Delhi District Court
Sh. Jagdev Singh vs Union Of India on 19 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 108/12
New No. LAC - 42/16
Area: Tikri Kalan
Award No.: 02/DC(W)/2010-11 dated 18.02.2011
1. Sh. Jagdev Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Kala
2. Sh. Balwan
3. Sh. Satbir
4. Sh. Satpal
All S/o Sh. Swaroop Singh
5. Sh. Manjeet
6. Sh. Nishant
Both S/o late Bijender Singh
7. Smt. Anil
W/o Late Bijender Singh
All R/o V.P.O. Tikri Kalan, Delhi.
.....Petitioners
versus
1. Union of India, through
Through LAC (West)
Rampura, Delhi.
2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Through Director,
Scope Meenar Complex, 7th Floor,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
.....Respondents
LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 1/11
Date of institution of the case : 19.10.2012
Date of reserving of judgment : 15.03.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.04.2018
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 145 Bigha in village Tikri Kalan under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Notification under Section 4 of the Act vide notification no. F.10 (23)/08/L&B/LA/11661 dated 20.01.2009 also under Section 6 vide notification no.
F.10(23)/08/L&B/LA/13343 dated 25.02.2009. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.10(23)/08/L&B/LA/13344 dated 25.02.2009. The land was acquired for the purpose of Construction of Oil Terminal for Mundra-Delhi Pipe Line Project by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)') passed award no. 2/DC(W)/2010-11 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the agriculture land under acquisition @ Rs.53,00,000/- per acre or Rs.11,04,166.67 per bigha.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector petitioners were shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 2/11
Item Name of recorded Khasra Total Details of
No. of owner & share No. Area trees/
NM in Buildings/
Bigha- Crops
Biswa
56 Jagdev Singh S/o Ram 20 As per Award
Kala ½ share 7/2 0-8
55 Balwan Singh S/o
1 Swaroop Singh
1/8 share
55 Satbir Singh S/o
2 Swaroop Singh
1/8 share
55 Satpal Singh S/o
3 Swaroop Singh
1/8 share
55 Smt. Anil Wd/o
4 Bijender Singh
1/24 share
55 Manjeet Drall S/o
5 Bijender Singh
1/24 share
55 Nishant Drall S/o
6 Bijender Singh
1/24 share
Note : Date of possession is 24/03/2009
4. The petitioners filed the reference under Section 18 of the Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Land Acquisition Collector, West has been referred to the reference court.
5. In brief the facts stated are that the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No. 20/7/2 (0-8) total measuring 8 biswas situated within the revenue estate of LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 3/11 village Tikri Kalan, Delhi has been acquired vide the aforesaid award. The petitioners have respective share each in the above stated land. The compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is too low, unjust, arbitrary and not as per the existing market value of the land in the area and as such the compensation assessed is not acceptable to the petitioners.
6. It is stated that the petitioners never served any notice U/S 12 (2) regarding announcement of the award. The petitioners came to know about the announcement of the award on 13.05.2011 when the neighbours applied for the reference compensation before the Collector. the land of the petitioners is of great potential value at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act as a perfect site for building and commercial activities. The land of the petitioners at the relevant time was not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. yds. and the petitioner claim the same amount on the following grounds.
7. It is stated that the land of the petitioners is situated on the main road leading from Delhi to Rohtak and there is huge commercial building as well as residential buildings existing all around the land much prior to the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The entire area where the land in question situates was fully developed, accessible by mettled road and all sort of civic amenities such as electricity, water, sewerage, telephone, transport etc. were easily available to the land in question.
LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 4/11
8. It is stated that the land in question is very close to a fully developed industrial area which was developed more than 20 years from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act and because of the earlier development carried out in this area, the same had a great impact on the market value of the land including the land in question. The village abadi where posh residential houses have been constructed is also t a stone's throw distance from the land in question. The land of the petitioners was of a great potential value as a perfect residential as well as commercial site and was capable of fetching at least Rs.10,000/- per sq. yds.
9. It is stated that the land has got potential value as many purposes and same has been surrounded by villages Mundka, Ghevra, Neelwal, Hiran Kudna, Dhichaun Kalan, Savda, Nizam Pur etc. and the market value in above said area is not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. yds. The Collector has also not considered the fact that the land of the petitioners is very fertile and there are thousands of industries working in close vicinity of the land in question like Mundka Industrial Area, Hiran Kudna, Tikri Kalan, Bahadurgarh etc. The land of the petitioner is situated on main road and very close to HSIDC Bahadurgarh, PVC Market Tikri, Mundka Industrial Area, FCI Godown Ghevera, Indian Oil Depot Ghevra, Proposed sports Academy at Ghevera/Tikri, Metro Workshop, Mundka Rilway Station, Bakkarwala Megha Project (Lok Nayak Puram) and thousands of industries working at the time of the notification in the surrounding area.
LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 5/11
10. It is stated that there are many sale transactions executed between the parties regarding the land situated in the surroundings area i.e. Dichaun Kalan, Bakkarwala, Baprola, Savda and Hiran Kudna and all the sale deeds executed at very higher rates of Rupees ninety lacs to Rupees two crores per acre. These entire factors indicate the higher market value of the land and not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. yds. It is stated that the petitioners have mentioned the land which were acquired vide aforesaid award, however in case any Khasra number or its area has been wrongly mentioned, the reference petition may be treated qua the Khasra number and correct area acquired in the award. The petitioners seek that the matter as to the inadequacy of compensation may be referred to the court for adjudication of the correct market value and for payment of enhanced compensation along with statutory solatium and interest.
11. Written statement filed by respondent no.1/ Union of India and taken the preliminary objections that the compensation assessed by the Collector is sufficient and reasonable and it reflects the true market value prevailing at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Various factors were taken into account while assessing the market value. The petitioner is claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land. The Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The petitioners are not entitled for compensation in respect of any construction or structure, which is raised without the sanction of law. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or underdeveloped colony and can be used for agriculture purposes only. The Collector rightly assessed the market LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 6/11 value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated under Section 23 and 24 of the Act.
12. On merits, all the averments made in the reference petition are denied. The grounds taken by the petitioners are also denied. It is stated that petitioners are not entitled to any relief and reference is liable to be dismissed.
13. Respondent no.2/HPCL also filed written statement and in the preliminary submissions, it is stated that the present petition is filed to harass the answering defendant and to extort money from it. The petition does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The value determined by the Collector is appropriate, correct, quite fair and reasonable. The land in question is an agricultural land and the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act are applicable to village Tikri Kalan which is a rural village and the Collector after considering all the facts and relevant sale deeds has rightly awarded the compensation of the land in question. The petition is barred under Order VI Rule 15 CPC. The petition is bad for mis- joinder of the parties. The Collector has already awarded adequate compensation for the trees and structure in his award and there is no tree/structure in the petitioner's land. The other sale deeds of the said area itself shows that prevalent market rate in the said area was less than Rs.53 lacs per acre at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
14. On merits, all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied and it is reiterated that the Collector has LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 7/11 assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. Petitioners have not filed any rejoinder to written statements filed by respondents.
16. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 28.08.2014 by Ld. Predecessor:
1. What was market value of the land in question on the date of Notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
3. Relief.
17. In support of his case, petitioners got examined PW1 Sh. Balwan - petitioner no.2, PW2 Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari, Village Mundka, office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh; PW3 Sh. R.P. Sharma, Patwari from the office of LAC (West); PW4 Sh.Danveer Sharma, UDC from the office of Sub- Registrar-IIA, Nangloi; and Thereafter, as per order dated 04.12.2015, the petitioner evidence was closed.
18. From the side of respondent no.1/ Union of India, Sh. Sachin Nawani, Counsel for the respondent no.1 relied upon and tendered in evidence copy of award No. 2/DC (W)/2010-2011 pertaining to Village Tikri Kalan as Ex. R-1.
LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 8/11
19. Sh. J.K. Ghahlyan, Counsel for the respondent no.2/HPCL vide statement dated 07.04.2016 submitted that he adopts the evidence led by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/UOI and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.2/HPCL.
20. I have heard Sh. Sushil Kumar, proxy Counsel for Sh.S.S. Rana, Counsel for the petitioner; Sh. Vikas Shokeen, Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India; and Sh. Sunil Goswami, proxy Counsel for Sh.J.K. Ghalyan, Counsel for the respondent no.2/HPCL and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE Nos. 1 & 221. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fair market value of the land in question has already been determined by this Court in LAC No. 27/12 (New No. 127/16) titled as 'Baljeet & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.' decided on 24.01.2018. They further referred the judgment of Apex Court titled 'Nand Ram vs. State of Haryana' 1988 (4) JT 260 and 'Goa Housing Board vs. Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar & Anr.' AIR 2012 SC 193. It is further submitted that the Apex Court has laid down the principle that lands acquired under the same notification, the compensation shall be awarded to the land owners who are similarly situated under the same notification. Applying the same principle, the petitioners are entitled to the same fair market value @ Rs.59,30,773/- per acre after enhancement @ Rs.6,30,773/- per acre. I have considered the respective contentions of both the parties and gone through the judgments of Apex Court, LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 9/11 the present case is covered by the principles laid down in Nand Ram (Supra), therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the same market value and enhancement as determined in LAC No. 27/12 (New No. 127/16) titled as 'Baljeet & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.' decided on 24.01.2018. Both the issues are decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
22. In view of my findings on Issue nos. 1 and 2, the fair market value of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.59,30,773/- (Rupees fifty nine lacs thirty thousand seven hundred seventy three only) per acre after enhancement @ Rs.6,30,773/- (Rupees six lacs thirty thousand seven hundred seventy three only) per acre. Besides this the petitioners are also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
23. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
24. The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 10/11
25. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
26. The interest on compensation for the period of delay due to impleading of LRs or stay of High Court or any other court may also be deducted.
27. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
28. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
29. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY KUMAR
Announced in the open court Date:
KUMAR 2018.04.19
10:59:20
today the 19th April, 2018. +0530
(Sanjay Kumar)
ADJ-02,West/Delhi
19.04.2018
LAC No. 108/12 (New No. 42/16) Jagdev Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 11/11