Delhi District Court
Vikas Fittigs Ltd vs Union Of India on 20 December, 2024
VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
DLST010002732013
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH, SAKET
COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh
LAC NO. 33/2016
FILING No. 7037/2013
CNR No.: DLST01-000273-2013
In the matter of :-
M/s Vikas Fittings (P) Ltd.
Through its authorized signatory/ director ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector/ADM (South)
M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-01.
Throuh its Vice Chairman ...Respondents
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:48:25 +0530 Page 1 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA Reference received on : 14.03.2013 Date of Institution : 21.03.2013 Date on which order was reserved : 08.10.2024 Date of Award : 20.12.2024 AWARD BY THE COURT
1. The present reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was received from the office of Land Acquisition Collector on an application moved by the petitioner, who has sought enhancement of the monetary award given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the assessment of the market value of the acquired land was done on the lower side without considering the relevant factors for correctly assessing the market value of the land in question. The reference was received from the office of LAC (South) on 14.03.2013.
2. For answering the present reference petition, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act: 22.01.2009 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act: 11.11.2009 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act: 11.11.2009
(iii) For Project: MRTS Project Phase-
II Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 19:48:31 +0530 Page 2 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
(iv) Date of possession taken: 17.12.2009
(v) Location/Name of Village: Tajpul
(vi) Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC: 1/2011-2012 & date of Award: 10.06.2011
(vii) Area under this reference petition: 594.63 sq.meter
(viii) Market value of land held by LAC: 43,600/- per sq. mtr. for free hold land and Rs.32,700/- per sq. mtr. for lease hold lands after deduction of 25% of the market value of the free hold land.
(ix) Date of reference petition to LAC: 25.08.2011
(x) Petition referred to Court on: 14.03.2013
3. The present reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land situated in village Tajpul which was acquired for the public purpose of 'MRTS Project Phase-II'. The land in question was acquired by the LAC vide award No.1/11-12 dated 10.06.2011 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 22.01.2009 which was followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 11.11.2009.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after considering the relevant factors gave its Award No.1/11-12 by determining the compensation awarded under Section 11 for the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:48:37 +0530 Page 3 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA market value of the free hold land @Rs.43,600/- per sq. mtr. and market value of the lease hold land @Rs.32,700/- per sq. mtr.
5. Since the petitioner did not accept the award, it preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference filed by the petitioner along with statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector for answering the same.
6. Reference was forwarded by the LAC with the claims of the petitioner. The petitioner would state that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of plot being B-II/98, situated in the Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, admeasuring 2346 sq. mtrs., approximately and out of the above stated plot, 594.63 sq. mtrs land has been acquired. That the present petition is being filed by the duly constituted authorized signatory of the petitioner company vide Resolution dated 23.08.2011 passed by the board of directors in its meeting held on 23.08.2011. That the petitioner company after the execution of the perpetual lease deed in its favour, applied for sanction of the building and the permission was granted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to raise construction as per the sanctioned Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:48:42 +0530 Page 4 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA plan, vide letter dated 16.11.1981. That the competent authority had issued a public notice u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of 594.63 sq. mtrs including the built up structures over the said portion of the plot for public purpose as mentioned herein above. The built-up area comprised construction in the shape of workshop one single hall, room for installation of electricity transformer, office and toilet containing w.c.-two and urinal three is also subject matter of the acquisition proceedings. That in pursuance of the abovesaid notification u/s 4(1), the competent authority had dispensed with the provision of section 5- A of the Land Acquisition Act and invoked the emergency provisions of the Land acquisition Act, 1894. That the abovesaid petitioner company was the owner and in possession of the acquired portion of the land and building and is the only interested person as per the provisions of section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, thus competent and entitled to file the present claim petition and receive the entire compensation amount.
7. That the impugned award passed by the Ld. LAC is arbitrary and the value of the property assessed by him is on very lower side and same cannot be considered as true and correct market value of the property, hence the impugned award is based Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 19:48:49 +0530 Page 5 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA on surmise and contrary to the actual surrounding circumstances existing to the property in question for deciding its true and correct market value, hence same is bad in law and the petitioner company is challenging the same on the following amongst other grounds:-
i. Because the Ld. LAC has committed a serious error of law and fact in not considering the fact that the property in question abuts the National Highway No.2, which is 80 mtr wide road connecting Delhi to main city like Faridabad, Mathura and goes to Agra and is one of the busiest National Highway. In the Master Plan-2021 the said road has been declared as commercial and Government has already given the permission for construction of Motels over the said road and as per the Master Plan-2021, the usage of the property in question is prescribed as commercial and the petitioner company could have raised a commercial building over it and would have earned huge profits. By the said fact the market value of the property has been increasing day by day. ii. Because the Ld. LAC has committed a serious error of law and fact in not considering the fact that in the vicinity where the property in question is situated harbours offices of the world renowned companies corporate office of the leading Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 19:48:54 +0530 Page 6 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA business houses of India namely India Bulls, Oriental Bank of Commerce, G.M. Motors, BMW motors, Southend Honda, Mathura Road, Rai Deemed University. American Express Call Centre and the Jasola Commercial Centre is opposite the Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, hence the property in question would fetch the market value not less than the value of the Commercial centre situated in Jasola.
iii. Because the Ld. LAC has committed a serious error of law and fact in deducting the 25% amount on the ground that the property is lease hold and further failed to appreciate the fact that the DDA neither has raised any kind of objections or filed any claim before the LAC (S), hence the petitioner company is the only interested person and except the petitioner company no other person or authority has any interest.
iv. Because the Ld. LAC has committed a serious error of law and fact in deducting the 25% compensation amount on the ground that the property is lease hold. The LAC (S) has failed to appreciate that the lease is for 99 years and renewable after its expiry, which gives absolute rights to the Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 19:49:00 +0530 Page 7 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA Lessee and same can be treated as ownership, only the petitioner company is the interested person, who is entitled for the true and correct market value of the property in question.
v. Because the Ld. LAC has committed a serious error of law and fact in deducting 25% of the market value as, except the petitioner company no other person or authority came forward to raise any dispute over the amount of compensation. The present case is a compulsory acquisition and in the said case the interested person is the actual owner, who is in possession of the property in question and is legally entitled to get the entire amount of the compensation being the actual and correct market value of the property. It is further relevant to point out that the LAC(S) has failed to appreciate that the lease is 99 years and the same has to be consider equivalent to the absolute ownership of the property in question and the entire market value of the acquired land ought to have been awarded and payable to the petitioner company. Thus, the said deduction of 25% from the market value as arrived at by the LAC (S) on account of lease hold plot is absolutely wrong. arbitrary and Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:49:06 +0530 Page 8 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA against the settled principle as mentioned in section 23 of the LA Act.
