Delhi District Court
Ram Saroop vs . Uoi on 8 April, 2016
Ram Saroop vs. UOI
In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District, Saket Court
Complex, Sixth Floor, Room No. 602, Saket New Delhi
In the matter of :
LAC No. 49/2011
Unique No. 02403C0282612010
Senior Citizen Case
Reference received from LAC on : 25.08.2010
Date of Institution : 18.01.2011 (LAC 49/2011)
(LAC No. 29 / dated 26.08.2010)
Decision Reserved on : 06.04.2016
Date of Decision : 08.04.2016
Shri Ram Saroop (deceased), S/o Late Rai Singh
Through LRs :
(i) Shri Sis Ram Sharma (Son)
R/o H. No. 73, Village Kilokri, New Delhi.
(ii) Shri Harbans Lal Sharma (Son)
R/o 85, Village Kilokri, New Delhi.
(iii) Shri Tek Chand Sharma (Son)
R/o 85A, Village Kilokri, New Delhi.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, through Land Acquisition Collector,
Office at D.C. Office, M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority, through its Vice Chairman,
INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
... Respondents
LAC No. 49/2011 Page 1 of 14
Ram Saroop vs. UOI AWARD (by the Court under section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894) 1.1 (Introduction) The petitioner is seeking enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of land acquired, while not agreeing with and accepting the amount offered in Award by the Land Acquisition Collector. Whereas, respondents stand by the Award that amount determined is correct and it represents fair market price.
For deciding the petitioner's reference petition u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894) read with statement u/s 19 of the Act sent by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act 23.06.1989 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act 22.06.1990 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act 22.06.1990
(iii) for Project Planned Development of Delhi Channelization of Yamuna river
(iv) Location/Name of Village Kilokari (va)Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC 14/9293 & date of award 19.6.1992 (vb) Area under acquisitionin question 288 bigha 09 biswas (vc) area/share of petitioners 43 bigha13 biswas (via) Date of reference petition to LAC 29.11.1995 (vib) Petition referred to Court on 25.08.2010
(vii) Date of revised statement U/s 19 of the Act, 1894 05.04.2016 LAC No. 49/2011 Page 2 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI 1.2 Pursuant to preliminary notification dated 23.06.1989 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894), followed by declaration by notification dated 22.6.1990 under sections 6 and 17 of the Act, 1894, the Government acquired chunk of lands of Village Kilokari Delhi by award for channelization of river the Yamuna. The lands of petitioner was also acquired as per revised statement dated 05.04.2016 U/s 19 of the Act {hereinafter referred as land acquired}. All concerned were heard, inclusive of the interested persons applied before Land Acquisition Collector and considering the location of land, the Land Acquisition Collector determined market value of land as Rs. 27,344 per bigha. Whereas the petitioner had claimed compensation @ of Rs. 1000/ per square yards besides other statutory benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894 against respondents no. 1/Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petition along with statement under section 19 of the Act, 1984 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector to decide the reference (by giving details of acquired area and amount of compensation with details of his share, dates of amount of compensation paid). Moreover, the petitioner had filed two reference petitions on 29.07.1994 before the Land Acquisition Collector, the same were referred to the Court in February 2014, their LAC No. 49/2011 Page 3 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI institution numbers are 01/2014 and 02/2014, and by order dated 21.04.2015, the said two reference petitions were directed to be dealt in the reference petition No. 49/2011 (i.e. the present petition under consideration).
Petitioner's Case 2.1 Petitioner is not agreeing to the amount offered in the said Award, he filed reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894 before Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petitioner seeks enhanced compensation. In fact, the petitioner filed three reference petition viz. petition dated 29.7.1994 (now LAC No. 1/14 Ex. PW1/1), petition dated 29.7.1994 (now LAC No. 2/14 Ex. PW1/2) and petition dated29.11.95 (now LAC No. 49/11/2010) for same parcel of land. Since the Collector had forwarded all the petitions at different time, but LAC No. 49/11 was firstly forwarded to court, all three petitions are being treated in one petition under consideration. This has also been recorded in proceedings dated 21.4.2015 of all files.
