Delhi District Court
Bhagwat And Ors vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2023
In The Court of Sh. Ajay Garg,
Additional District Judge01, (East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
LAC No.105/16
CNR No. DLET01-002590-2016
In the matter of :
1.) Sh. Bhagwat
S/o Lt. Sh. Naiader
Through his legal heirs.
a) Ranveer
S/o Lt. Sh. Bhagwat
Vasundhara Enclave
East Delhi, Delhi110096
b) Suraj
S/o Lt. Sh. Bhagwat
350, Dallupura
East Delhi, Delhi110096
c) Ranjit (deceased)
S/o Lt. Sh. Bhagwat
Through his legal heirs.
i) Balesh
W/o Lt. Sh. Ranjit
350, Dallupura,
East Delhi, Delhi-110096
ii) Akshay Dedha
S/o Lt. Sh. Ranjit
Kuna Chowk,
Dallupura Village,
East Delhi, Delhi-110096
iii) Sunny
S/o Lt. Sh. Ranjit
Kuna Chowk,
Dallupura Village,
East Delhi, Delhi110096
iv) Pooja
LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 1 of 18
D/o Lt. Sh. Ranjit
Dallupura Village,
East Delhi, Delhi110096
d) Ombati
D/o Lt. Sh. Bhagwat
W/o Sh. Ramesh Chanda
House no. 108,
Bhankari, Pali (13),
Faridabad, Haryana121004
e) Shyamwati
D/o Lt. Sh. Bhagwat
W/o Sh. Mahesh Kumar
House no. 109,
Bhankari, Pali (13),
Faridabad, Haryana121004
f) Rati Devi
D/o Lt. Sh. Bhagwat
W/o Yoginder Nagar
S61/178, THuts,
Indira Gandhi Camp,
Nehru Nagar,
South Delhi, Delhi110065
2.) Sh. Hari
S/o Sh. Lt. Naiader (deceased)
Through his legal heirs
a) Smt. Bati
W/o Lt. Sh. Hari
b) Sh. Rajpal
S/o Lt. Sh. Hari
c) Sh. Karan Singh
S/o Lt. Sh. Hari
d) Sh. Binni Kumar
S/o Lt. Sh. Hari
All R/o 351, Village Dallupura, Delhi.
e) Smt. Asha Devi
D/o Lt. Sh. Hari
W/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 2 of 18
R/o Village Hari Nagar Extension,
Delhi110044
3.) Sh. Baljit
S/o Lt. Sh. Naiader (deceased)
Through his legal heirs:
a) Bhagwat Singh
S/o Lt. Sh. Naiader
b) Sh. Chanda
S/o Lt. Sh. Naiader
c) Sh. Hari
S/o Lt. Sh. Naiader (deceased)
Through LRs.
i) Smt. Bati
W/o Lt. Sh. Hari
ii) Sh. Rajpal
S/o Lt. Sh. Hari
iii) Sh. Karan Singh
S/o Lt. Sh. Hari
iv) Sh. Binni Kumar
S/o Lt. Sh. Hari
All R/o 351, Village Dallupura, Delhi.
v) Smt. Asha Devi
D/o Lt. Sh. Hari
W/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
R/o Village Hari Nagar Extension,
Delhi110044
4.) Sh. Chanda
S/o Lt. Sh. Naiader
R/o 351, Village Dallupura, Delhi.
.....Petitioners/Plaintiffs
Versus
1.) Union of Indian
Through LAC/ADM
East District, L.M. Bandh
Shastri Nagar, East Delhi,
Delhi.
LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 3 of 18
2.) Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi.
.....Respondents/Defendants
Award No. 79/8283
Village Dallupura
Date of Institution : 15.01.1988
Reserved on : 20.10.2023
Date of Decision : 25.10.2023
Notification U/s 4 : F.8(67)/76L&B/LA/33377 dt.
17.11.1980.
Notification U/s 6 : F.9(16)/80L&B dt. 29.09.1981.
Reference Petition U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.
