & Tehsil LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.2 of 33 Shahdara, Delhi32 had instituted a suit for ejectment in the Court of the Ld. Revenue Assistant at Delhi against the Union of India and/or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi; that the Ld. Revenue Assistant by judgment and decree dated 3rd September, 1973 decreed the aforesaid suit for possession; that an appeal filed by the union of India against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 3rd September, 1973 was dismissed by Sh. H.K.S.Malik, the then ld. ADJ, Delhi on 16th April, 1975; that a second appeal being RSA No. 50 of 1976 instituted by the Union of India impugning the said decree(s) was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 21st April, 1995; that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi sought to impugn the judgment and decree dated 3rd September, 1973 as confirmed in Appeal (s), by instituting before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 1935 of 1998; that this Writ Petition was dismissed by Division Bench of the High Court on 14th May, 1998; that the decree dated 3rd September, 1973 became final and binding; that it was put to execution on or about 18th December, 1995; that inspite of repeated requests the Executing Court did not issue warrants of Possession so as to put the Decree Holders into actual physical possession of the land (4 bigha 5 biswa) subject matter of the decree dated LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.3 of 33 3rd September, 1973; that the petitioner alongwith his co shares approached the Hon'ble High Court in proceedings under Article227 of the Constitution of India propounding that for oblique motives Warrant of Possession were not being issued; that the Hon'ble High Court in the said petition (CM (main) No.220 of 1998) by judgment and order dated 27th July, 1999 directed the executing court to proceed with the execution petition forthwith so as to execute the decree in accordance with law; that inspite of the said directions, nothing was done by the Ld. Executing court and accordingly contempt proceedings were initiated; that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and instituted Civil Revision Petition No. 245 of 2001, praying that the execution proceedings be stayed; that the said Revision Petition was dismissed on 5th December, 2001 and a Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 25th January, 2002; that even then Warrants of Possession were not issued by the executing court; that in 2004 by Award no.
15/DC(E)/200405 dated 6th September, 2004, the Ld. LAC acquired 2 bigha 6 biswa of land out of the total land admeasuring 4 bigha 5 biswa leaving out the rest for the executing court adjudicate upon and/or for acquisition at a LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.4 of 33 later date; that presently subjudice before Hon'ble High Court is another Contempt Petition bearing Contempt case (Civil) No. 5963 of 2006; that in view of the aforesaid proceedings to which not only the executing court but also the Ld. LAC were parties, the Ld. LAC has proceeded to hurriedly publish the impugned Award dated 3rd May, 2007 acquiring land admeasuring 1 bigha 12 biswa situated in the erstwhile Revenue Estate of Village Khureji, Tehsil Shahdara, Delhi; that the record exhibits has haste in which the award has been published; that it is not even counter signed by the Secretary (Revenue) of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi; that this land ad measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa situated in the erstwhile revenue estate of Village Khureji Khas, Delhi was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in terms of Notification no. F.8 (13)/2006/L&B/8232 dated 24th August, 2006; that the requisite declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued vide Notification no. F. 8(13)/2006/L&B/LA/19987 dated 1st November, 2006; that in order to take over possession of the aforesaid land immediately the Government issued another Notification under Section 17(1) of the said Act vide No. F. 8(13)/1006/L&B/LA/11988 dated 1st November, 2006; that LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.5 of 33 the the prescribed notices under Section 9(1) and 10(1) of the said Act were issued on 15th November, 2006 and the actual physical possession of the land was taken over by the Land & Building Department on 24th January, 2007 in terms of the aforesaid Notification dated 1st November, 2006; that MCD was put in actual physical possession of the same, on the same day; that the entire area of Village Khureji Khas, Tehsil Shahdara was urbanized as far back as on 23.05.1963 vide notification no. RNZ526; that this supplemented the earlier notification no. F9/5/59R&S dated 28th