2.2 The petitioner is dissatisfied with the impugned Award of LAC that the market value of the lands have not been correctly assessed and awarded. The petitioner's lands are surrounded by developed and LAC No. 49/2011 Page 4 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI posh colonies such as Kalindi, Maharani Bagh, New Friends Colony, which was developed in 1961 and acquired land has great building potentials, which the Collector failed to consider, while assessing market value of land. The Collector failed to consider that under notification dated 13.11.1959 u/s 4 of the Act, 1894 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had determined the value @ Rs.61,000/ per bigha, thus market value of the land could not be less than Rs. 500/ per sq. yards. The the market rate of land is not less than Rs.1 0000/ per sq. yards in open market at relevant date of notification and even at government reserve price, the value is not less than Rs. 10,000/. Lastly, the Collector failed to take into account prices of land in Jaitpur acquired recently, which was fixed @ Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre besides other benefits. That is why the present petition that the value of land is Rs. 1000/ per square yards and other benefits inclusive of interest vis a vis compensation for loss of business. 2.3 However, petitioner expired during pending of the petition, legal representatives were brought on record by order dated 11.2.2014, their names are reflected in the array of parties. Respondents' Case 3.1 The petition has been opposed by the respondents, the LAC No. 49/2011 Page 5 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI respondent no.1 and 2 have filed their respective written statements. 3.2 The respondents, having their common plea, opposed the reference petition that the findings given by Collector in his Award is based on market value of the land, the compensation was just and it was rightly assessed in accordance with the conditions prevailing at relevant time and petitioners failed to bring on record any cogent or specific evidence to claim higher compensation. The fair and adequate market value is always a question of fact depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case and the onus of claiming higher compensation is always on the claimant. There is no scope for enhancement of compensation, the award is reasoned by considering the market value. The petition is also barred by limitation.
In addition, the respondent no. 2 also pleaded that the Collector had also considered sale deed of adjoining lands of the area, while arriving at fair market value vis a vis land is governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1956.
Issues 4.1 On 02.07.2013, Ld. Predecessor framed the following issues for determination : LAC No. 49/2011 Page 6 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI
1. Whether the present reference has been filed within the period of limitation?
2. Whether petitioner has got any right, title or interest in the acquired disputed land and is entitled to compensation. If so, to what extent/share from the respondent?
3. What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under section 4 of the LA Act and what enhancement in market value, if any, the petitioner is entitled to?
4. Relief.
Evide nce 4.2 In order to establish the issues, the petitioner was given opportunity to lead evidence. Petitioner no. 1's LR Tek Chand/PW1 entered into witness box, he also tendered copies of judgments LAC No. 292/11 Hari Kishan/Hari Kishan (Ex. PW1/6) of village Kilokari of same area and award, under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, besides judgments on surrounding areas {which were passed by Ld. Predecessor in case LAC No. 74/08 Lakhmi Chand & others Vs Union of India & another (Ex. PW1/3); LAC No. 75/08 Smt. Sudesh Bhatia Vs UOI & others Ex. PW1/4 of Village Behlolpur Khadar, LAC No. 224/11 Jagdish Gulati Vs Union of India & others judgment dated 29.11.2011 read with review order dated 10.01.2012 of Village Jasola Ex. PW1/5)} to claim higher compensation as determined in other cases, instead of what was LAC No. 49/2011 Page 7 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI pleaded in the petition and then evidence was closed. PW1 was cross examined by both the respondents.
4.3 The respondent no. 1 through Counsel Shri S.K. Puri, Advocate and Ms. Sudesh Sharma, Advocate for DDA, have tendered Award (now Ex. R1) on 04.11.2015. Then evidence was closed by the respondents.