JUDGMENT
(I) BRIEF FACTS:
1.) This judgment shall decide the reference petition no. 105/2016 preferred by petitioner, Sh. Bhagwat, Sh. Hari Ram, Sh. Baljit and Sh. Chanda for the enhancement of the compensation against compulsory acquisition of their land bearing Khasra nos. 499/235 (2-13) and 325/1 (1-10), Village Dallupura, Delhi vide Award No. 79/82-83 dated 09.03.1983, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 4 of 18 as 'LAC'), East, Delhi.
2.) To decide the reference U/s 18 L.A. Act r/w statement U/s 19 of the Act sent by the LAC Delhi, the relevant dates and facts which are necessary for adjudication in the present matter are being given herein under:-
i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act : 17.11.1980
ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act : 29.09.1981
iii) Date of award : 09.03.1983
iv) Area of the locality : Dallupura
v) Project : Planned Development of Delhi.
vi) The land use of area as per award : Residential
vii) Petition referred to court on : 15.01.1988 (II) BACKGROUND:
3.) The petitioners being owner of Khasra nos. 499/235(2-13) and 325/1 (1-10), in the revenue state of Village Dallupura, Delhi, filed the present reference against the award No.79/82-83 passed on 09.03.1983, thereby assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.12,500/- per bigha which is not acceptable to the petitioner. As the petitioners were dissatisfied with the assessment of compensation, they had filed the reference petition before this Court for adjudication on the following grounds:-
i) The acquisition of the land in question is wrong, illegal and against the principles of equity and natural justice.
ii) The LAC has failed to assess the fair market value of the land of the petitioners.
LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 5 of 18
iii) The LAC has failed to appreciate the potential value of the land as building site and approved colonies developed nearby land in question prior to the date of notification U/s 4 of L.A. Act. The LAC has not followed the doctrine of potential value laid down by the Supreme Court of India.
iv) That out of the entire land of Village Dallupura, 60% land was notified, acquired and developed prior to the date of notification U/s 4, L.A. Act in respect of the acquired land.
v) The land in question is surrounded by approved colonies like Himmatpuri, Mayur Vihar, Trilokpuri, Kalyanpuri, Khichripur, Patparganj, New Okhla Industrial Development Area and the LAC has failed to consider the said fact.
vi) The LAC has completely ignored that fact that 60% of land in Village Dallupura was already developed much prior to the date of notification U/s 4, L.A. Act and he had also failed to consider the prevalent price of the land in question.
vii) The LAC has wrongly categorized the land in question in four blocks. The land in question was fertile and cultivable at the time of notification U/s 4, L.A. Act and announcement of award.
viii) The net income of the petitioners from the acquired land was Rs.25000/ per bigha per annum and LAC should have multiplied the same by 33 times at the time of fixing the market value of land in question.
ix) The petitioners demand that LAC should at least have awarded Rs.500/ per sq.yard for land in question and Rs.10,000/ for severance and other damages.
LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 6 of 18
4.) Notices of the reference petition were issued to the respondents and on completion of service, the respondents had put their appearance/(s), before the Court, through Counsel and had filed their separate written statements, in the matter. The reference petition was contested by the respondents i.e. Union of India as well as DDA raising number of objections. They had defended the award and asserted that compensation granted by the LAC is adequate, just and legal.
5.) In the written statement, LAC pleaded that the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in question. It is pleaded that title of the petitioners to claim any enhancement or compensation is denied and they are not the recorded owners of the acquired land in revenue record. Further, the correctness of the kharsa numbers in question and extent of share of the petitioners are admitted only to the extent as mentioned by LAC in this statement recorded U/s 19, L.A. Act and the petitioners have preferred the instant petition in response to notice issued by the LAC U/s 9 and 19, L.A. Act. The compensation awarded to the petitioners in respect of their shares has been legally and fairly assessed by the LAC and the same is adequate and just. It was submitted that LAC while making the award had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of all the documents which were made available and produced before him. He had also taken into consideration the area of the land and other amenities/ facilities available therein while assessing the compensation. Therefore, the present reference petition preferred by the petitioners filed U/s 18, L.A. Act is liable to be dismissed LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 7 of 18 as no need for enhancement of compensation arises.
