Delhi District Court
Sh. Chander Prakash Gupta vs ) Union Of India on 15 March, 2023
In The Court of Sh. Ajay Garg,
Additional District Judge-01, (East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
LAC No.17/2018
CNR No. DLET01-009724-2018
In the matter of :-
Sh. Chander Prakash Gupta
S/o Lt. Sh. Asa Ram Gupta
R/o 03/250, Anaj Mandi
Shahdara
Delhi - 110032.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1.) Union of India
Through LAC/ADM
East District, L.M. Bandh
Near Geeta Colony,
Delhi - 110051.
2.) Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Town Hall
Chandini Chowk
Delhi - 110006.
.....Respondents
Award No. 01/2007-08/East
Village Khureji Khas
Date of Institution : 26.11.2007
Reserved on : Not reserved
Date of Decision : 15.03.2023
Notification U/s 4 : F.8(13)/2006/L&B/LA/8232 dt.
24.08.2006.
Notification U/s 6 : F.9(13)/2006/L&B/LA/11987 dt.
01.11.2006
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 1 of 37
Reference Petition U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.
JUDGMENT
(I) BRIEF FACTS:- a) This judgment shall decide the reference petition no.
17/2018 preferred by petitioner, Sh. Chander Prakash Gupta for the enhancement of the compensation against compulsory acquisition of his 1/8th undivided share in ancestral land out of total 1 bigha 12 biswas (1,345 sq.m.) land comprising Khasra no. 10/16 village Khureji Khas vide Award No. 01/2007-08 dated 03.05.2007, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC'), East, Delhi.
b) 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 : 24.08.2006
ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act : 01.11.2006
iii) Date of award : 03.05.2007
iv) Area of the locality : Khureji Khas
v) Project :Peripheral roads/ drains
vi) The land use of area as per award : Residential
vii) Petition referred to court on : 26.11.2007
c) Background:- The deceased father of the petitioner and LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 2 of 37 other persons, being owners of land admeasuring 4 bigha 5 biswa comprised in kila No.16 of rectangle No.10 (khasra no.16/10) situated in the revenue estate of Village Khureji Khas, Ilaqa & Tehsil Shahdara, Delhi110032, had filed a suit for ejectment against Union of India / Municipal Corporation of Delhi, before Revenue Assistant, Delhi, who had illegally encroached upon the said land. Revenue Assistant vide its judgment and decree dated 03.09.1973 had decreed the suit for possession. An appeal was filed by Union of India against said judgment and decree, which was dismissed by Sh. H K S Malik, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi on 16.04.1975. Second appeal bearing RSA No.50/1976 was also filed by Union of India, which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 21.04.1995. MCD filed writ petition (Civil) No.1935/1998 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, against judgment and decree dated 03.09.1973, which was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court on 14.05.1998. The decree dated 03.09.1973 became final and binding, which was put for execution on or about 18.12.1995 and same remained pending, as despite repeated requests, Executing Court had not issued warrants of possession to put the Decree Holders into actual physical possession of 4 bigha 5 biswa land. The matter was kept in abeyance. The petitioner alongwith his cosharers had approached the Hon'ble High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India, as warrants of possession were not issued and directions were issued for Executing Court to issue warrants of possession in respect of land in reference and to proceed with the execution petition forthwith so as to execute the decree in accordance with law. Despite directions, nothing was done by LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 3 of 37 executing court. Accordingly, contempt proceedings were initiated, out of which, one contempt petition is still subjudice.
