Delhi District Court
Sh. Jai Singh S/O Sh.Man Singh vs Union Of India on 7 March, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC No. : 27/1/08 AWARD No : 22/2003-2004
VILLAGE : Shahpur Garhi, Delhi
In the matter of :
Sh. Jai Singh S/o Sh.Man Singh
R/o Village Shahpur Garhi,
Delhi - 110040
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Ambey Lal )
...Petitioner
Versus
1 Union of India,
through the Land Acquisition
Collector, North-West, Kanjhawala, Delhi
2 Delhi Development Authority,
through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA Market, New Delhi
(Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Praveen Sharma & Sh. P.K.Aggarwal )
...Respondents
Reference received on : 13.02.2008
Award reserved on : 27.02.2008
Award announced on : 07.03.2008
AWARD
REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
1 Vide notification No.F.10(43)/96/L&B/LA/3172 dt. 23.05.2002
U/s 4 of the LA Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) followed by declaration vide notification No.F.10(43)/96/L&B/LA dated 17.12.2002 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act, the land of the petitioner situate in the revenue estate of village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi was acquired by the Govt. for freight Complex Narela under PDD. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC), after completing all the requirements 2 as provided under the Act, announced the award bearing No.22/2003- 04 and awarded the compensation @ Rs.15.70 lacs per acre or Rs.16,354.16 per biswas besides statutory benefits. 2 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioner herein filed petition U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value of the acquired land which was sent to the reference court.
3 In this reference petition, the petitioner has sought the enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the petitioner was bhumidar and in possession of land bearing khasra nos.10/7/1 (0-14), 21/3 (4-16), 21/4/1 (2-08), 21/4/2 (2-08), 21/5 min (2-08), 22/1 (4-10), 22/10 (4-16), 22/11 (2-10), 22/26 (0-6) having 1/18th share situate at the revenue estate of Village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi which has been acquired vide the award in question. The petitioner filed his claim since notice u/sec. 9 & 10 of the Act was issued to the petitioner. The possession of the notified land as stated above was also taken away from the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, no person except the petitioner has any right, title or interest of any kind in the said land. It is further stated that the impugned award is not acceptable to the petitioner since he has applied for receiving compensation under protest. The LAC has grossly erred in not awarding the compensation by taking into consideration the actual market value of the land and all other facilities available there. The 3 petitioner has also averred in the reference petition about the location, situation and potential of the land in question that the petitioner's land is adjacent to already developed industrial areas developed by the respondent no.2 namely, DSIDC, Bawana which has great market value. The land in question is surrounded by Industrial area Bawana, recently developed by DSIDC, G.T.Road, Industrial area of Narela, in close vicinity of residential area of Rohini, the Industrial area established by DSIDC and several godowns and factories where the Govt. have provided all facilities and civic amenities like educational institutes, roads, bus services, electricity, school hospital and telecommunications, etc. According to the petitioner, the land in dispute is quite leveled one and is fit for residential/ commercial, industrial and building purpose without making any level thereof. The market value of the land at the time of the passing of above said notification was not less than Rs.9,000/- per sq. yard and that amount could be easily received if sold in open market. Earlier the respondent no.2 has allotted the adjoining land to persons for residential as well as commercial purposes @ more than Rs.9,000/- per sq. yard. The land of the petitioner is very fertile and productive and gives at least three crops in a year. The petitioner and his dependents family members mainly depend on the agriculture income and after acquisition of the above mentioned land, the petitioner and the dependent family members are left with insufficient source of income. On these grounds among others, the petitioner has filed this reference petition claiming Rs.9,000/- per sq. yards. The petitioner 4 has also claimed Rs.8,000/- per acre for crops and Rs.50,000/- for trees besides statutory benefits.