December 1959; that thereafter the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 were extended to the locality vide notification no. S.O.1236 dated 23.03.1979; that in this very khasra (10/16, Village Khureji Khas) land ad measuring 2 bighas 6 biswa was acquired in terms of Award no. 15/DC(E)/20042005; that consequently, in 2006 the remaining land admeasuring 1 bigha 12 biswa in the aforesaid erstwhile revenue estate was available for acquisition and has been acquired by the impugned award dated 3rd May, 2007; that the petitioner had preferred his claims before Ld. LAC but the same has not been considered in their true perspective by LAC; that the petitioner constrained to initiate this reference; that the impugned LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.6 of 33 award dated 3rd May, 2007 being contrary to the admitted facts of the case as also unsustainable in the eyes of law, the petitioner craves leave to institute this reference on the following amongst other grounds i.e. because the impugned award dated 3rd May, 2007 is on its own face, unsustainable on the admitted facts as also in law; that because the Ld. LAC failed to appreciate that the entire revenue estate of Village Khureji Khas was urbanized in terms of Notification dated 23.05.1963 i.e. more than 40 years ago wherefore the entire area has since developed into a highly congested urban city in itself; that the Ld. LAC ought to have held that the prevailing land prices in the locality was of the order of Rs. 25,000/ per square metre and not a penny less in the year 200607; that because LAC failed to appreciate that there had been phenomenal nay astronomical rise in the land prices during the last few years in the city of Delhi and in particular in the last two years; that because the ld. LAC erred in not appreciating that after urbanization the entire locality in the vicinity of the land in reference in these proceedings had already been built upon, where for the market value of the land in reference was not less than Rs. 25000/ per square metre at the time of the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act and that the site in LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.7 of 33 acquisition was fully developed and there was provision already of pucca roads/parks and street lights etc. thereon and also that the land in reference had potential for residential accommodation only; that the site was basically commercial with a Mother Dairy, Milk Booth etc. and Mother Dairy was paying fanciful rentals to the MCD for the use of a small part of the site in reference; that the site in reference was right adjacent to a community centre built by the MCD in the heart of Chander Nagar, Shahdara South, Delhi51 which was fetching a rental/licence fee of Rs. 10,000/ per day to the MCD; that the Ld. LAC inspite of knowledge deliberately ignored the potential of the land in reference by brushing aside the existence of the various land marks near the site in question; that Ld. LAC further erred in opining that the land was to be valued as per residential rates provided by the Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi as also erred in not appreciating that the land rates notified by the Land & Development Officer, were inconsequential as there was no basis provided for the same anywhere and erred in not awarding interest to the claimant/petitioner on the 80% compensation that has been awarded in the impugned Award; that LAC never served LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.8 of 33 upon the petition/claimant any notice to complete the alleged formalities (for payment fo 80% compensation) and as such the LAC erred in not awarding (ie.refusing) interest to the petitioner and not releasing 80% compensation to the claimant in spite of being aware that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 against the officials of the office of the Deputy Commissioner of East Delhi were already subjudice before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; that the Ld. LAC ought to have awarded compensation to the claimant/petitioner at the rate of Rs. 25000/ per square metre instead of Rs. 3647/ per square metre; that as the LAC made no effort to determine the actual market value of the land comprised in the vicinity of the site in reference and prayed that compensation @ Rs. 25,000/ per square metre besides soltium and interest, as per law, along with all other benefits as prescribed by law and besides such other relief(s) as Ld. District Judge, Delhi may in the facts of this case, deem fit.
2. Notices of the petition were issued to the respondents and on completion of service, respondents had put their appearance before the court through his counsel, who have filed written statement on behalf of the respondents.