6.) In the written statement filed by the DDA, it is stated that while announcing the award no.79/82-83, the LAC had taken into account the market value of the land in question on the basis of sale deeds of adjoining areas. Further, other amenities were also taken into consideration by the LAC. In view of the same, the present reference U/s 18, L.A. Act is not maintainable. The amount awarded by the LAC is just, adequate and sufficient and is based on cogent evidence. Further, the DLR Act was also applicable on the land in question as a result of which market value of the same has been reduced. As per the statement U/s 19, L.A. Act, the present petition filed by the petitioners in respect of Khasra nos.161 min (5-16), 166 min (2-14), 210 min (0-9), 499/235 (2-13), 326 min (1-19), 352/1 (3-0) out of which petitioners have 1/4th share each and another Khasra no.161 (3-
4), 166 (2-17), 173 (4-4), 209 (0-3), 247 (2-2), 501/448 (2-8), 502/448 (4-17) and 503/448 (1-9) out of which petitioners have 1/3rd share each. Since the LAC had already awarded just and adequate compensation to the petitioners after considering all the necessary facts and evidence, the present reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
7.) This reference was earlier adjourned sinedie by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide his order dated 15.09.1989 as the ld. Counsel for the petitioners had submitted that a dispute regarding the title of the land is pending in the Hon'ble High Court. The said dispute was finally decided by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 21.01.1994. However, the application LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 8 of 18 for revival was moved before this Court only on 20.04.2011. The application for revival was allowed vide a detailed order dated 20.01.2017.
8.) During the course of proceedings, Sh. Bhagwat had expired on 14.10.2019 and his LRs Ranveer, Suraj, Ranjit, (expired on 01.12.2015 and his LRs Balesh, Akshay Dedha, Sunny, Pooja were brought on record), Ombati, Shyamwati and Rati Devi were brought on record vide order dated 08.07.2022), Sh. Baljeet had expired on 30.04.2009, not survived by any legal heir and Sh. Hari had expired on 15.12.2015 and his LRs Bati, Rajpal, Karan Singh, Binni Kumar and Asha Devi were brought on record vide order dated 20.07.2018.
Compensation of Sh. Bhagwat and Sh. Hari will therefore, now fall in the share of above mentioned LRs in equal amount.
(III) ISSUES:
9.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 27.01.2017:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation, as prayed for and if so to what extent? (OPP)
2. Relief.
(IV) EVIDENCE:
a) In order to substantiate their case, Binni Kumar, S/o Sh. Hari Ram stepped in witness box as PW1 and tendered his LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 9 of 18 evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. In his affidavit i.e. Ex. PW1/A, PW1 has placed reliance on the following documents:
1.) Ex.PW1/1 - Judgment passed by Ld. ADJ in LAC no.251/2004 in case tilted as Kishan Vs. Union of India & Anr.
2.) Ex.PW1/2 - Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as DDA Vs. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors.
This witness was exhaustively crossexamined by Ld. counsel for Union of India. Therefore, vide separate statement, petitioner evidence was closed on 26.10.2018.
b) No evidence led on behalf of respondent no.1 Union of India and respondent no.2 DDA.
10.) Final arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
(V) ISSUEWISE FINDINGS: Issue No.1 Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhancement of compensation, as prayed for and if so to what extent? (OPP)
a) Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. However, during the course of argument, parties have apprised LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 10 of 18 this Court that the market value with respect to the property in question acquired vide the same notification and same award has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2004 passed in the case titled as 'Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors.' (2004) 6 SCC 533 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the market value of the properties acquired vide the same notification and same award @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha along-with statutory benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has assessed the said market value after allowing an escalation of 5%. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:-
"7. The land which is the subject-matter of this appeal is acquired for the same purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the notification U/s 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.11.1981 i.e. subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 17.11.1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of price in regard to this land. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 10% increase in the market value in respect of the land in this appeal. In the result this appeal is also allowed and the impugned judgment is modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.345/- per sq. yard (amounting to Rs.3,45,000/- per bigha) to Rs.76,550/- per bigha + 10% escalation. The respondent is entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs".