vi. Because the Ld. LAC has committed a serious error of law and fact in as much as while assessing the market value of the property in question, the Ld. LAC (S) has wrongly assessed the compensation by treating the property of the petitioner as lease hold property. The Ld. LAC has to assess the market value of the property by taking into consideration the fact that in the Master Plan-2021 which came into effect on 07.02.2007 the use of the property in question is prescribed as commercial, hence the market value of the property in question is not less than Rs.2,50,000/- per sq. Mtr.
vii. Because the property in question has also been converted from leasehold to freehold by execution of the Conveyance Deed dated 16.06.2014 by the Delhi Development Authority in favour of the petitioner being Registered Document No. 9459, Book No.1, Vol No. 5209, Pg. 4 to 6 dated 16.06.2014. The Petitioner has duly paid the conversion charges to the DDA in respect of this to the tune of Rs. 59,44,681/-. Therefore, without prejudice to the other Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20 19:49:13 +0530 Page 9 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA submissions already made hereinabove, it is submitted that once the petitioner has already paid the conversion charges to the DDA and has got the property in question freehold, the DDA cannot claim any right, title, claim or interest in the said property or the compensation awarded in lieu of the same and the petitioner is the sole and absolute owner in possession of the property in question, thus, the only interested person and entitled to get the entire compensation amount. Thus, the deduction of 25% amount on the ground of leasehold is totally illegal, unlawful and arbitrary. viii. Because the Ld. LAC has committed a serious error of law and fact in not considering the fact that while deciding the true and correct market value of the land in question, the statutory duty of the LAC is only to decide the true and correct market value on the basis of the vicinity, usage decided in the Master Plan applicable to the land in question and the potentiality of the land.
ix. Because the Ld. LAC has committed a serious error of law and fact in not considering the fact that the circle rate is the minimum price of the property fixed by the Govt. for the purposes of Stamp Duty in the transfer of the property in Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:49:19 +0530 Page 10 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA Delhi and same can not be considered as the true and correct market value of any property. While assessing and arriving at the correct market value, the LAC has to consider the location, present utility and future potentiality of the property.
x. Because the Ld. LAC has committed a serious error of law in discarded / rejected the comparable instances of the market value of the properties similarly situated in all respects only on the irrelevant grounds. Had the collector taken into consideration those instances of the market value for the Kanteration purpose of fixing the market value of the property in question then the value of the property would have been totally different and definitely on the higher side. xi. Because the Ld. LAC has committed a serious error of law not determining the market value according to the principles of Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. xii. That the petitioner company is also entitled for all the statutory benefits including the interest, solatium etc, in accordance with the law.
8. That the present petition is within time as the notice under 12 (2) and 32(1) of the LA Act, 1894 was issued on 18.07.2011 by Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20 19:49:25 +0530 Page 11 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA the Land Acquisition Collector informing the petitioner that an award being No.01/2011-12, dated 10.06.2011 has been passed in respect of the acquired land of the petitioner company. Consequently, petitioner has prayed that market rate of the property in question be fixed @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per sq. meter as on the date of Section 4 of the notification to the petition.
9. In its Written Statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed the claim for enhancement in compensation. It is stated that the petitioner has not brought any specific and cogent evidence on record to claim a higher compensation. It is also stated that the present reference is barred by limitation; and that the Land Acquisition Collector had correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Respondent No.l, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present reference petition.
10. On behalf of the DDA/respondent No.2 in its Written Statement it is stated that the present reference petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that LAC had correctly and adequately assessed the market value of the land in question. It is further stated that the reference petition is barred by limitation. It is stated that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:49:31 +0530 Page 12 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA and has not approached the court with clean hands. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed.
11. On 21.07.2015, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor for answering the present reference:
1. Whether the reference petition is within the statutory period prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on parties
2. What was the market value of the land acquired , on the date of preliminary notification dated 22.01.2009 under section 4 of the Act 1894? OPP
3. Whether the Reference is without cause of action, as the Award No.01/2011-12 dated 10.06.2011 reflects the actual and assessed market value of the land acquired, in terms of Section 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPR-1 & 2
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed? OPP
5. Relief.
12. During the proceedings, one application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed on behalf of petitioner, whichh was allowed vide order dated 23.08.2016. Thereafter, on 07.02.2017, the following issues were again framed:
"i) Whether the LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the land in question? Onus on the respondents.
ii) Whether the market value of the property in question, on the date of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the Act was Rs. 2,50,000/-
per sq. meter and accordingly, are the petitioners entitled to enhanced compensation? Onus on petitioner
iii) Relief." Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 Page 13 of 52 19:49:36 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
13. Vide order dated 26.07.2023, on submissions of the parties, issues settled on 07.02.2017 was deleted. Perusal of the record shows that the parties had agreed that issues settled on 21.07.2015 may be considered as issues in the present case. Therefore, the present reference shall be decided in view of the issues settled on 21.07.2015.
14. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. On behalf of the petitioner, Sh. Pritpal Singh was examined as PW1. PW1 tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW-1/A and relied on the tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW-1/A and relied on the following documents:
1. Original Board Resolution dated 23.08.2011, Ex.PW1/1;
2 Original Board Resolution dated 10.11.2017, Ex.PW1/2,
3. Copy of the conveyance deed dated 16.06.2014, Ex.PW1/3 (OSR);
4. Copy of the sanction letter dated 16.11.1981 Ex.PW1/4 (OSR);
5. Copy of the completion certificate dated 7.7.1982 Ex.PW1/5 (OSR);Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 19:49:42 +0530 LAC NO. 33/2016 Page 14 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
6. Copy of the Map prepared by DMRC of the area pertaining to handing over of the land vide order no.ADM/LAC(S)/172 dated 11.12.2009 at Tajpul, Badarpur, New Delhi is marked as Mark A;
7. Copy of the Map of the plot in question is marked as Mark B;
8. Certified copy of the ITR of the petitioner company for the year 2010-2011 and other financial documents for the said assessment year are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/ (colly);
9. Certified copy of the ITR of the petitioner company for the year 2011-2012 and other financial documents for the marked as Mark C;