3. Written statement was filed on behalf of the LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.9 of 33 respondent no.1 / Union of India on the grounds inter alia that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the village Khureji Khas was issued on 24.08.2006; that the declaration under Section 6 & 17 of the Act was issued on 01.11.2006; that the land has been acquired for the public purpose namely for "Peripheral road/drain of village khureji khas"; that notices under Section 9 & 10 were issued to the land owners/interested persons inviting claims of the land and claims were filed by the affected persons, claiming different value of the land; that after considering all the claims of the land owners/ interested parties the LAC made and pronounced the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, being award no. 1/200708 on 03.05.2007; that the claim of the petitioner with respect to measurements, apportionment and compensation of the land or structure is admitted to the extent of the award no. 1/200708 and the section 19 statement of the land acquisition Act; that the compensation assessed by the LAC is sufficient and reasonable; that various factors were taken into account while assessing the market value; that the petitioner is claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land and structures; that however, the answering respondent craves leave of this Court to refer and rely upon LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.10 of 33 the said award and the statement under Section 19 of the Act; that the LAC considered the Market value of the land at the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 24.08.2006; that the LAC in order to assess the fair market value of the land considered the "Schedule of Market Rates" of land of various locality in Delhi issued by the Ministry of Urban Affair & Employment, Govt. of India for land transfer for the corresponding period; that after considering the above factors the LAC considered that the indicative price of the land in the nearby area of Geeta Colony which was notified at Rs. 2805/ per Sq. Mtr., however the rates notified by the L&DO were applicable upto 31.03.2000 only ad the same were not been revised and the LAC came to conclusion that there was 30% rise in six years till the date of notification and assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 3647/ per sq. in view of the enumerated under Section 23 & 24 of the Land Acquisition Act after considering the level of development, locality and situation of the area of the land in question; that the market value of the land assessed at Rs. 3647/ per sq. meter for the land acquired besides other statutory benefits. It is stated that the owners/interested persons are claiming exorbitant value of the land and structures, hence the reference under LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.11 of 33 reply is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner are not entitled to any enhancement over and above the value assessed by the LAC. On merits it is stated that the land owners/interested persons are claiming exorbitant value of the land, which was correctly assessed by the LAC; that the market value of the land assessed at Rs. 3647/ per sq.meter for the land acquired besides other statutory benefits. Hence the reference under reply is liable to be dismissed and the petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement over and above the value assessed by the LAC.
4. In the written statement filed by the respondent no. 2 / MCD it is stated that the application u/s 18 of LAC Act, 1894 is not maintainable; that there is no legal infirmity, perversity or illegality in award No. 1/200708 land measuring 4 Bighas 5 Biswa in Kh. NO. 10/16, Khureji Khas in the present application. It is also stated that the respondent no.1 is vested with the power under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to determine the compensation, therefore, the amount of compensation determined by LAC of Rs. 3647/ per sq. On merits it is stated that the strict proof of averments as stated in the application be put up to applicant; that the respondent/MCD craves leave to refer to award in question to this effect and LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.12 of 33 anything contrary there to is denied; that the applicant is not entitled to claim to enhance compensation once the amount determined by the LAC is accepted; that the award passed is in consonance with the provision of LAC Act, 1894. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to compensate against the acquired land @ 25000/ per sq.
5. No replication to the written statements of the respondents no.1 and 2 has been filed by the petitioner.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 14.03.2008:
(a) Whether the petitioner has any right, title or interest in the land in question?OPP.
(b)What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act? Onus on parties.
(c) Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount?OPP
(d) Relief.
7. The evidence has been recorded in case bearing LAC No.17/1/08/07 and the same has been adopted by both the parties to be read as evidence in this case. In order to prove the case LAC NO.17/1/08/07, the petitioner Anand Prakash Gupta has examined himself as PW1, vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has reiterated the contents of petition, in his affidavit. He has relied upon the documents from Ex.PW1 to Ex.PW1/52. He was cross examined at length by the ld. LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.13 of 33 counsel for respondent no.1 / Union of India. His cross examination, as done by ld. counsel for respondent no.1, was adopted by ld. counsel for respondent no.2 / MCD.