b) Since there is an authoritative pronouncement on the fair market value of the similar land placed in similar circumstances, location and topography and acquired vide the same award, this Court need not to delve further in this regard. Even otherwise, two equals cannot be treated unequally. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment titled as 'Ali Mohammad LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 11 of 18 Beigh & Ors. Vs. State of J&K' reported in AIR 2017 SC 1518 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it is held that "when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons". In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to go into any evidences or judgments relied upon by the parties to the instant petition in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors.' wherein the market value for the properties acquired vide the same notification and same award have already been assessed @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha as on the date of notification i.e. 17.11.1980. Even otherwise, nothing substantial has been brought on record by either side to differ from the market value assessed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in one of the matters arising out of the same award and pertaining to the identical land.
c) During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are not claiming the compensation in respect of the land bearing Khasra no. 326 Min. (1-19) and are only claiming compensation in respect of Khasra nos. 499/235 (2-13) and 352/1 (1-10). An affidavit on behalf of Mr. Binni Kumar, S/o Lt. Sh. Hari Ram has also been filed in this regard.
Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners in respect of Khasra nos. 499/235 (2-13) and 352/1 (1-10) only.
Issue No.2 Relief.
LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 12 of 18
a) In view of the findings on issue no.1 and as per the judgment of 'Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors.', the petition/ reference filed U/s 18 of L.A. Act, is allowed and compensation is now fixed and allowed @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha. The LRs of petitioner are entitled to the market value @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha as on 09.03.1983 with respect to their respective shares.
b) According to the award, solatium was allowed @ 30%. Accordingly, the solatium is also allowed @ 30% on the market value, as determined above, as per provisions of L.A. Act, 1894.
c) The petitioners/ LRs of petitioners have also claimed interest, as per law. According to the award, 12% interest was allowed on the market value, fixed by the LAC U/s 23(1)A of LA Act, 1894 from the date of notification U/s 4 of Act (17.11.1980) till the date of possession i.e. 09.03.1983. Accordingly, the same is also allowed on the present market value, fixed as above.
d) According to the award, interest U/s 34 of LA Act, 1894 was also allowed observing that DDA had taken the land on 09.03.1983 and as such petitioners are entitled to interest on the balance amount, as per section 34 of LA Act, 1894 @ 9% per annum from the date of possession till expiry of one year and thereafter, @ 15% per annum till payment or deposited into the Court. Ld. Counsel for petitioners claimed the same interest on enhanced compensation as well. However, counsel for Union of India opposed the grant of interest for the intervening period i.e. from the date of disposal of reference U/s 30-31, L.A. Act vide LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 13 of 18 order dated 21.01.1994 till revival of the instant petition on 20.01.2017 as no ground has been shown for not moving the application for revival instantly after the disposal of dispute U/s 30-31, L.A. Act.
e) Upon this, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the aspect of interest has already been considered by this Court while allowing the application of revival of the petition vide order dated 20.01.2017 and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Ratti Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr." wherein it is so held that:-
"We fail to understand how the appellants could be denied the statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in respect of the value of this land fixed, merely because there was a period of stay operating, may be in a proceeding at the instance of the appellants. Those are not relevant considerations or factors at all for the purpose of grant of statutory benefits available to a person, whose land has been acquired in terms of Section 28 of the Act.
There is no exclusion of any period contemplated on whatever account under Section 28 of the Act. The only reference is to the date of dispossession. Liability to pay interest starts to run from that date. Therefore, these appeals are allowed. It is directed that the appellants shall be entitled to interest for the compensation, as per Section 28 r/w Section 23 (1A), in respect of the land acquired from the appellants, on value at the rate of Rs.76,550/- per Bigha for the period of stay also, i.e. from 24.04.1997 to 27.09.2001.
f) However, Ld. Counsel for Union of India submits that though the contentions of the parties to this effect were discussed in the said order, however, no finding as to the interest payable is given by this Court while allowing the application for revival. In LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 14 of 18 support, counsel for Union of India has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in the case titled as "Jagmohan & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors." wherein while relying upon the judgments titled as 'Kanwar Singh Vs. UOI' and 'Chander Vs. UOI' held as under:-
"4. We have perused the judgments and orders cited and find force in the contention of learned Counsel for the respondent. Although in the order dated 17.07.1998 of Division Bench of this Court the substitution of legal heirs was allowed without any pre condition, it appears that the Court there was not considering the question of payment of interest for the period of delay in approaching the Court for substitution. On the other hand, the Full Bench of this Court in Chander v. UOI (supra) made it clear that where the delay was on account of the claimant, interest for the period of delay should be declined.