10. The said assessment year are Ex.PW1/7 (colly);
11. Copy of the dated 15.9.2006 is Zonal Development Plan of Zone-F is marked as Mark D;
12. Copy of the notification dated 18.7.2007 fixing the circle rate by area for the year 2007 is marked as Mark E;
13. Copy of the records pertaining to auctioning the plots by the DDA is marked as Mark F;
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.12.20
LAC NO. 33/2016 19:49:47 +0530
Page 15 of 52
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
14. Certified copy of the sale deed dated 19.9.2007 is marked as Mark G;
15. Copy of the registered Deed dated 30.11.2007 is marked as Mark H;
16. Copy of the notification dated 4.2.2011 is marked as Mark I;
17. Copy of the notification dated 15.11.2011 is marked as Mark J;
18. Copy of the Award dated 25.8.2009 is Ex.PW1/8;
19. Copy of the Award dated 10.6.2011 is Ex.PW1/9;
20. Copy of the report specifying the rate of acquisition of land for metro and the gains made is marked as Mark K;
21. Reference Petition is Ex.PW1/10.
15. PW-1 was duly cross examined on behalf of UOI and DDA.
16. PW-2 namely Sh. S.K. Kapoor, Assistant Director (planning), DDA brought the following documents:
i) Copy of Zonal Development plan, Zone F which stands approved in the year 2010, Ex. PW-2/1;
ii) Copy of letter dated 05.03.2019, Ex. PW-2/2.Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:49:51 +0530 Page 16 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
17. PW-3/ Sh. Praveen Kumar has brought the following documents:
i) Correct copy of the conveyance deed dated 16.06.2014, Ex. PW-3/1; and
ii) Conversion application, receipt and challan, Ex. PW-3/2 (colly)
18. PW-4/ Sh. Praveen Kumar has brought the following documents:
i) Policy for conversion of industrial plots into commercial plots notified vide gazette notification dated 03.07.2018, Ex.
PW-4/1.
19. PW-5/ Sh. B.M. Gupta, Superintendent (Land Section), DMRC has brought the following documents:
i) Certified/ attested copies of documents relating transfer of land from various government department to DMRC, Ex. PW-
5/1 (colly).
20. PW-6/ Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Town Planner, Town Planning Department, MCD has brought the following documents:
i) Lay out plan of Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Block-
2, Ex.PW6/1;
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.12.20
19:49:56
LAC NO. 33/2016 +0530
Page 17 of 52
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
ii) Copy of notification bearing No.F.2 (12)/FIN (E.I) Part file/Vol. 1 (ii)/3548 dated 18.7.2007 for fixing circle rate for industrial property for commercial purpose (Revenue Department), to Ex.PW6/2; and
iii) Copy of notification bearing No.F.13/46/2006-UD/16071 dated 15.9.2006 regarding declaration of mixed use/commercial streets, Ex.PW6/3.
21. PW-7/ Sh. Rakesh, Junior Assistant has brought the following documents:
i) Certified copy of circle rates notified by the Revenue department, GNCT for the year 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012 & 2014, Ex. PW-7/1 to Ex. PW-7/5.
22. PW-8/ Sh. Mahesh Sikka, UDC/ SSA (Record Keeper), MCD has brought the following documents:
i) Sanctioned building plan of property No.B-11/98, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate. Mathura Road, New Delhi. The same is exhibited as Ex.PW8/1 OSR;
ii) Policy of conversion charges from industrial to commercial/banquet halls date 7.6.2010. The same is Ex.PW8/2.Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:50:03 +0530 Page 18 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
23. PW-9/ Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, Record Keeper, Sub-Registrar has brought the following documents:
i) The certified copy of the agreement to sell dated 30.11.2007 of plot No.B-11/55, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, New Delhi executed by R.G.S. Developers Pvt. Ltd in favour of P.G. Industries Ltd having registration No. 14618, Addl.
Book No.1 Vol. No.7851 pages 1 to 287 dated 30.11.2007, Ex.PW9/1. (OSR).
ii) The certified copy of the sale deed dated 19.09.2007 of plot No. A-86, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi executed by M/s Navyug Default Paragraph StyleSoap & Chemical Works in favour of M/s Infocom Network Ltd having registration No. 11816, Addl. Book No.1 Vol. No.7662 pages 1 to 268 dated 19.09.2007, Ex.PW9/2. (OSR).
24. PW-10/ Sh. Lakhi Ram Sharma, Junior Engineer, DMRC office, Ashoka Road, New Delhi was also found to be mentioned as examined vide order dated 04.09.2019.
25. PW-11/ Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. Secretariat Assistant, DDA has brought the following documents:
i) Auction letter dated 28.03.2006 of commercial plot no. 15, Jasola Commercial Center, Ex. PW-11/1;Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 Page 19 of 52 19:50:08 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
ii) Auction letter dated 28.03.2006 of commercial plot no. 15A, Jasola Commercial Center, Ex. PW-11/2;
iii) Auction letter dated 07.06.2007 of commercial plot no. 13, Jasola Commercial Center, Ex. PW-11/3;
26. Vide order dated 23.10.2019, PE was closed.
27. In evidence, on behalf UOI/respondent No.1, statement of Sh. S.K. Puri, Ld. counsel for UOI was recorded whereby he exhibited the Award No.1/2011-2012 of Village Tajpul as Ex.R-1.
28. On behalf of DMRC/respondent No.2, statement of AR of DMRC was recorded on 29.03.2022, wherein he marked document i.e. copy of Sale Deed dated 10.05.2007 as Mark RX-1. He also marked the photocopy of Agreement to Sell dated 09.04.2007 as Mark RX-2.
29. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
30. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
31. Time now to deal with the issues. My issue-wise findings are as under :
Issue no.1: Whether the reference petition is within the statutory period prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on parties Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20 19:50:13 +0530 Page 20 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
32. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present reference petition has been filed within the limitation period of six months from the date of acquiring knowledge of the award. He has argued that limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act has to be computed having regard to the date on which the claimant got knowledge either actual or constructive.
33. Proviso of Section 18 of the Act prescribed period of limitation for filing reference petition. The reference petition was filed on 25.08.2011 before LAC. The copy of award Ex.R-1 was tendered by Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1. The date of award is 10.06.2011. The requirement of Act is that reference application can be made within prescribed period from the date of award/contents of award are made known to interested persons. There is no evidence by the respondents that petitioner had knowledge of award or its contents immediately on publication of award or the petition is barred by law by computing period from a particular date. The case of the petitioner herein falls under the part of clause (B) of the Proviso below Sub Section 2 of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference petition was filed well within the statutory period of six months time. Hence, petition is within time and does not bar by time. Accordingly, issue no.1 is Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20 19:50:19 +0530 Page 21 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents no.1 and 2.