8. Petitioner Anand Prakash Gupta has also examined PW2 Sh. Narottam Sharma, Assistant, Commercial Land Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan, Near INA, New Delhi in LAC No.17/1/08/07, who has proved perpetual lease deed dated 01.09.2005 Ex.PW1/8. He has been jointly cross examined by the ld. counsels for the respondents. No other witness is examined by the petitioner.
9. The counsel for respondent no.1 has tendered award No.1/200708 passed by the LAC, East Ex.R1 and photocopy of sale deed executed on 17.02.2003 for a sum of Rs.1 lac registered vide registration No.1031 mark A in LAC No.17/1/08/07 and Ld. counsel for respondent no.2 has adopted the same. No other witness is examined by the respondents.
10. I have heard the ld. counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
Findings on issue no.1 Whether the petitioner has any right, title or interest in the land in question ? OPP
11. According to the petition, the petitioner was LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.14 of 33 owner of the land measuring 4 bighas 5 biswas comprising in kila No.16 of rectangle No.10 (khasra no.16/10) situated in the Village Khureji Khas. It is further averred that land was illegally encroached by the MCD and thereafter all the litigations, order of Revenue Assistant was found to be correct. Hence, thereafter the land was acquired for MCD by the LAC. It is contended that if the land was already belonging to the government then there was no need to acquire the same. Whereas, on the other hand, in the WS filed on behalf of Union of India, it is averred that petitioner is not admitted to be the owner/Bhumidar/interested person with respect to the land in question and has no locus standi to file the present reference petition. MCD has not denied the ownership of land in question of the petitioners.
12. According to the judgment of Revenue Assistant, Delhi, which has been upheld throughout during various litigations. Issue no.1 was framed as to whether the petitioner is owner of the land and according to the same, in support of the issue, the petitioner has filed copy of Jamabandi for 196869, in which the petitioner is recorded owner of suit land i.e. Khasra No.10/16. It was further upheld that no evidence in rebuttal on this issue was brought by the defendants i.e. MCD & UOI, so, it was held that LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.15 of 33 plaintiffs are owners of suit land and issue was decided in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the said judgment are Sh. Asha Ram Gupta, Bhupender Kumar, Mahender Kumar and Aflatoon, out of which, the present petitioners Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta is son of Asha Ram Gupta, Bhupender Kumar is the same petitioner, Mahender Kumar is also same petitioner, one petitioner Chander Prakash is also LR of Asha Ram Gupta and one Farzand Ali is LR of Aflatoon, so, the present petitioners are LRs and themselves, who were plaintiffs before the court of Revenue Assistant.
13. Now, before this court also, respondents have not been able to brought on record any evidence in support of the issue to the extent that petitioner is not owner of land in question.
14. On behalf of respondent / Union of India, only award has been tendered in evidence and on behalf of MCD, the evidence led by the Union of India has been adopted.
15. In the cross examination, PW1 has stated that he has not filed any revenue record i.e. khasra girdawari and khatoni to show the ownership of land in question in this reference. He has also stated that in the cross that he has not filed sale deed of land in question to show his ownership nor has filed any Jamabandi from the year 196869 to 2002. This LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.16 of 33 cross examination is of no relevance, as this issue of ownership has already been decided by the court of Revenue Assistant before whom the documents were produced and the said judgment was announced on 03.09.1973 in which MCD and Union of India were party and said judgment has been upheld throughout in all further litigations between the parties, so, this cross examination has no meaning regarding challenging the ownership of suit land of the petitioners.
16. In view of the same, the findings of the Revenue Assistant about ownership of land in question of the present petitioners were uphold throughout during the period of previous litigations and in this petition, except denying the title, respondent / Union of India has not brought any evidence to rebut the fact that petitioner has no right, title or interest in the land in question. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
Findings on issues no.2&3 Issue No.2 : What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act ? Onus on parties.
Issue No.3 : Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount ? OPP
17. According to issue no.2, both the parties have to prove as what was the market value of the land in question at the LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.17 of 33 time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of LA Act.