In interregnum, Municipal Corporation of Delhi approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and filed civil revision petition No.245/2001 thereby praying that execution proceedings be stayed, which was dismissed on 05.12.2001 and an SLP was preferred against said judgment, which was also dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 25.01.2002. Even then, warrants of possession were not issued by Executing Court. In 2004, vide Award No.15/DC(E)/2004-05 dated 06.09.2004, LAC had acquired 2 bigha 6 biswa land, out of 4 bigha 5 biswa. Another contempt petition bearing contempt case (civil) No.59-63/2006 is subjudice before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Due to said proceedings, LAC hurriedly published the impugned award dated 03.05.2007 for acquisition of 1 bigha 12 biswa land i.e. 1345 sq. meters. The award has not been counter signed by the Secretary (Revenue) of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The acquired land was notified u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in terms of notification No.F.8(13)/2006/L&B/8232 dated 24.08.2006. The requisite notification U/s 6 of Act was issued vide No.F.8(13)2006/L&B/LA/11987 dated 01.11.2006. In order to take possession of said land, Government issued another notification U/s 17(1) of said Act vide notification No.F.8(13)/2006/L&B/LA/11988 dated 01.11.2006. Prescribed notices U/s 9(1) and 10(1) of said Act were issued on 15.11.2006 and the actual physical possession of acquired land (1 bigha 12 biswa) was taken over by Land & Building Department on 24.01.2007 in terms of notification dated 01.11.2006. On the LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 4 of 37 same day, MCD was put in actual physical possession of the land in question. The entire area of village Khureji Khas, Tehsil Shahdara was urbanized way back on 23.05.1963 vide Notification No.RNZ/526. This supplemented the earlier notification No.F9/5/59R&S dated 28.12.1959 which was followed by another notification No.GSR 486 dated 12.04.1962 under Act 59 of 1958. The provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 were extended to entire locality vide notification No.S.O.1236 dated 23.3.1979. The land admeasuring 2 bighas 6 biswa was acquired in terms of Award No.15/DC(E)/20042005 dated 06.09.2004. The remaining land admeasuring 1 bigha 12 biswas was / is available for acquisition and has been acquired by impugned award dated 03.05.2007. Hence, this reference.
d) The award under reference was challenged on various grounds inter alia that it is not sustainable on admitted facts. LAC failed to appreciate entire revenue estate of Village Khureji Khas which was urbanized in terms of notification dated 23.05.1963 i.e. more than 40 years ago. The entire area had developed into a highly congested urban city. The land prices in the locality are astronomical, whereas, compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs.3647/ per sq. meter. LAC ought to have held that prevailing land prices in the locality was Rs.25000/ per sq. meter and not a penny less in the year 2006
07. LAC failed to appreciate that there had been phenomenal rise in the land prices during last few years in Delhi and particularly in last two years. LAC failed to appreciate that after LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 5 of 37 urbanization of entire locality in the vicinity of land, the value of land under reference was not less than Rs.25000/ per sq. meter at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of Act. LAC failed to appreciate that site under acquisition was fully developed and there was already provision of pucca roads / parks and street lights etc. All civic amenities were already available at the site, hence, land rates adopted by LAC were apparently much below prevailing rates/prices. Mother dairy, milk both etc. already existing at the site. Mother dairy was paying fanciful rent to MCD for use of small part of site. LAC failed to appreciate surroundings of site. The site was adjacent to Community Centre of MCD in the heart of Chander Nagar, Shahdara South, Delhi 110051, which fetched rent/license fee of Rs.10000/ per day to MCD. Despite this, LAC deliberately ignored the potential of land for determining the market value, by brushing aside the following land marks near site, as under :
i) Sh. Anandpur Trust Charitable Diagnostic Centre Delhi, C9/4, Krishna Nagar, Delhi110051 (barely 300 meters away)
ii) Spring Bells Public School (Recognised) (barely 200 meters away) affiliated to the CBSE, Delhi.
iii) Vijaya Bank, Khureji Khas, Delhi110051 (just 200 meters away).
iv) Gynopeds Clinic (a mother and child care institution) (run by qualified MBBS MD Medical practitioners) (100 meters away).
v) a mosque (150 meters away).