Issue no. 2: What was the market value of the land acquired, on the date of preliminary notification dated 22.01.2009 under section 4 of the Act 1894? OPP & Issue no.3: Whether the Reference is without cause of action, as the Award No.1/11-12 dated 10.06.2011 reflects the actual and assessed market value of the land acquired, in terms of Section 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPR-1 & 2
34. Both the issues are taken up together for discussion as they are interconnected and require common discussion.
35. Order dated 05.04.2023 mentions that Senior Law Officer wanted to file written arguments and was directed to be filed during the course of the day. Written arguments dated 05.04.2023 alongwith Annexures on behalf of DMRC are found to be filed. On perusal of the case file certain other documents i.e. application filed by the petitioner for conversion of the subject land from lease hold to free hold alongwith other connected documents of this application are also found to be attached alongwith one dismissed application as filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC. Perusal of order Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20 19:50:24 +0530 Page 22 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA dated 30.05.2023 shows that, that day during arguments on the application, Ld. counsel for the petitioner did not dispute these documents and it stated that all these facts are on record and nothing would change by taking those documents on record. It was under these circumstances, the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC was dismissed. This discussion regarding the order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Ld. Predecessor Court, shows that these documents are nothing but same documents of the application to DDA as filed alongwith the written arguments as found to be filed on 05.04.2023 on behalf of the DMRC. The copy of application for conversion of the subject land alongwith Receipt, Free Hold Conversion Details and Challan were also filed by PW3 and exhibited as Ex.PW3/2 (Colly.). It has been submitted on behalf of DMRC that petitioner has played fraud upon the DDA by withholding the information of the acquisition of the part of the subject property by DMRC at the time of applying for conversion of the subject property from lease hold to free hold. Copy of the application made by the petitioner to DDA for conversion of the subject property from lease hold to free hold is found to be annexed as Annexure R-3 alongwith written submissions. In view Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:50:29 +0530 Page 23 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA of abovesaid discussion, the judicial notice of the application alongwith its connected documents may be taken.
36. It has been written on the first page of this application that the application was in respect of industrial plots. It shows that the nature of land use of the subject land was industrial even in the year 2014.
37. Point No.6 of the application form shows the name of society as Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate. Point No.10 of the application is a query i.e. 'Whether use of property is as per lease deed' and it has been answered as 'Yes' by the applicant. "It has been asked in the application at Point No.11 in continuation of Point No.10 that "if not, the area, of the portion being used for the purpose other than the prescribed use.". It means that it was asked in this point that if any portion of the property was not used as per the lease deed then area of such portion was required to be disclosed. However, the applicant/petitioner herein chose to left this response blank and simply struck it off for reasons best known to him. There is point No. 15 in the application where it had been specifically asked whether there is any dispute pending in a court of law regarding the title of the property. It has been answered as 'No'. Point no.21 shows declaration that 'I/We certify that the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20 19:50:34 +0530 Page 24 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA information given above is true and correct. I/We understand that if any fact has been suppressed or misrepresented, it shall render the application invalid, and conversion null and void.'. The above said point shows that the fact of acquisition of part of the plot could easily be mentioned at least at point No.11 of the application but it was not so mentioned by the applicant for the reasons best known to him and it certainly amount to suppression of the facts in the application. An affidavit dated 28.03.2014 of PW1 is also found to be filed alongwith the application. In the affidavit, it has clearly been mentioned that the company of the deponent was in physical possession of industrial plots/property no. II/98 measuring 1961.49 sq. meters in Block 'B' at Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate. In the Indemnity Bond dated 26.03.2014 also, the PW1 herein has mentioned that executant was in physical possession of the industrial Plot No. II/98 measuring 1961.49 sq. mts. The indemnity bond dated 26.03.2014 is found to be filed alongwith this application. It has specifically mentioned in the indemnity bond itself that "Now this Deed witnesses that in consideration of the lessor agreeing to convert the leasehold rights in respect of the above referred property into freehold rights....", which shows that lease hold rights were converted to free hold rights only in respect Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 Page 25 of 52 19:50:38 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA of land measuring 1961.49 sq. meters of the abovesaid industrial plot No. II/98. One document with title 'Free Hold Conversion Details' was also found to be filed alongwith the application which mentions the total area as 1961.49 sq. meters. The conversion charges in this document has been mentioned as Rs.9006968.69/-
and after rebate of 40% the net payable amount is Rs.5404681/-. In view of these documents, it has come as a shock to this court that the petitioner herein tried to willfully misled the court and also suppressed the fact by falsely deposing in para 3 of affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A that the abovesaid plot admeasuring 2346 sq. meter was initially allotted in the name of the petitioner company on the perpetual lease hold basis and subsequently, the said plot was converted from lease hold to free hold by execution of the conveyance deed dated 16.06.2004 Ex.PW1/3 by DDA in favour of the petitioner. Ld. counsel for the petitioner also argued that the complete plot including the acquired area was converted into free hold from lease hold and claimed that on such conversion of the whole plot atleast compensation at par with freehold property may be granted. In para 3 of the affidavit of evidence (Ex.PW1/A), very smartly the fact of conversion of only a total area of 1961.49 sq. meter has been suppressed. Para 3 of the affidavit starts with the Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:50:43 +0530 Page 26 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA words 'That the above mentioned plot ad-measuring 2346 sq. mtrs. was initially allotted in the name of the petitioner...' and thereafter only word 'said plot' has been used throughout the paragraph. The filing of conveyance deed dated 16.06.2014 Ex.PW1/3 has also been mentioned in this paragraph. As per the settled law, the present reference petition may be dismissed only on this ground of willful suppression of the facts, however, in the interest of justice, all the evidences led on behalf of the petitioner shall be discussed in detail and assessment of the market value of the land in question shall be made on the basis of evidences.