4 The UOI, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the ground that the Delhi Land Reform Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The petitioner is not entitled for compensation in respect of any construction or structure, which is raised without the sanction of law. At the time of issuance of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act, there were no structure, tree, well on the land in question except mentioned in the award no.22/2003-04 and the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can be used for agricultural purposes only. The notices u/sec. 9 & 10 were issued to the land owners/ interested persons inviting claims of the land. Pursuant to the notices, claims were filed by the affected perons, claiming different value of the land. After considering all the claims of the land owners/ interested parties, the LAC made and pronounced the award u/sec. 11 of the LA Act being award no.22/2003-04. The compensation assessed by the LAC is sufficient and reasonable and it reflects the true market value prevailing at the time of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. Various factors were taken into account while assessing the market value. The petitioner is claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land and structures. The LAC considered the claims of the interested persons, who claimed exorbitant prices of the land they had, however, not filed any documentary evidence in support of their 5 claims. Therefore, the claims could not be relied upon in order to assess the fair market value of the land. The LAC in order to assess the fair market value of the land adopted the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for the agricultural land in Delhi as Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for the year 2001-2002 by order No.F9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 dt. 09.08.2001 which are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2001. It is further stated that the LAC rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated u/sec. 23 & 24 of the LA Act. The LAC assessed the fair market value of the land after considering the level of development, locality and situation of the area of the land in question. The petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement over and above the value assessed by the LAC. All other averments made in the reference petition u/sec. 18 of the LA Act have also been denied.
5 Despite opportunities given, DDA has not filed written statement. Since the similar references have already been decided by this reference court, therefore, to avoid any further financial burden upon the Govt., therefore, the right of filing of the written statement by DDA was closed on 25.02.2008. However, on 27.02.2008, the counsel for DDA has adopted the written statement of UOI. 6 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this reference court on 25.02.2008 which are as under: 6
1 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.
2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 3 Relief
7 The counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case, has tendered in evidence the photocopy of the certified copy of the judgment dt.31.10.2007 by this reference court in case titled Sh.Mahavir Vs UOI & DDA in LAC No.426/1/06 as Mark-A. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the copy of the award no.22/2003-2004 pertaining to the village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi as Ex.R-1.
ISSUE NO. 1 & 2 8 Before deciding the issue nos. 1 & 2, let us examine whether there is any dispute of the land in question with any other person. From the entire records, it reveals that no such evidence has been filed on record to prove that the land is disputed with any other person. Even otherwise, the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act forwarded by the concerned LAC also does not reveal about such dispute with any other person and the amount of the compensation has also been assessed in the name of the petitioner as mentioned in the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act and paid to the petitioner as per his 1/18th share on 20.05.2003 & 12.04.2004. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner, according to his 1/18th share, has the right, title and 7 interest in the land in question. The award in question Ex.R-1 was announced by the LAC on 24.12.2003 and the reference petition u/sec. 18 of the LA Act was filed by the petitioner before the LAC vide diary no.562/NT/LAC on 03.02.2004. In this context, a reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs UOI 1988, RLR 224 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that bare knowledge of the award is not enough. Parties must have knowledge of the contents of the award. Further in Rajjan Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Panam project, Godhra and Ors AIR 1995 Gujrat 170, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that Collector has not merely to intimate parties about passing of award but he has to communicate essential contents of award, if not copy of award. In the present reference, the counsel for the respondents have not led any evidence that the essential contents of the award were communicated and the petitioner had constructive or actual knowledge of the award at the time of announcement of the award by the LAC. Therefore, I hold that the reference petition has been filed within the period of limitation. 9 Now, I shall decide the issue nos.1 & 2. Both the issues are inter-connected and I shall decided both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner has sought enhancement in compensation awarded by the LAC on the grounds mentioned in the reference petition which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It has been held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which 8 is acquired by the government, situation, nature, potential/ user and neighbouring land, etc, is to be considered. In this context, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :
''The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes'' In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam Vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
''In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there 9 were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.'' In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1996) 2 SCC 152 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when on record there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself, then it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
''It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.''
10 In the award no.22/2003-2004/ Ex.R-1, the LAC has specifically stated that the land under acquisition is agricultural land and is being used for agriculture purposes. The interested persons have generally claimed exorbitant prices of land but they have not filed any documentary evidence in support of their claim and the claims filed 10 by the interested persons could not form the basis of determination of market value. However, the office of the LAC was in possession of a sale deed executed on 04.12.2001 in respect of the land measuring 8 bighas 10.1/2 biswas situated in village Narela for a sum of Rs.22,88,390.00 i.e. 12,89,000.00 (approx.) per acre, therefore, the LAC observed that the market value of the land has not increased but has either remained same since the financial year 2001 or has decreased marginally. Thus, the LAC, in view of the absence of any documentary evidence on behalf of the interested persons, adopted a policy announcement which came into effect from the financial year 2001- 2002, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi fixed the indicative price of agricultural land @ Rs.15.70 lacs per acre for the acquisition of agricultural land vide their order No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 dt.09.08.2001 which are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2001. Therefore, the LAC has found Rs.15.70 lacs per acre to be the most reasonable price as on 23.05.2002. The LAC, therefore, determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ 15.70 lacs per acre.