18. The total land under the ownership of petitioners was 4 bighas and 5 biswas in Khasra No.10/16. The award is Ex.R1 vide which land measuring 1 bigha 12 biswa of Village Khureji Khas was acquired. Notification was issued by the Land & Building Department on 24.08.2006. Whereas, the award has been passed and was announced on 03.05.2007. The Land Acquisition Collector has calculated market value of the land, as per schedule of rates, as circulated by Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi vide notification dated 15.04.1999 for period 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000, wherein the indicated prices of land in the nearby area of Geeta Colony were notified @ Rs.2805/ per sq. meter for residential use. As the rate was applicable to the year 2000 only, so, it was to be increased by 10% for every two years without cumulative effect and rates at the time of notification U/s 4 of LA Act in the year 2006 was fixed @ Rs.3647/ per sq. meter and further compensation for structure, solatium, additional benefits and interest were awarded. In the said award Ex.R1, all these petitioners have been shown as owners/occupants/interested persons who have filed their claim before the LAC.
LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.18 of 33
19. Now during the evidence, several sale deeds and other documents have been placed on record, exhibited and proved, showing the rates of land at a higher range in comparison to the rates, as fixed by the LAC in the year 2006 at the time of issuing the notification U/s 4 of LA Act. These are of nearby localities. PW1 have been cross examined on behalf of Union of India, wherein the petitioner Anand Prakash Gupta has stated that MCD was in possession of land since 1970 and land was being used as Park since 2002. He has denied the suggestion that land measuring 1937.17 sq. meter was neither developed nor any amenities and facilities were available in the year 2002. Photographs have been placed on record showing various types of constructions surrounding the land in question.
20. It is contended by the ld. counsel for the petitioners that the rate which was taken up by the LAC of Rs.2805/ for the year 2000 was required to be increased 10% every two year till 2006 with cumulative effect, but, he has not done so. Various sale deeds i.e. Ex.PW1/1 is of the area of Vivek Vihar, Ex.PW1/17 is of the year 2005 of area East Azad Nagar, Ex.PW1/2 of the year 2004 of area Geeta Colony, Ex.PW1/4 of the area of Jheel Khuranja, Ex.PW1/5 i.e. perpetual lease deed of the year 2005 of area of Geeta LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.19 of 33 Colony, another lease deed of the year 2002 of the area of Vivek Vihar, Ex.PW1/7 of the year 2005 of area of Dayanand Vihar, Ex.PW1/8 i.e. perpetual lease deed of Community Centre, E11, Karkardooma, Ex.PW1/16 of the year 2005 of area of Preet Vihar, Ex.PW1/14 of the year 2005 of area Anand Vihar, Ex.PW1/19 of the year 2005 of District Centre Laxmi Nagar, Ex.PW1/18 of the year 2004 of Preet Vihar have been placed on the record. So, not even single sale deed or perpetual lease deed has been placed on record by the petitioners for the relevant year of 2006 of the area of Chander Nagar to show that rate of land prevailing at the time of acquisition of suit land, higher to the rate fixed by LAC.
21. The ld. counsel for the petitioners has also filed certified copy of the reference in respect of some other award of Village Kondli Ex.PW1/11 and further judgment of reference U/s 18 of LA Act given by the court of Ld. ADJ regarding land of Village Kondli, wherein Ld. ADJ fixed the rate of land as Rs.8553/ per sq. meter as on 13.02.2004. Certified copy of Kabja Karwahi has also been filed, which is Ex.PW1/12A. It is of 2006. At that time, one mother dairy booth was found to be constructed and land was found to be on road. In Ex.PW1/13A, it is mentioned that the land LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.20 of 33 in question was already under the maintenance of MCD.
22. The ld. counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the various judgments, as to how the rate of land is to be calculated and has relied upon Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. 176 (2011) DLT 361, wherein it has been held that "increase in land price is dependent on situation of land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in area and demand for land". It has been further held in the said judgment that "what is relevant for court to see is better use to which land is reasonably capable of being put in immediate or near futurein absence of any evidence to contrary, potentiality and advantages of subject land situated in Pocket A and parcels of land situated in Pocket C can be safely concluded to be similar in nature".