38. The petitioner examined total 11 witnesses in PE to prove its case. PW1 is Sh. Pritpal Singh, Director/Authorized Signatory of the petitioner company, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/10 and Mark-A to Mark-K. In the affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner reiterated the contents of the reference petition Ex.PW1/10. Ex.PW1/1 is true copy of Board Resolution dated 23.08.2011, whereby PW1 was authorized to sign on behalf of the petitioner company. It bears the signatures of Director for Vikas Fittings Ltd. It does not bear the signatures of Chairperson for and on behalf of the board of the petitioner company. PW1 has Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:50:48 +0530 Page 27 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA mentioned himself as Director of the petitioner company in para 1 of his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A. However, signatures of PW1 on his affidavit of evidence and on his statement are not similar to the signatures of the Director for petitioner company in the board resolution Ex.PW1/1 and name of the Director is not mentioned. The petitioner has also filed one another board resolution dated 10.11.2017 Ex.PW1/2. This document has also not been signed by the Director Sh. Avtar Singh Johar for Vikas Fittings Pvt. Ltd. and has not been signed by the Chairperson for and on behalf of the board. The minutes of the board resolution dated 23.08.2011 and 10.11.2017 were never produced before the court. Moreover, except the alleged authorized signatory no one else was ever examined to prove such authorization of PW1 on behalf of the petitioner company. However, any of these documents were not disputed by the respondents.
39. Ex.PW1/3 is copy of the conveyance deed dated 16.06.2014 vide which the plot bearing No. B-II/98 situated in the Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate admeasuring 2346 sq. meters was converted from lease hold to free hold by DDA in favour of the petitioner company. It has been found to be mentioned in the conveyance deed that any non industrial use of Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:50:53 +0530 Page 28 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA this plot will lead to cancellation of this conveyance deed. It was signed by Lease Administration Officer, Land Sale Branch (Industrial), DDA. The total area of 594.63 sq. meters was acquired through notification under Section 4 dated 22.01.2009 of the LA Act, 1894 in the present case out of total area of 2346 sq. meters of the abovesaid plot of the petitioner company. However, this conveyance deed does not mention anything about this acquisition despite the fact that the conveyance deed was executed in the year 2014 i.e. much after the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act in the present case. This non-mentioning was never explained on behalf of the petitioner. He filed Form No.32 alongwith the receipt reflecting the transfer of shares Ex.PW1/X1 (2 pages) (OSR), certified copy of petitioner's company Master Data as available in the records of Registrar of Companies Ex.PW1/X2 (13 pages ) (colly.) and a document Ex.PW1/X3 to prove purchase. A torn document is found to be filed on record which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/X3. However, the important information regarding this document is still readable and this document is a statement of shares held on 30.04.2005 by the share holders of the petitioner company. The total share holding amount is Rs.47,50,000/-. PW1 answered during his cross-
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20
Page 29 of 52 19:50:58 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA examination dated 18.12.2018 that he had paid Rs.47,50,000/- for acquiring the share holding of the petitioner company and the details of the payments are already contained in Ex.PW1/X3. However, this document is only regarding the statement of shares and does not show the actual consideration paid by the petitioner to purchase the shares holding of the petitioner company in the year 2005.
40. Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) is copy of the sanction letter dated 16.11.1981.
41. Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) is copy of the completion certificate dated 07.07.1982. However, neither document Ex.PW1/4 nor Ex.PW1/5 mention any description of the construction over the land in question. The completion certificate Ex.PW1/5 bears the declaration of the Inspecting Officer regarding fittings of the building, fire protection and other protections. Perusal of the order dated 23.10.2019 shows that formal proving of this document was dispensed with.
42. Ex.PW1/6 (colly.) is copy of ITR of the petitioner company for the assessment year 2010-2011 and Ex.PW1/7 is copy of assessment year 2011-12. These documents were filed by PW1 to show that the petitioner company suffered huge loss on the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:51:03 +0530 Page 30 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA acquisition of the land in question. However, column 3A of both the ITRs shows current year loss as Rs. Zero. Moreover, no other independent evidence was produced by the petitioner to show the losses on acquisition of the land in question. Further, no issue has also been framed regarding damages to the petitioner's property on acquisition.
43. Ex.PW1/8 is copy of Award dated 25.08.2009 passed in pursuance of notification dated 03.12.2007 under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894.
44. Ex.PW1/9 is copy of the present case award dated 10.06.2011 passed in pursuance of notification dated 22.01.2009 under Section 4 of LA Act, 1894.
45. It was argued on behalf of petitioner that LAC did not consider that vide award Ex.PW1/8 the compensation amount was assessed at Rs.24,875/- per sq. meter around two years before passing the present award Ex.PW1/9 and since then prices of the properties have gone up and 15% appreciation per annum in the prices has to be calculated. Perusal of these awards shows that the market value in the present case is much higher than the market value assessed vide award Ex.PW1/8. In Ex.PW1/8, it was assessed at the rate of Rs. 24,875/- per sq. meter while in the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 19:51:08 +0530 LAC NO. 33/2016 Page 31 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA present case, it was assessed at the rate of Rs.32,700/- per sq. meter even after deduction of 25% of the market value of the free hold land. The value of free hold land was assessed at Rs.43,600/- per square meter in the present award Ex.PW1/9. Award Ex.PW1/8 was assessed on account of own earned increase rate charged by DDA, while in the present award Ex.PW1/9, market value of the free hold land was assessed on the basis of circle rates. Even if petitioner's claim for appreciation of 15% on the rates fixed vide award Ex.PW1/8 is accepted then also it comes around Rs.32,000/- per sq. meter, which is lesser to the amount of Rs.43,600/- per square meter as fixed in the present case for free hold land. The price fixed at the rate of Rs.32,700/- per sq. meter in the present case is after deduction of 25% of the market value of the free hold land. However, neither any issue regarding the validity of this deduction of 25% was found to be framed nor pressed to be framed by the petitioner despite opportunity. Accordingly, the claimed amount of the petitioner while relying on award Ex.PW1/8 in the abovesaid manner is lesser than the compensation awarded in the present case.