11 Now, let us examine whether the land in question, as averred in the reference petition and the evidence, is adjacent to developed industrial areas Bawana, recently developed by DSIDC, G.T.Road, Industrial area of Narela, in close vicinity of residential area of Rohini, the Industrial area established by DSIDC and several godowns and factories where the Govt. have provided all facilities and civic amenities like educational institutes, roads, bus services, electricity, 11 school hospital and telecommunications, etc. and further the land, as per the petitioner, is quite leveled one and is fit for residential/ commercial, industrial and building purpose without making any level. In this context, I would prefer to place a reliance upon the judgment dt. 03.03.2005 in WP (C) 76-79/2004 titled Chet Ram Sharma & Ors Vs UOI & Ors, the land situate in village Bahapur, New Delhi was acquired vide the notification dt. 28.11.2002 U/s 4 (1) r/w/sec. 17 (1) (4) of the LA Act, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that :
''Not much material has been placed before us which could help the court to determine the fair market value of the land in question while the petitioners have placed whole emphasis on the fact that the land sought to be acquired by the respondents vide their notification U/s 4 dt. 28.11.2002 is part of a fully developed commercial area and has great potential and they are entitled to the present market value prevalent in the area at the relevant time.'' The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid WP ( C) 76-79/2004 held that :
''Admittedly the area has been developed by the DDA as a commercial area. However, under the lay out plan, the area was marked only for public utility services and thus it cannot get any commercial value.''
12 In the case of Chet Ram (Supra), the claimants claimed that the acquired land is a part of commercial area. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referring the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held that while determining the prospective use of the land or 12 its future potential and development by itself cannot be the only basis for the court to determine the market value of the acquired land and therefore, granting of compensation is a matter of serious consequence and thus cannot be based upon the element of conjuncture. Whether the acquired land may be treated either for residential & commercial purposes or agricultural purposes, I would place a reliance upon the judgment reported in the case of M.C.Mehta Vs UOI & Ors AIR 2006 SC 1325 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the provision for household industries in residential areas does not mean converting residential houses in the commercial shops. It only means permitting activities of household industry in a part of a residential property. It does not mean that residential properties can be used for commercial and trading activities and sale and purchase of goods. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case that it has rightly not been disputed by any counsel that neither layout plan, nor the building plan, can be sanctioned by MCD except in the manner and for the purpose provided in the Master Plan. If in the master plan, the land use is residential, MCD cannot sanction the plan for any purpose other than residential. Therefore, misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes has outrightly been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner, in the present reference, has not led any documentary evidence that the acquired land is quite fit for the residential, commercial and industrial purpose as per the master plan. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the case of 13 the petitioner herein on the aspect of use of land is squarely covered as per the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, the petitioner herein is not entitled to the residential or commercial rates of the land in question as on the date of notification i.e. 23.05.2002 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act.