e) The land was valued as per residential rates provided by Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi, which is contrary to law. The alleged land rates were farcical, which cannot be said to be LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 6 of 37 reasonable for determining market value of land in question. LAC has not awarded interest to the claimant / petitioner on 80% compensation, which has been awarded in the impugned award. LAC never served any notice to the claimant / petitioner for completing alleged formalities for payment of 80% compensation and refused the same on flimsy grounds. LAC has not released 80% compensation despite being aware about the proceedings under Contempt of Court Act, 1971 against officials of office of Deputy Commissioner of East Delhi already subjudiced before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. This was/is sheer victimization of petitioner. LAC ought to have awarded compensation to the petitioner @ Rs.25000/ per sq. meter instead of Rs.3647/ per sq. meter. LAC has not made any effort to determine the actual / prevailing market value of land. Award is not based on sound reasonings. The method adopted by LAC for determining the value of land is apparently unjustifiable. LAC has ignored sections 23&24 of LA Act 1894 while determining the compensation and pronouncing the impugned award. Award passed by LAC is not only erroneous but is also unfair and unreasonable. It has been published with a predetermined mind in undue haste and even it is not countersigned by Secretary (Revenue). The land was acquired for public purposes but was put to disposal of MCD, so, MCD is effective and necessary party for adjudicating the reference and prayed that he be awarded compensation @ Rs.25000/ per sq. meter besides solatium and interest alongwith all other benefits prescribed under the law.
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 7 of 37
f) 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.
g) In the written statement, LAC pleaded that the land in question was acquired on the requisition of MCD, thus, MCD is a necessary party. It is further averred that the LAC while issuing the award no. 01/0708 for village Khureji Khas had considered the market value of land on the basis of sale deeds of adjoining lands of the area and other documents which were available at that point of time. Further, the area of land and other amenities/facilities were also taken into consideration by the LAC while issuing the award and the amount awarded is just and legal. Therefore, the reference filed by petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is also averred that petitioner is not admitted to be the owner/bhumidar/interested person in respect of the land and therefore has no locus standi to file the present reference. The correctness of khasra number and share of petitioner are admitted only to the extent as specified by LAC in his statement U/s 19 L.A. Act. The land in question was not surrounded by standing trees, boundary, well or male wall at the time of notification U/s 4 of L.A. Act.
h) MCD in their written statement stated that there is no illegality in award no.1/200708 in respect of 4 bighas 5 biswas (though actually it is 1 bigha 12 biswas) in khasra no.10/16, LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 8 of 37 Khureji Khas and the compensation determined by LAC i.e. Rs.3647/per sq.m. is entirely in accordance with law & therefore petitioner is not entitled to claim enhanced compensation. (II) ISSUES:-
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 14.03.2008:-
1.) Whether the petitioner has any right, title or interest in the land in question? (OPP)
2.) What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of L.A. Act? Onus on parties.
3.) Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation, as prayed for and if so to what extent? (OPP)
4.) Relief.
(III) EVIDENCE:-
a) It is pertinent to mention herein that the evidence in respect of the instant reference petition bearing LAC No.17/2018 was recorded in the lead case registered vide LAC No.16/2018 in view of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 05.03.2007.
b) In the lead case bearing LAC No.16/2018 titled as "Anand Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India" the petitioner, in order to substantiate his case, has examined two witnesses.
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 9 of 37
i) PW1- Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta, petitioner himself has stepped in witness box as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. In his affidavit i.e. Ex. PW-1/A, PW-1 has placed reliance on the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/52, that are:-
Ex.PW1/1 - perpetual lease deed.
Ex.PW1/2 - certified copy of lease deed dt.
08.07.2004.
Ex.PW1/3 - certified copy of lease deed dt.
06.05.2005.
Ex.PW1/4 - certified copy of sale deed dt.
12.04.2006.
Ex.PW1/5 - certified copy of perpetual lease deed dt. 18.11.2005.
Ex.PW1/6 - certified copy of perpetual lease deed dt. 31.05.2002.
Ex.PW1/7 - certified copy of sale deed dt.
25.07.2005.
Ex.PW1/8 - certified copy of perpetual lease deed dt. 01.09.2005.
Ex.PW1/9 - photographs of site of the land.
Ex.PW1/10 - photographs of adjoining area. Ex.PW1/11 - certified copy of judgment dt.
23.01.2008.
Ex.PW1/12 - certified copy of demarcation report dt. 11.10.1999.