46. Ex.PW1/10 is Reference Petition of the present case. The genuineness of this document is not challenged.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH
LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20
19:51:14 +0530
Page 32 of 52
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
47. Mark-A is copy of the map prepared by DMRC of the area pertaining to handing over of the land in question vide order no. ADM/LAC(S)/172 dated 11.12.2009 at Tajpul (Badarpur). Mark-B is copy of the Map of the plot in question. Mark-C is copy of notification dated 15.09.2006 whereby Government declared National Highway Street as commercial street in new Master Plan- 2012. Mark-D is copy of Zonal Development Plan of Zone-F dated 15.9.2006 of new Master Plan of Delhi 2021 to claim the assessment of market value on the basis of commercial rates of the area for commercial properties for the year 2007. Mark-E is copy of notification dated 18.07.2007 fixing the circle rates of the area for the year 2007 for the land for commercial use. This document was relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in support of its contention that the land in question stands converted into commercial as per provisions of Master Plan for Delhi 2021. Mark-F is copy of the records pertaining to auctioning of certain properties located in Jasola Commercial Centre. Mark-G is copy of sale deed dated 19.09.2007 of plots located in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. Mark-H is copy of the Agreement to Sell dated dated 30.11.2007 of plot located in Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area. Mark-I is copy of the notification dated 04.02.2011 vide Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20 19:51:19 +0530 Page 33 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA which circle rates of property for commercial purpose as well as for industrial use was revised. Mark-J is copy of notification dated 15.11.2011 vide which the circle rate was further increased for residential use, for industrial use and for commercial use. Mark-K is copy of the report specifying the rate of acquisition of land for metro and the gains made thereafter.
48. Document Mark A has been filed on behalf of the petitioner only to show the possession of the acquired land by LAC on 17.12.2009 as explained in para 9 of the Affidavit of Evidence Ex.PW1/A. The date of possession is not in dispute. Mark-A is a document showing taking over of 9 lands/properties at Tajpul (Badarpur) vide order dated 11.12.009 passed by ADM/LAC. As per this document, 9 pockets were handed over for construction on 17.12.2009. The possession was taken over by the LAC on 17.12.2009 has already been mentioned at para 9 of the affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A where filing of document Mark-A has also been mentioned in para 9. The date of possession is not in dispute. Mark-B is a map for plot no. B-II/98, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate. This document was not independently proved and the document was prepared by whom was also not explained. This document in itself does not show that the acquired portion is Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
LAC NO. 33/2016 2024.12.20 Page 34 of 52 19:51:24 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA destroying and destructing the entire construction raised by the petitioner company. Otherwise also, the issue of damages has not been framed and was also not pressed to be framed on behalf of the petitioner. Mark-C is notification dated 15.09.2006 of Urban Development Department whereby some modifications were published in the Master Plan for Delhi 2001. In para 12 of the affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A, it has been contended that government has declared National Highway No.2 as commercial street. Mark-D is copy of Zonal Development Plan of Zone-F to show that petitioner company is fully entitled to use the plot for the purpose of Master Plan of Delhi 2021. This plan was approved by the Government of India on 08.06.2010 and was published/notified in the Gazette of India on 25.06.2010 i.e. much after the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act, 1894 in the present case. Document Mark-E is notification dated 18.07.2007 fixing the circle rates of the area for the year 2007 for the land for commercial use. This document was filed by the petitioner to show the market rates of the commercial land at the time of acquisition of the subject land. Petitioner claims the subject land as commercial while relying on document Mark-D. Accordingly, reliance on document Mark-E is subject to document Mark-D. It Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:51:29 +0530 Page 35 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA was argued on behalf of the respondents that the reliance of petitioner on document Mark-D cannot be considered for assessing the actual market value of the land at the relevant time as the plan was prepared considering the conceptualization of the construction of MRTS in the subject area and the plan was finalized after the land of petitioner was notified for acquisition for the construction of MRTS only. It was argued that in support of this contention Section 24 of LA Act, 1894 is relied upon.
49. Section 24 provides that the court shall not take into consideration any increase of the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired.
50. Respondents relied upon Civil Appeal No. 3838/2010 in case titled Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda & Ors. Decided on 26.04.2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in support of their contentions. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"33. A Bench of this Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors. [(2007) 9 SCC 447], while discussing on this aspect of the Act and its relevancy to the market value of the land, held as under :-
"22. In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded, the LAO shall be guided by the provisions of Sections Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 Page 36 of 52 19:51:36 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA 23 and 24 of the Act. As per Section 22 of the Act, the market value of the land has to be determined at the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 25-8- 1994. As per Section 24, the LAO shall also exclude any increase in the value of land likely to accrue from use to which it will be put once acquired. The market value of the land means the price of the land which a willing seller is reasonably expected to fetch in the open market from a willing purchaser. In other words, it is a price of the land in hypothetical market. During the site inspection, it has been observed that the land under acquisition is situated in Sancoale and Cortalim Village adjacent to the land already acquired for the same purpose earlier."
34.This was also reiterated by this Court in the case of Mohammad Raofuddin v. The Land Acquisition Officer, [ (2009) 5 SCR 864 ] stating that Section 23 contains a list of positive factors and Section 24 has a list of negative, vis-`-vis the land under acquisition, to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation, the first step being the determination of the market value of the land from the date of publication of Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act."
51. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the potentiality of the acquired land should not be limited to the near Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 19:51:42 +0530 Page 37 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA future and even the post notification development in the vicinity of the acquired land must also be considered for the purpose of determination of the market value. The judgment dated 26.07.1995 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 704- 706/19860 in case titled State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. was relied upon by the respondent no.2 to oppose this contention made on behalf of the petitioner. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para 3 which is reproduced as under:
"..... as on the date of the determination of the compensation. Its consideration should alone be confined to the market value prevailing as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1)."
52. In view of the abovesaid judgments and provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as discussed above, the document Mark-D and E shall be of no help for the petitioner in ascertaining the market value of the land in question on the relevant date.
53. Documents Mark-I and Mark-J are copies of notifications of the year 2011 regarding revised circle rates. These documents are also of the post notification time and in view of the abovesaid grounds discussed regarding documents Mark-D and Mark-E, the documents are also of no help for the petitioner in ascertaining the market value of the land in question on the relevant date.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 Page 38 of 52 19:51:51 +0530
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
54. The auction sales as relied upon by the petitioner through document Mark-F were opposed by the respondents while relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 51-52 of 2011. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this case has observed as under:
"But auction sales stand on a different footing. When purchasers start bidding for a property in an auction, an element of competition enters into the auction. Human ego, and desire to do better and excel other competitors, leads to competitive bidding, each trying to outbid the others. Thus in a well advertised open auction sale, where a large number of bidders participate, there is always a tendency for the price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On the other hand, where the auction sale is by banks or financial institutions, courts, etc. to recover dues, there is an element of distress, a cloud regarding title, and a chance of litigation, which have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders and making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There is therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction sale transactions when other regular traditional sale transactions are available while determining the market value of the acquired land. This Court in Raj Kumar v. Haryana State - 2007 (7) SCC 609, observed that the element Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 Page 39 of 52 19:51:57 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA of competition in auction sales makes them unsafe guides for determining the market value."