23. It is further contended by the ld. counsel for the petitioners that even according to Kabja Karwahi, there was mother dairy booth, being run commercially at the site at that time and photographs have been placed on record Ex.PW1/42 to 1/51. According to which, there is Shri Anandpur Trust Charitable Diagnostic Centre. One Spring Bells Public Sr. Sec. School, One Satsang Bhawan, Sharma Dental Clinic, Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Govt. Girls Sr. LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.21 of 33 Sec. School, Vijaya Bank, Madrasa, which being run in the adjoining of land in question, which shows the potentiality of the land. There is a temple also and Community Centre is also being run from there in the adjoining, so, the land in question was having huge potentiality for commercial use and was situated on the road. These photographs have been filed in the year 2008. Whereas, at the time of Kabja Karwahi Ex.PW1/12A. No such building was found in the area adjoining to the land in question except mother dairy booth, which shows that all these buildings came into existence later on.
24. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that even before acquisition, land in question was being used and maintained for the Park for the residents of the area, so, it was not having any commercial potentiality in any manner, as claimed by the petitioners. It has also been contended by the respondents that rates of other colonies like Vivek Vihar, East Azad Nagar, Geeta Colony, Jheel Khuranja, Dayanand Vihar, Preet Vihar, Anand Vihar are not applicable to compare and enhance the rate of land in question of Chander Nagar. It is further contended that land was undeveloped, hence, it could not be compared with the developed land, for which, sale deeds LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.22 of 33 have been placed on record and in support of the same, ld. counsel for respondents has relied upon Lal Chand v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2010 S.C. 170, wherein it has been held that "(E) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1897) Ss.51A, 23 CompensationDetermination of market value contemporaneous transactioncertified copy of sale deed may be received in evidence by courthowever court have discretion to rely upon it or reject it as unacceptable for reasons to be recorded".
25. It is further contended that the locality of Chander Nagar cannot be compared with the locality of Vivek Vihar, East Azad Nagar, Geeta Colony, Jheel Khuranja, Dayanand Vihar, Preet Vihar, Anand Vihar and also about nature of land, whether developed or undeveloped, shape, size are to be considered and in this respect, he has relied upon judgment Valliyammal and Anr. v. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr. (2011) 10SCR 293, wherein it has been held that "1.1 in fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired(para 17)(309 LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.23 of 33 FG)".
26. Regarding potentiality of the land in question, again the petitioner has relied upon judgment Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, 2011 IV AD (SC) 382, wherein it has been held that "if the compensation proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the potential of the land acquired from him must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near future alone. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and emphasize that this broad principle would be applicable where the possession of the land has been taken pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land is already in possession of the Government and is subsequently acquired."
27. In the second written submissions, judgment passed by Sh. Reetesh Singh, Ld. ADJ01, North East, KKD Courts, Delhi in case Chandra Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Anr. has been filed alongwith Master Plan for Delhi 2021. LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.24 of 33
28. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondents have contended that various photographs and materials are to be considered, while deciding the value of the land i.e. enlargeness of the area, acquisition, category, nature of area etc. and again reiterated that land in question was already under the possession of the MCD and was being used and maintained as a Park, so, it was not having any building, potentiality of commercial viability, so, the rate as fixed by the LAC, was according to the law, after considering all the facts and circumstances and in this respect, he has relied upon judgment UOI v. Pramod Gupta (supra).