Ex.PW1/12A - certified copy of Joint Survey Report and sketch site plan prepared by LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 10 of 37 Filed Kanoongo.
Ex.PW1/13A - certified copy of survey report. Ex.PW1/14 - certified copy of sale deed dt.
31.10.2005.
Ex.PW1/15 - certified copy of conveyance deed dt.
12.05.2005.
Ex.PW1/16 - certified copy of indenture of sale dt.
19.04.2005.
Ex.PW1/17 - certified copy of sale deed dt.
21.10.2005.
Ex.PW1/18 - certified copy of sale deed dt.
08.10.2004.
Ex.PW1/19 - certified copy of agreement to sell dt.
11.05.2005.
Ex.PW1/20 - certified copy of proposal-cum-
resolution no. 227 dt. 14.09.1998.
Ex.PW1/21 - certified copy of letter dt. 02.11.1999 scribed by Dy. Director, Shahdara Zone, MCD to SDM/LAC, Preet Vihar.
Ex.PW1/22 - certified copy of letter dt. 19.02.2001 scribed by Dy. Director, Shahdara Zone, MCD to SDM/LAC, Preet Vihar.
Ex.PW1/23 - certified copy of letter dt. 24.04.2001 scribed by Dy. Director, Shahdara Zone, MCD to SDM/LAC, Preet Vihar.
Ex.PW1/24 - certified copy of judgment dt.
03.09.1973 passed by the Revenue Assistant.
Ex.PW1/25 - certified copy of judgment dt.
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 11 of 37 16.04.1975 passed by Sh. HKS Malik, Ld. ADJ.
Ex.PW1/26 - certified copy of judgment dt.
21.04.1995 in RSA No. 50/1976.
Ex.PW1/27 - certified copy of judgment dt.
14.05.1998 passed by Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court.
Ex.PW1/28 - certified copy of judgment dt.
05.11.2001 in CR No. 245/2001.
Ex.PW1/29 - certified copy of order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 1054/2002 dt. 25.01.2002.
Ex.PW1/30 - certified copy of order dt. 24.06.2006 in Contempt Case No. 59/2006.
Ex.PW1/31 - certified copy of order dt. 16.11.2006. Ex.PW1/32 - certified copy of order dt. 17.04.2007 passed by the Hon'ble High Court.
Ex.PW1/33 - original letter dt. 30.04.2008. Ex.PW1/34 - original envelope in which original letter was received.
Ex.PW1/35 - signed office copy of notice dt.
17.09.2008.
Ex.PW1/36 to Ex.PW1/39 - original postal receipts.
Ex.PW1/40 & Ex.PW1/41 - certified copy of Kabza Karwahi.
Ex.PW1/42 to Ex.PW1/51 - photographs of locality/ are surrounding the land in question. Ex.PW1/52 - Eicher City Map.
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 12 of 37 He has been exhaustively cross-examined by ld. counsel for Union of India. Vide separate statement dated 27.03.2010, counsel for MCD stated that he adopt the cross- examination of PW1 conducted by counsel for Union of India. Thereafter, PW1 was discharged.
ii) PW2- Sh. Narottam Sharma, Assistant, Commercial Land Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan, Near INA, New Delhi has brought the office copy from the office of DDA in respect of perpetual lease deed dated 01.09.2005 executed by the President of India in favour of Parmesh Construction Co. Ltd. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW1/8. PW2 has been exhaustively cross- examined by counsel for Union of India and counsel for MCD and discharged.
Therefore, vide separate statement, petitioner evidence was closed on 15.11.2010.
c) In order to substantiate its case, respondent no.1- Union of India has tendered the award bearing no. 1/2007-08 as Ex.R-1. He has relied upon the photocopy of sale deed dated 17.02.2003 and same was marked as Mark A. Ld. Counsel for MCD had stated that he adopt the evidence led by respondent no.1 and separate statement was recorded to this effect.