55. Accordingly, in view of this judgment and considering that no evidence was led by the petitioner to show that these auction sales were concluded without any element of competition or element of distress, these auction sales as mentioned in document Mark-F cannot be relied upon for ascertaining the market value of the land in question on the relevant date.
56. Mark G is certified copy of Sale Deed dated 19.09.2007. The subject matter in sale land is an industrial plot situated in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II . By relying on the sale deed of property located in Okhla Industrial area, petitioner tried to project that acquired land in question being industrial area within the same zone has to be treated at par with the Okhla Industrial Area for assessment of market value. However, PW1 has admitted itself in para 26 of his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A while relying on the sale deed that the acquired land in question is located at a distance of 6-7 kms. from the subject land of the sale deed. It was argued by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that all the industrial zone ought to have same market values considering the purpose of their establishment. This contention cannot be relied upon to assess the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 Page 40 of 52 19:52:01 +0530 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA market value because it is commonality of location and similarity of nature of land which would determine the locational advantages and disadvantages of a particular land and in turn the market value may be determined. Moreover, any party to the sale deed was also not examined to show the willingness to show that this transaction was between a willing buyer and purchaser.
57. It is settled law that the exemplar to be considered has to be that of a comparable land in respect of being contemporary in time and also enjoying situational proximity so as to give a fair idea of the market value of similarly placed lands.
58. Document Mark-H is an agreement to sell dated 30.11.2007 of a plot bearing No. B-II/55 situated in Mohan Co- operative Industrial Area, which was sold for a consideration amount of Rs.8,41,00,000/-. An agreement to sell Mark RX2 was filed on behalf of DMRC on 29.03.2022. This agreement to sell was executed between Sh. Jaswant Rai and M/s R.G.S. Developers Pvt. Ltd. with respect to the same property i.e. Plot No. 55, Block- B-II, situated in Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate for a consideration amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/-. It was argued on behalf of respondents that agreement to sell relied upon by the petitioner is fraudulent act as it shows that the consideration amount was Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:52:07 +0530 Page 41 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA doubled within few months and cannot be relied while ascertaining the market value of the land in question. It was further submitted that the agreement to sell relied upon by the petitioner was executed just few days prior to the date of Section 4 notification of LA Act, 1894 pertaining to award dated 01/2009-2010.
59. There is nothing produced to show that any of the agreement to sell ever culminated into sale deed. It is settled law that agreement to sell is not a document of title and accordingly M/s R.G.S. Developers were not in capacity to transfer title in favour of P.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd. as per agreement to sell dated 30.11.2007. Moreover, the agreement to sell relied upon by the petitioner also creates doubt on its genuineness regarding transaction between a willing seller and a willing purchaser as it was executed without any valid title in favour of the proposed vendor and consideration amount was also doubled within few months and therefore, a collusive transaction through this agreement to sell cannot be denied to claim maximum enhancement by way of compensation qua the subject land of agreement to sell dated 30.11.2007. Accordingly, these agreements to sell cannot be relied upon for assessment of market value of the land in question.Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.12.20
LAC NO. 33/2016 19:52:12 +0530
Page 42 of 52
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA
60. Document Mark-K is a single page photocopy showing comparison between cost of acquisition land and monetary consideration with developer of some areas of Delhi. However, the area where acquired land in question is located is not mentioned in this document. Moreover, this document was not independently proved. While relying upon this document, PW1 in para 41 of his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A contended that DMRC is acquiring the land by giving meager compensation and is utilizing the same for commercial and other purposes, thus depriving the land owners from true value of their land. However, this document in itself is not sufficient to prove the contentions. It was also not explained that how the assessment of market value of the land in question at the relevant time can be assessed while relying upon this document. Accordingly, this document cannot be relied upon to ascertain the market value of the land in question.
61. PW-2 was a summoned witness and during his evidence, copy of Zonal Development Plan, Zone-F was exhibited as Ex.PW2/1. He also filed a letter dated 05.03.2019 Ex.PW2/2 to show that the other summoned documents from DDA were not available with his branch and the Senior Town Planner, SDMC and Director, DDA were requested to bring those documents. During Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20 19:52:17 +0530 Page 43 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA his examination, he deposed that his branch did not deal with conversion of industrial plot into commercial areas. During his cross-examination, he admitted that as per Ex.PW2/1 Mohan Co-
operative area is industrial Area. He also answered that industrial area cannot be converted into commercial until and unless there is a publication of notification on behalf of the Government of India. This document has already been discussed as document Mark-D and need not to be discussed again.
62. PW3 is also a summoned witness, who brought the record pertaining to abovesaid industrial plot bearing No. B-II/98, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate. During his examination, the correct copy of Conveyance Deed dated 16.06.2014 executed pursuant to conversion was exhibited as Ex.PW3/1 (OSR). The conversion application, receipt and challan were also exhibited as Ex. PW-3/2 (colly). During his cross-examination, he answered that as per the rules, the change in management is to be reported/informed to DDA and as per the records there was no change in management and Sh. Prithpal Singh/PW1 had been merely appointed as authorized signatory in the year 2005. He also answered that as per record no permission had been sought by any third person namely Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:52:23 +0530 Page 44 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA Prithpal Singh for acquiring the firm in the year 2005. The relevancy of these documents have already been discussed above.
63. PW-4 is also a summoned witness, who brought the document Ex.PW4/1 i.e. Gazette notification dated 03.07.2018 vide which the rates payable for conversion of industrial plots into commercial plots were notified. He deposed that this notification had been issued in terms of provisions of Master Plan of Delhi- 2021. This document pertains to post notification period. The notification under Section 4 of LA Act in the present case was more than 9 years before the gazette notification dated 03.07.2018 Ex.PW4/1. Accordingly, in view of the earlier discussed grounds for not considering the documents came into existence post notification under Section 4 of LA Act in the present case, this document also cannot be relied upon for assessment of actual market value of the land in question.
64. PW-5 is also a summoned witness, who brought the certified/ attested copies of documents relating transfer of land from various government department to DMRC in respect of certain areas of Delhi and the documents were exhibited as Ex.PW5/1 (colly) (Pages 1 to 51). He answered that he cannot say whether the land which was taken at the above-mentioned places Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 19:52:28 +0530 Page 45 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA was subsequently transferred to third party/developers. This document in itself is not a proof of assessment of actual market value of the land in question at the relevant time and accordingly cannot be relied upon for the purpose fixed.