29. In support of his contention, ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 has relied upon following judgments, as under : (1) UOI v. Pramod Gupta 2005(12) SCC 1 (2) ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 454 (3) R P SIngh v. UOI 2005 (7) SCC 24 (4) Gafar & Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority 2007 (7) SCC 614 (5) Ranvir Singh & Ors. v. UOI 2005 (12) SCC 59 (6) UP Jal Nigam v. M/s. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 1170 (7) Land Acquisition Officer v. Morisetty Satyanarayana 2002 (10) SCC 570 (8) Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Cold Storage & Food Products & Ors. 1994 (2) SCC 134 (9) Topandas Kundamal v. State 1995 (5) SCC 336 LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.25 of 33 (10) Shakuntala Bai & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 1996 (2) SCC 152 (11) Kanwar Singh & Ors. v. UOI 1998 (8) SCC 136 (12) M B Gopal Krishna & Ors. v. The Special Duty Collector AIR 1996 SC 3149 (13) Lal Chand v. UOI 163 (2009) DLT 299 (SC) (14) Bule v. UOI 170 (2010) DLT 371 (15) Revenue Division Officer, Kurnool District v. M. Ramakrishna Reddy (D) by LRs (2011) SCC 648
30. In support of his contention, Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following judgments, as under : (1) Om Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors.
(2) Satish & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.
(3) Valliyammal and Another v. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Another etc. (4) Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. v. Union of India & Another (5) Lal Chand v. Union of India (6) Madishetti v. LAO (7) Judgment dated 24.05.2014 passed by ADJ Karkardooma Court (8) Subhash Batra v. Union of India and Another
31. It is an admitted fact that even before acquisition of land in question, the same was being used by MCD under its control as park. From the photographs placed on record, it is clear that nearby there is a temple, school and small temporary shops. The park is surrounded by certain shops, as visible from the photographs. A mother dairy booth, charitable trust, school, bank are there near land in question LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.26 of 33 but they cannot be treated as commercial establishments, being public services and long back before acquisition, the land in question was being used as park for residents of the area, so, it cannot be said that the land in question was having any potential of commercial use or was having any high value of commercial rates, as prevailing at that time in the area. The sale deeds as produced by the petitioners are of area nearby to the colony and strangely no sale deed of the Chander Nagar area has been produced and brought in evidence to prove the rate of land, which was prevailing at that time, so, it has to be seen as to how the value of the land is to be determined at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of LA Act. No nearby land has been acquired adjoining to the land in question or any proceedings have been filed to consider the rate.
32. It has also been contended by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that Community Centre nearby the suit land is being let out by the MCD @ Rs.10000/. In my view, the Community Centre cannot be treated as commercial establishment, as the same is being run by the MCD for the larger public interest. More so, the Community Centres are not receiving rent, as prescribed on day to day basis and are being used occasionally by the public at large, so, the same LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.27 of 33 cannot be treated as commercial activity to consider the letting rate of the Community Centre per day, as contended.
33. The Ld. LAC relied upon the rates circulated by Ministry of Urban Affairs, Government of India vide order dated 15.04.1999 for the period 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 and in view of the non availability of new rates on 01.04.2000, LAC considered 10% enhancement on the notified rates of Rs.2805/ per sq. meter for every two years without cumulative effect. However, for Delhi, Delhi Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 2007 were introduced. This deals with the circle rates of various colonies according to their categories and the facts which are to be considered under each category in case of non agricultural land are area of land in sq. meter, minimum price fixed by the Government, if any, land use etc.
34. According to the section 4(2) of the Act, which runs as under : "As far as possible, once in two years in the month of April, the Deputy Commissioner of each District shall undertake the exercise of valuation of the following categories of immovable properties, in consultation with MCD, NDMC, Cantonment Board, DDA, L&DO etc. (as appropriate) and such other land owning authorities of the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Territory of LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.28 of 33 Delhi."
35. Hence, it shows that valuation of the categories of the immovable property are to be made in consultation with the MCD/NDMC/Cantonment Board, DDA, L&DO etc., so, the circle rates as prescribed are having certain guidelines, on which, the market value has been arrived at. According to the Written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioners, the land in question falling in the area of Chander Nagar F category, having circle rates of Rs.16100/ in the year 2007. Even otherwise, after 2000, L&DO has not revised the rates in any manner, so, LAC could not have taken 10% enhancement on the last notified rates after every two years without cumulative effect.