Therefore, vide separate statement, respondent evidence was closed on 23.04.2011. After conclusion of evidence, final arguments were heard and the judgment dated 27.08.2015 was LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 13 of 37 passed by my Ld. Predecessor. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble High Court, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by this Court. Upon which the Hon'ble High Court, vide its order, dated 22.03.2018, set aside the impugned judgment of this Court and remanded back the matter to this Court, for recording of additional evidence and for passing order afresh, in accordance with law.
d) In view of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Administrative Officer, Land and Estate Departement, EDMC (R2W1) has tendered his affidavit Ex.R2W1/A and relied upon Ex.R2W1/1 (Copy of notification bearing no. L&DO/F-24013/3/2013-CDN/106 dated 02.05.2017). The cross-examination of R2W1 remained pending since 23.11.2019 and vide order dated 11.10.2022, one last and final opportunity was granted to MCD to lead RE. However, despite umpteen opportunities the evidence of R2W1 was not concluded and vide order dated 09.11.2022, RE was closed on the submissions of respondent no.2 that the matter be listed for final arguments as they do not wish to lead RE.
e) Arguments heard at length. Heard. Record perused. Considered. Accordingly, Issue-wise findings are as follows:-
(IV) Issue-Wise Findings:-
1.) Whether the petitioner has any right, title or LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 14 of 37 interest in the land in question? (OPP)
a) Onus to prove this issue is upon the petitioner. This issue has been framed on the basis of the pleadings of respondents wherein they have challenged the ownership of the petitioner qua the acquired land. However, apart from mere bald averments, no supporting evidence/basis to challenge the ownership of the petitioner has been led. Further, except the petitioner, no one else filed any claim in respect of the land in question before the Ld. LAC or before this Court. As per the petitioner, the father of the petitioner was the owner of the land admeasuring 4 bighas 5 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 10/16 situated in the Village Khureji Khas. The said land was illegally encroached by the MCD and thereafter vide several rounds of litigations, the land in question was released to the petitioner herein and thus it came to be acquired by the LAC for MCD. According to the judgment of the Revenue Assistant, Delhi which has been upheld till the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Ex.PW1/24 to Ex.PW1/32, the petitioner is found to be the recorded owner of the suit land.
b) No evidence in rebuttal has been led by the MCD or the Union of India. Thus, in these circumstances since there is nothing to controvert the title of the petitioner qua the land in question and in view of the judgments passed in series of litigation vide Ex.PW1/24 to Ex.PW1/32 right from the Revenue Assistant till the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that the petitioner has right, title or interest in the land in question. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 15 of 37
2.) What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of L.A. Act?
Onus on parties.
AND
3.) Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation, as prayed for and if so to what extent?
(OPP)
a) Onus to prove this issue is upon the parties. Admittedly, the Union of India or the beneficiary i.e. MCD has not led any positive evidence to support the awarded market value of the land in question except the award Ex.R-1 and sale deed dated 17.02.2003 i.e. Mark A. Sale Deed (Mark A) cannot be relied upon as neither proved by filing certified copy nor pertains to the vicinity of the area in question. Even after the matter was remanded back to this Court for fresh hearing by order of the Hon'ble High Court, none of the respondent has led any evidence. Though MCD produced R2W1- Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Administrative Officer, Land and Estate Department, EDMC, who tendered evidence i.e. Ex.R2W1/A, however, the same is of no use as he was not produced for cross-examination by the petitioner, thus his testimony cannot be looked into. Even otherwise, on subsequent date i.e. 09.11.2022, respondent evidence was closed at the instance of R2W1 only. On the other hand, petitioner in support of his claim has relied upon the following sale deeds:-
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 16 of 37 Ex.PW Date Locality Area Total Amount Amount Nature of per per property sq.m. sq.m.