65. PW-6 is also a summoned witness and during his examination, layout plan of Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Block-2, copy of notification bearing No.F.2 (12)/FIN (E.I) Part file/Vol. 1 (ii)/3548 dated 18.7.2007 for fixing circle rate for industrial property for commercial purpose (Revenue Department) and copy of notification bearing No.F.13/46/2006-UD/16071 dated 15.9.2006 regarding declaration of mixed use/commercial streets were exhibited as Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/3 (OSR) respectively. He deposed that he had not brought policy of conversion of industrial plots into commercial plots and conversion charges payable for the same in respect of respective industrial plots situated at Mohan Co- operative Industrial Area as the same was available with Executive Engineer, (Building Department) (HQ), Civic Centre, 9 th Floor, SDMC. During his cross-examination, he answered that he could not say the criteria on which basis the circle rate of land was fixed. Without proving the valid conversion of land in question from industrial to commercial use as approved by competent authorities Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20 19:52:33 +0530 Page 46 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA these documents also cannot be relied upon for actual assessment of actual market value of the land in question.
66. PW-7 is a summoned witness, who brought the certain copies of the circle rates notified by GNCT in the year 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014 and same were exhibited as Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/5. During his cross-examination, he answered that he cannot tell the criteria on the basis of which the aforesaid circle rates were fixed and he had no personal knowledge about the documents Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/5. Ex.PW7/3 to Ex.PW7/5 are of the post notification period and in view of the abovesaid discussion regarding post notification documents, these documents cannot be considered for assessment of actual market value of the land. So far as the document Ex.PW7/2 is concerned, this document is a notification dated 14.03.2008 intimating the minimum rate of agricultural land issued by the Hon'ble LG of NCT of Delhi. This document shows the minimum rate as Rs.53,00,000/- and Rs.17,60,000/- per acre for different categories, which is much lesser than the compensation awarded in the present case. Otherwise also nature of land use in the present case is not agricultural. So far as document Ex.PW7/1 is concerned, this Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:52:38 +0530 Page 47 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA document has already been relied upon by LAC while passing the present award.
67. PW-8 is also a summoned witness. During his examination, sanctioned building plan of property No.B-II/98, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi was exhibited as Ex.PW8/1 (OSR) and policy of conversion charges from industrial to commercial/banquet halls dated 07.06.2010 was exhibited as Ex.PW8/2. This document is a post notification document and in view of the abovesaid discussion, this document cannot be relied upon for the purpose fixed.
68. PW-9 is also a summoned witness from Sub-Registrar-V, Mehrauli. During his examination, abovesaid agreement to sell (Mark-H) and sale deed (Mark-G) were exhibited as Ex.PW9/1 (OSR) and Ex.PW9/2 (OSR) respectively. During his cross- examination, he answered that he had no personal knowledge about these documents because same were neither prepared nor he had knowledge about the said documents. These documents have already been discussed as documents Mark-H and Mark-G and need not to be discussed again. PW-10 was also a summoned witness from DMRC office Ashoka Road, New Delhi, who was found to be mentioned as examined vide order dated 04.09.2019.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH
LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20
19:52:44 +0530
Page 48 of 52
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA PW-11 is also a summoned witness, who brought auction letter dated 28.03.2006 of commercial plot no. 15, Jasola Commercial Center, auction letter dated 28.03.2006 of commercial plot no. 15A, Jasola Commercial Center and auction letter dated 07.06.2007 of commercial plot no. 13, Jasola Commercial Center, which were exhibited as Ex.PW11/1 (OSR), Ex.PW11/2 (OSR) and Ex.PW11/3 (OSR) respectively. During his cross-examination, he answered that the plots were sold in auction to the person whose bid was highest and out of the three plots, two plots were for hotel purposes and one for commercial complex. In view of the abovesaid discussion regarding auction sales and due to no evidence qua the subject land of the present case and subject lands of these documents regarding commonality of location and similarity of nature of land which would determine the locational advantages and disadvantages of a particular land and in turn the market value may be determined, these documents cannot be considered for assessment of actual market value in the present case.
69. It is settled law that in case market value of the acquired land is available there cannot be a better evidence to determine its market value. For reasons best know to the petitioner, no document Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 19:52:49 +0530 Page 49 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA showing the actual paid consideration while acquiring the share holding of the petitioner company was placed on record.
70. It is argued by Ld. counsels for the respondents that the present matter is a covered matter as a reference petition bearing LAC No. 18/16 in the same award has already been dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2022 while upholding the compensation assessed by Ld. LAC.
71. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case title Union of India Vs. Shri Harkishan Etc. in RFA 205/19777 dated 18.07.1995 observed that "(ii) by applying the law laid down in Union of India Vs. Harkishan case (supra), when the land is acquired under same notification, there cannot be compensation at different rates....".
72. Vide order dated 15.09.2022, Ld. Reference Court dismissed the petitioner under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 in LAC 18/16 titled as 'Saurabh Goyal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.' while upholding the compensation assessed by the Ld. LAC. In this case, the land was acquired vide same notification under Section 4 of LA Act for the same project of the same area and vide the same award as of the subject land in the present case.
73. The award Ex.R1 shows that while determining the market value of the acquired land, the LAC relied upon the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH LAC NO. 33/2016 Date: 2024.12.20 19:53:02 +0530 Page 50 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA indicative price of the free hold lands at Rs.43,600/- per sq. meter and price of lease hold lands at Rs.32,7000/- per sq. meter i.e. deduction of 25 % the market value of the free hold land as fixed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land. In view of the abovesaid discussion, material available on record and in view of the abovesaid settled law, I am of the considered opinion that LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act. Hence, issues no.2 and 3 are decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.4: Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed? OPP
74. As issues no.2 and 3 are decided against the petitioner, so the petitioner is held not entitled to any enhancement for the compensation already awarded. Accordingly, issue no. 4 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.5: Relief.
75. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition is dismissed. Both the sides will bear their own costs.
76. The reference petition under Section 18 of LA Act is answered in terms of findings on issues no.1 to 5. Statement under Section 19 of the L.A. Act be annexed to the award. Copy be sent Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.12.20 LAC NO. 33/2016 19:53:16 +0530 Page 51 of 52 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024 VIKAS FITTINGS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for information and necessary compliance. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
Pronounced in the open Court SINGH Date:
on this 20th Day of December, 2024 2024.12.20
19:53:30
+0530
(DR. YADVENDER SINGH)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
LAC NO. 33/2016
Page 52 of 52
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2024