Final hearing
5. At the juncture of final hearing, Shri Rajesh Gupta, Counsel for petitioners, Shri S.K. Puri, Counsel for UOI / respondent no. 1 and Ms. Sudesh Sharma, Counsel for DDA / respondent no. 2, advanced their respective submissions. During arguments, some discrepancy was realized about the total area or shares of the petitioners in the land acquired. Thus, revised statement U/s 19 has been filed, now no dispute is left with regard to areas shown in such statement. FINDINGS 6.1 The contentions are assessed, in the light of material on record including testimony of the petitioner's witness, their submissions and the counter submissions visavis judgments relied upon by the petitioner. Now the issues are taken one by one. LAC No. 49/2011 Page 8 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI Issue no. 1 Whether the present reference has been filed within the period of limitation? 6.2 The onus to prove this issue no.1 is on the parties but they maintain rival stand. Section 18(2)(b) of the Act 1894 prescribes period of six weeks from receipt of notice from Collector, (if petitioner is attending the proceeding) or either six months from receipt of notice U/s 12(2) or six months from the date of Award, which ever is earlier, for filing reference petition, however, the petitioner claims that he was never served of such notice, he came to know on 22.06.1994 on the eve of receipt of compensation and then feeling aggrieved, he filed three reference petitions (inclusive of other two petitions Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2 both dated 29.07.1994). Whereas, the respondents opposed it that notifications were published as per law and petitioner was also served with notice.
However, by analysis of their submissions, it apparent from the written statement of respondents that there is no such plea nor proof by the respondents, that petitioner was ever since served with notice U/s 12 of the Act 1894. For the purposes of proof of issue no.1, the respondent ought to establish specific date when petitioner had knowledge of contents LAC No. 49/2011 Page 9 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI of the Award, reliance can be placed on Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs UOI 1988(4) DRJ 221. Thus, it is held that petition is not barred by law and reference petition is in time, accordingly issue no. 1 stands disposed off. Issue no. 2 Whether petitioner has got any right, title or interest in the acquired disputed land and is entitled to compensation. If so, to what extent/share from the respondent?
6.3 As appears, this issue has emerged from the submissions of the parties. By comparing the rival contentions of both sides, it is apparent that there is one petitioner but the three petitions were filed and even revised statement U/s 19 of the Act 1894 furnished by the respondent no.1 also reflects the name of petitioner visavis his shares in the land acquired, therefore, no dispute is left with regard to petitioner's rights, title and interest in the land acquired nor there is other evidence contrary to it. Accordingly, this issue no. 2 is also decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents that the petitioner has share and in interest in land acquired as shown in revised statement dated 5.4.2016 U/s 19 of the Act. This issue no. 2 stands disposed off.
LAC No. 49/2011 Page 10 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI Issue no. 3 What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under section 4 of the LA Act and what enhancement in market value, if any, the petitioner is entitled to? 6.4 The onus to prove issue no. 3 lies on petitioner. On the one side the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount awarded in award Ex. R1 and on the other side respondents opposed the claim that Land Acquisition Collector has awarded the amount after considering, location, potentiality to use the land as well as other relevant factors, while determining the market value land and other compensation.