Ex.PW1/1 06.01.2004 Vivek 135.5 27,42,395/- 20,227/- Residential Perpetual Vihar 8 Plot Lease Deed Ex.PW1/2 08.07.2004 Geeta 91.20 15,05,399/- 16,506/- Residential Lease Deed Colony Plot Ex.PW1/3 06.05.2005 Geeta 91.20 16,21,198/- 17,776/- Residential Lease Deed Colony Plot Ex.PW1/4 12.04.2006 Geeta 91.20 17,04,000/- 18,684/- Built-up Sale Deed Colony Property Ex.PW1/5 18.11.2005 Geeta 91.20 16,43,256/- 18,018/- Residential Perpetual Colony Plot Lease Deed Ex.PW1/6 31.05.2002 Vivek 174.78 32,70,000/- 18,709/- Residential Perpetual Vihar Plot Lease Deed
Ex.PW1/7 25.07.2005 Dayanand 260.3 1,29,50,000/- 49,750/- Residential Sale Deed Vihar Built-up Property Ex.PW1/8 01.09.2005 Karkardo- 192 5,40,10,000/- 2,81,302/ Commercial Perpetual oma - Plot Lease Deed Ex.PW1/14 31.10.2005 Anand 301 75,00,000/- 24,916/- Residential Sale Deed Vihar Built-up Property Ex.PW1/15 12.05.2005 Jhilmil 272.8 50,00,000/- 18,328/- Residential Conveyance Tahirpur Built-up Deed Property Ex.PW1/16 19.04.2005 Preet 476.5 1,30,00,000/- 27,282/- Residential Indenture Vihar Plot of Sale Ex.PW1/17 21.10.2005 East Azad 431.4 55,00,000/- 12,749/- Residential Sale Deed Nagar Built-up Property Ex.PW1/18 08.10.2004 Preet 309.3 1,60,00,000/- 51,729/- Residential Sale Deed Vihar Built-up Property Ex.PW1/19 11.05.2005 Laxmi 925.01 2,41,45,167/- 26,102/- Commercial Agreement to Nagar Property Sell Floor LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 17 of 37
b) Further, ld. Counsel for the petitioner in support of her contentions has also relied upon the judgment passed by another Court in case titled as "Chandra Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr.". Apart from this, the petitioner has also claimed the damages at the rate of 6% per annum upon the market value from the actual date of taking over the possession in the year 1970 till the date of notification i.e. 24.08.2006.
c) Per contra, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 argued that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of peripheral roads and drains for the benefit of MCD, thus, merely because of existence of park and milk booth, the land cannot be considered as commercial one since it is an agricultural land without any amenities or public utilities. He further submits that the land in question was acquired for the welfare of the residents of the area and thus have no commercial value. In support, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "India GOA Housing Board Vs. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar & Anr." and "Lal Chand Vs. Union of India". He further submits that commercial rates of the land in question cannot be awarded considering the situation and potential value of the acquired land. He further submits that the lease deeds/ sale deeds placed on record by the petitioner cannot be relied upon as they have not been proved by the vendor and vendee. In support he has relied upon the judgments titled as "Lal Chand Vs. Union of India" and "P. Ram Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer". He further submits that even the judgment of another Civil Court titled as "Chandra Pratap Singh" (supra) cited by the petitioner cannot be considered as it pertains to the area of Jhilmil Tahirpur LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 18 of 37 which is at the distance of 7 to 8 kms. He further submits that while assessing the market value of the acquired land, the sale instances of the adjoining land cannot be considered because every land has different potentialities as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Kanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India". He also argued that the circle rates cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the market value of the land in question and rather the sale deed is the best evidence for assessing the market value, if proved, according to law. In support, reliance was placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.". Ld. Counsel also submitted that since the determination and compensation in the instant case were made on the basis of the report of Expert Committee, i.e. Schedule of Rates circulated by L&DO, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, it is just and adequate. He further submits that acquired land of Khureji Khas is inferior to Geeta Colony as later one is splendid colony and cannot be compared with the land which is purely underdeveloped or without any amenities. He further submits that additional damages/ compensation claimed qua alleged possession by the MCD is not maintainable since the physical possession of the land under acquisition has been taken by the Land and Building Department on 24.01.2007 only. Even otherwise, no plea in this regard has been taken by the petitioner before the LAC and thus cannot be claimed at this juncture. Finally, he submits that the market value of the land in question awarded by the Ld. LAC is just and appropriate. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to further enhancement in the said rates.