36. So, taking the circle rates, as were prevailing in the year 2007, is the best method to reach at the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act.
37. In this respect, I am relying upon the judgment of Ld. ADJ01, North East, KKD, Delhi passed in the year 2014 in LAC No.1/2009 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Anr. of the area of Jhilmil Tahirpur, another judgmentt of which area has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 19.12.2014 titled LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.29 of 33 as Subhash Batra v. Union of India and the method of calculating the valuation of the land on the basis of circle rates has been upheld.
38. It has been held by the Higher Courts at times that in the absence of any other evidence, firstly the sale deeds and thereafter the judgments and awards in respect of the similar land acquired of the same village or other village shall be taken into consideration and reasonable increase or decrease depending upon the date of notification can be applied.
39. Now it is to be seen as to how decrease in percentage is to be made in the circle rates as the circle rates are of 2007, whereas, the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act was issued on 24.08.2006.
40. The Ld. ADJ01 in the judgment titled as Chandra Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Anr. has relied upon one another judgment as Seema Grover v. Government of NCT of Delhi, writ petition (C) 13122/09 decided on 08.11.2011, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that act of the registry in dealing the reduction in 20% per year, which was notified on 18.07.2007 was proper as such mode of valuation was not unknown.
41. Under such circumstances, the reduction by such percentage in circle rates is arrived at the market value LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.30 of 33 keeping in view the time difference between issuance of notification U/s 4 of LA Act and notification issued about the circle rates was reasonable and it has been upheld.
42. In view of above, the circle rates of suit land, which is falling in the area of Chander Nagar having category F was Rs.16100/ in the year 2007. Whereas, notification U/s 4 of LA Act was issued on 24.08.2006, so, by reducing 20% circle rates per year, in the year 2006, it comes to Rs. 12,880/. Under such circumstances, after considering the evidence brought on record and submissions of the ld. counsels for the parties, the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of LA Act, is fixed @ Rs.12,880/ per sq. meter.
43. According to the award No.01/200708/East dated 03.05.2007, the rate of land was fixed at Rs.3647/ per sq. meter and in view of above findings, the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation in respect of rate of land to the extent of Rs.12,880/ per sq. meter, being reasonable market value at that time. Accordingly, issues no.2&3 are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
44. Relief : Accordingly, in view of the findings on issue no.1,2&3, the petitioner / reference filed U/s 18 of LA LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.31 of 33 Act, is allowed. The petitioner has claimed compensation @ Rs.25,000/ per sq. meter, which is now fixed and allowed @ Rs.12,880/ per sq. meter.
45. According to the award, solatium was allowed @ 30%. Accordingly, the solatium is also allowed @ 30% on the market value, as determined above, as per provisions of LA Act, 1894.
46. The petitioner has also claimed interest, as per law.
According to the award, 12% interest was allowed on the market value, fixed by the LAC U/s 23(1)A of LA Act, 1894 from the date of notification U/s 4 of Act (24.08.2006) till the date of possession i.e. 24.01.2007. Accordingly, the same is also allowed on the present market value, fixed as above.
47. According to the award, interest U/s 34 of LA Act, 1894 was also allowed observing that MCD had taken the land on 24.01.2007 and as such petitioner is entitled to interest on the balance amount, as per section 34 of LA Act, 1894 @ 9% per annum from the date of possession i.e. 24.01.2007 to the date of payment. The same is also allowed on the enhanced market value of the land in question, as determined above.
48. The above reliefs are subject to the deductions of LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.32 of 33 compensation / solatium / additional benefits / interest U/s 34 of LA Act, 1894, which have already been received by the petitioner, as were fixed by the LAC vide Award No. 01/200708/East dated 03.05.2007.
49. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 27.08.2015 ( Virender Kumar Goyal ) Additional District Judge01 (East)/KKD/Delhi / 27.08.2015 LAC (New) No.20/1/08/07 (Old) No.207/1/07 Page No.33 of 33