5. Further in Kanwar Singh v. UOI, 120 (2005) Delhi Law Times 348 (DB) a Division Bench of this Court reiterated this position by observing thus:
"It has been the consistent practice of this Court in a number of matters that wherever such applications have been filed belatedly, the same are allowed only subject to the restriction of non-grant of interest for the period of delay from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of filing of the application. This view is based on the fact that in respect of matters of interest, the same is the discretion of the Court and this discretion has been so exercised since the Government cannot be burdened with the interest costs in respect of a claimant who has chosen not to claim the amount before the competent Court. The matter of grant of interest is in the discretion of the Court and the Supreme Court in Raghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government through Collector of Bijnor, AIR 1967 SC 465 has held by reference to the language of Section 28 of the Act that the words 'may direct' means that it is discretionary on the part of the Court to grant or to refuse to grant interest".
LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 15 of 18
g) After hearing the submissions advanced by both the parties and going through the law relied upon by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in "Ratti Ram"
(supra) is not applicable to the instant case because as per the said judgment, the petitioner/ LRs of petitioners were held entitled to the interest for the period when the matter remained adjourned sine die on account of pendency of dispute under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act whereas in the instant case, the matter was adjourned sine die vide order dated 15.09.1989 on the statement of counsel for the petitioners, but till the time the question pertaining to the title is settled. Since, the dispute pertaining to the title was settled between the parties vide order dated 21.01.1994 and thus the order of adjourning the matter sine die was applicable till that date and thereafter, the petitioners were duty bound to get the matter revived. However, the petitioners for the reasons best know to them, did not apply for revival of the present reference petition preferred under Section 18, L.A. Act for more than 17 years. No justification has come forward as to why despite knowing that title dispute has already been decided vide order dated 21.01.1994, no application for revival of the present matter was filed though it was a condition stipulated in the order by which the present matter was adjourned sine die. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the interest from the date of order of adjourning sine die i.e. 15.09.1989 till the date of decision of reference petition under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act i.e. 21.01.1994 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Ratti Ram" (supra). However, for the subsequent period i.e. from the date of decision of reference under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act i.e. 21.01.1994 till the filing of application for LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 16 of 18 revival of the present matter i.e. 20.04.2011, the petitioners are not entitled for the interest on account of his own fault as held in "Jagmohan & Ors." (supra). Further, even otherwise, under Section 28 of L.A. Act, grant of interest is the discretionary power of the Court and the discretion cannot be exercised in favour of party at fault.
h) Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the case titled as "Chander Vs. Union of India and Anr." wherein it is so held:-
"20. Ordinarily, the amount of interest is to be awarded. However, if the claimant of his own conduct disentitles himself to claim interest, then in the opinion of this Court cannot be said that the amount of interest should be awarded even during the period of which the proceedings remained stayed".
i) As far as order of revival dated 20.01.2017 is concerned, upon perusal of the said order, it is observed that it is silent on the aspect of interest as at that time there was no occasion for the Court to dealt with interest. Even otherwise, it is an unwarranted burden on the State Exchequer and if this practice is not curtailed, it would encourage the unscrupulous litigants to derail the proceedings on one ground or the other just to get the handsome interest @ 15% per annum which otherwise is not available on deposits in any banking sector or any other kind of deposit. Even otherwise, when individual interest is pitted against the interest of society at large, the latter shall prevail. In these circumstances, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the interest on enhanced compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of possession till expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 17 of 18 per annum till payment or deposited into the Court excluding the period w.e.f. from 21.01.1994 till 20.04.2011.
j) The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation as determined hereinabove to the petitioner/ LRs of petitioner.
k) The above reliefs are subject to the deductions of compensation / solatium / additional benefits / interest U/s 34 of LA Act, 1894, which have already been received by the petitioner/ LRs of petitioner, as were fixed by the LAC vide Award No. 79/82-83 dated 09.03.1983.
l) The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Both the parties will bear their own costs.
A copy of this judgment be sent to LAC concerned to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today.
No order as to cost.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on 25.10.2023 (Ajay Garg) Additional District Judge01 (East)/KKD/Delhi LAC No.105/16 Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. Union of India 18 of 18