13 The petitioner has also stated in the the reference petition that earlier the respondent no.2/DDA allotted the adjoining land to the persons for residential as well as commercial purposes @ more than Rs.9,000/- per sq. yard. The petitioner has neither filed any documentary evidence nor produced any witness to prove on record that DDA allotted the adjoining land for residential as well as commercial purposes @ more than Rs.9,000/- per sq. yard prior to the notification dt. 23.05.2002 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. Therefore, such an averment made in the reference petition without any basis and documents cannot be considered for fixation of the fair market value as on the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The petitioner, in support of his claim for enhancement in compensation, has also averred in the reference petition that District North-West has many examples in which the land has been sold at the price claimed by the petitioner and the petitioner has further mentioned in the reference petition about the agricultural land bearing khasra nos.815 measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas situate in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna, Delhi which was sold for a consideration of Rs.48,00,000/-. 14 Like that, the other agricultural land bearing khasra no.378 (4-16), 390 (0-3), 391 (4-13), 392 (4-16) measuring 14 bighas 8 biswas situate in the revenue estate of village Swads, Delhi which is adjacently located having same level and potential was also sold for a consideration of Rs.1.87 crore. The petitioner has neither filed the aforesaid sale deeds nor produced any witness to prove on record the said sale deeds. Even otherwise, the said sale transactions pertain to different villages and nothing has been proved on record by the petitioner about the nearness and proximity of the lands in the above mentioned sale transactions to the land in question, therefore, the said sale transactions have also not been of any help or useful for consideration to fix the fair market value of the land in dispute at the time of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act i.e. on 23.05.2002. 14 The counsel for the petitioner, in support of his evidence for enhancement in compensation of the land in question, has also relied upon the photocopy of the judgment dt. 31.10.2007 passed by this reference court in LAC No.426/1/06 titled Mahavir Vs UOI & Anr. which is mark-A. In mark-A, the land situate at village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi was acquired vide the notification dt.23.05.2002 (23.05.2002 typed in mark-A due to clerical mistake) u/sec. 4 of the LA Act and this court had given thorough consideration to the materials placed on record i.e. the sale deeds relied upon and the evidence led by the parties. However, this reference court, while considering the evidence of the parties, placed a reliance upon the judgment dt.11.05.2006 15 passed by the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 titled Mahender Singh Vs UOI & Ors. wherein the land situate in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi were acquired vide the notification dt. 15.11.1996 u/s 4 & 17 (i) of the LA Act followed by the declaration u/s 6 of the LA Act on 21.11.1996. The lands were acquired for public purpose namely ''Shifting of Industrial area from City area of Delhi/ New Delhi''. The LAC divided the entire lands into two blocks i.e. A & B and assessed the market value of the land for block-A at Rs.1,86,500/- per bigha and for the land of block-B at Rs.1,61,500/- per bigha. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, after considering the materials placed on record and also referring various judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under :
''The judgment under appeal to some extent suffers from factual and errors or law. As a court of appeal, these errors must be corrected. We hold that the claimants are entitled to the following reliefs :
a) The order maintaining the categorisation of the acquired land into groups A and B is set aside. All claimants, whose lands have been acquired vide notification dated 15th November, 1996 in the revenue estate of village Bawana would be entitled to uniform rate of compensation.
b) The claimants would be entitled to increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November,1996 (the date of notification under section 4 under the Act) @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the Reference Court/ Collector that would roughly give them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68 p. per bigha.16
c) The claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of solatium for the period for which they have not been paid interest in accordance with law.
d) The claimants would be entitled to all the benefits of interest and statutory payments under the provisions of the Act including Section 23 (1-A) of the Act on the enhanced compensation.
e) The claimants would also be entitled to proportionate costs.''
15 In the case of Mahender Singh (Supra), the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act was issued on 15.11.1996 and the appellants therein were held entitled to increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 01.04.1996 to 15.11.1996 @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the reference court/ collector which roughly gave them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68 p. per bigha. Therefore, my decision is again supported with the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the present reference. The petitioner herein is entitled to increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 01.04.2001 to 23.05.2002 @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the LAC. The petitioner has not led any evidence in support of his claim for loss of tree and crops as averred in the reference petition, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the same claim. These issues are answered accordingly.
RELIEF 16 In view of my findings on the above issues, the petitioner is 17 entitled to increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 01.04.2001 to 23.05.2002 @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the LAC as per his 1/18th share of the land bearing khasra nos.10/7/1 (0-14), 21/3 (4-16), 21/4/1 (2-08), 21/4/2 (2-
08), 21/5 min (2-08), 22/1 (4-10), 22/10 (4-16), 22/11 (2-10), 22/26 (0-
6) total measuring 24 bighas 16 biswas, according to the statement U/sec. 19 of the LA Act, situate in the revenue estate of village Shahpur Garhi, Delhi which was acquired by the Govt. for freight Complex Narela under PDD vide award no.22/2003-2004 announced on 24.12.2003. Besides it, the petitioner shall also be entitled to all the benefits of interest and statutory payments including Section 23 (1-A) of the LA Act in the enhanced compensation. This reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of increase in the awarded amount of compensation to the petitioner within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 07.03.2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
18
LAC No. 27/1/08
07.03.2008
Present- None
Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of increase in the awarded amount of compensation to the petitioner within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/07.03.2008