Their contentions are also assessed and considered, in the light of material on record including testimony of the petitioner's witness, their submission and the counter submissions vis a vis verdict of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bed Ram Vs Union of India [LA AAP No. 59/2007 dod 7.6.2011], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has determined Rs. 89,600/ per bigha as market value of the land on the date of preliminary notification, which was also followed by this court in Faqir Chand Vs Union of India LAC no.35/2011 decided on 19.5.2015 and LAC No. 292/11 Har Kishan alias Hari Kishan decided on 1.9.2015 (Ex. PW1/6). There is no contrary evidence by the respondents on these aspects. Moreover, it is settled law that two equals cannot be treated unequally, therefore, the LAC No. 49/2011 Page 11 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI petitioner is to be treated equally with others. Therefore, on 23.6.1989 the market value of land was Rs.b89,600/ per bigha, whereas the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was Rs. 27,344/ per bigha. The petitioner has succeeded to establish issue no.3 in their favour that market value of land was Rs. 89,600/ per bigha on the date of preliminary notification and he is entitled for compensation @ Rs. 89,600/ per bigha, consequently amount of Rs. 62,256/ per bigha stand enhanced. This issue no.3 also stand disposed off. Issue No. 4 - Relief
7. In view of the findings given on issues no. 1 to 3 above, the petitioner/ LRs are held entitled for compensation @ Rs. 89,600/ per bigha by enhancing the compensation from amount of Rs. 27,344/, which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of petitioner's land acquired measuring 43 bigha 13 biswa, (the petitioner having share in land acquired as detailed in the statement under section 19 of the Act, 1894); the compensation @ Rs.62,256/ per bigha stand enhanced; besides 30% solatium under section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land, interest @ 12% per annum under section 23(1A) from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC or date of taking of LAC No. 49/2011 Page 12 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI possession, whichever is earlier; 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court (from the date of possession of land to payment of excess amount in the court, for/within one year) and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in court. Both the respondents will be liable to pay jointly or severally.
Since each petitioner has share in land acquired as detailed in the statement under section 19 of the Act, 1894, the amount will be payable as per that share, the said statement U/s 19 of the Act will constitute part of this judgment. As petitioner is dead, thus amount will be paid to his LRs equally who have been brought on record and as arrayed in the title of this judgment. It would be subject to adjustment of earlier payment received by the petitioner.
8. It is apparent from the record that date of award is 19.6.1992, the reference petition was filed on 29.11.95 (and also on 29/7/94) before Land Acquisition Collector but it was sent to court on 25.8.2010 (also on 11.2.2014), to say it took about 15 years to refer the case to the court, in this period a generation of petitioner has changed. There is also no explanation by Land Acquisition Act either in the statement U/s 19 of the LAC No. 49/2011 Page 13 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI Act, 1894 or otherwise about delay for referring the reference. There is prescribed period of limitation U/s 18(2) of the Act, 1894 for interested person to file reference petition and on the same analogy, the Land Acquisition Collector ought to refer the reference petition in reasonable time. The period of 19 years is cannot be treated a reasonable period. These aspects are recorded as a matter of record to keep the Collector reminding to expedite the petitions, if any lying with it.
9. This reference petition LAC No. 49/2011 stands answered (alongwith other two reference petitions No. 1/2014 and No. 2/2014). Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance for remittance of amount visavis to follow the aspect mentioned in para 8 of this Award.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today (Inder Jeet Singh) Shukervaar, Chaitra 19, Saka 1938 Addl. District Judge02 (South) Saket, New Delhi / 08.04.2016 LAC No. 49/2011 Page 14 of 14 Ram Saroop vs. UOI LAC No. 49/2011 08.04.2016 Present : Shri Rajesh Gupta, Counsel for petitioners.
Proxy counsel for Shri S.K. Puri, Counsel for UOI / respondent no. 1.
Ms. Sudesh Sharma, Counsel for DDA / respondent no. 1. During the course of arguments, heard on 06.04.2016, the total area of land reflected in the revised statement under section 19 of the Act 1894 is 288 bigha 09 biswa and are of petitioners' land / share is of 43 bigha 13 biswa.
Vide separate Award by the Court announced today, the reference petition LAC No. 49/2011 stands answered (alongwith other two reference petitions No. 1/2014 and No. 2/2014). Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance for remittance of amount visavis to follow the aspect mentioned in para 8 of this Award.
File be consigned to record room.
(Inder Jeet Singh) Addl. District Judge02 (South), Saket, New Delhi / 07.04.2016 LAC No. 49/2011 Page 15 of 14