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 19 of 37
d) Respondent no.2 i.e. MCD has also raised similar arguments in support of their contentions and relied upon the following case laws:-
i) Shaji Kariakose & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.
ii) Cement Corporation of India Ltd. V Purya & Ors.
iii) Administrator General of West Bengal V Collector, Varanasi.
iv) A.P. Housing Board Vs. K. Mohan Reddy.
v) G.M. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ramsehbhai Jivanbhai Patel.
vi) Union of India Vs. Savitri Devi.
vii) Lal Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr.
viii) Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
e) Submissions heard. Considered. Before adverting to the issue in question, I deem it appropriate to go through the statements of Objects and Reasons of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which repealed the earlier Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
f) {The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed and has been replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' preceding the Act contains on insight as to why it was thought necessary to repeal the 1894 Act. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
"Statement of Objects and Reasons- the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the general law relating to acquisition of land for public purposes and also for companies and for LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 20 of 37 determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition. The provisions of the said Act have been found to be inadequate in addressing certain issues related to the exercise of the statutory powers of the State for involuntary acquisition of private land and property. The Act does not address the issues of rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons and their families.
**********************
7. There is an imperative need to recognize rehabilitation and resettlement issues as intrinsic to the development process formulated with the active participation of affected persons and families. Additional benefits beyond monetary compensation have to be provided to families affected adversely by involuntary displacement. The plight of those who do not have rights over the land on which they are critically dependent for their subsistence is even worse. This calls for a broader concerted effort on the part of the planners to include in the displacement, rehabilitation and resettlement process framework, not only for those who directly lose their land and other assets but also for all those who are affected by such acquisition. The displacement process often poses problems that make it difficult for the affected persons to continue their traditional livelihood activities after resettlement. This requires a careful assessment of the economic disadvantages and the social impact arising out of displacement. There must also be holistic effort aimed at improving the all-round living standards of the affected persons and families.
**********************
13. To ensure comprehensive compensation package for the land owners a scientific method for calculation of the market value of the land has been proposed. Market value calculated will be multiplied by a factor of two in the rural areas. Solatium will also be increased up to 100 per cent of the total compensation. Where land is acquired for urbanization, 20 per cent of the developed land will be offered to the affected land owners.
**********************
14. Comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement package for land owners including subsistence allowance, jobs, house, one acre of land in cases of irrigation projects, transportation allowance and resettlement allowance is LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 21 of 37 proposed.
15. Comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement package for livelihood losers including subsistence allowance, jobs, house, transportation allowance and resettlement allowance is proposed.
**********************
17. Twenty-five infrastructural amenities are proposed to be provided in the resettlement area including schools and play grounds, health centres, roads and electric connections, assured sources of safe drinking water, Panchayat Ghars, Anganwadis, place of worship, burial and cremation grounds, village level post offices, fair price shops and seed- cum-fertilizers and storage facilities.
18. The benefits under the new law would be available in all the cases of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where award has not been made or possession of land has not been taken".
g) The statement of objects and reasons preceding the 2013 Act reveal that the legislature was aware that the 1894 Act has proved to be grossly inadequate when it came to assessment of compensation for lands which are compulsorily acquired. The 1894 Act also did not provide for rehabilitation and resettlement of persons affected by acquisition. Under the 2013 Act, solatium has been increased to 100% as compared to 30% under the 1894 Act. Further, for rural areas, the market value arrived at is to be multiplied by a factor of "2". Where land is acquired for urbanization, 20% of the developed land will be offered to the land owners. It is further provided that the benefits under the 2013 Act were proposed to be available in all cases of acquisition under 1894 Act where award had not been passed or possession had not been taken over.
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 22 of 37
h) Section 26 of the 2013 Act provides the manner in which the Collector is to determine market value of lands. It lays down the criteria to be followed by the Collector and prescribes that the Collector shall adopt, amongst others, the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated. Thus the 2013 Act statutorily incorporated circle rates for consideration for determining market value. Section 24 of the 2013 Act provides that in certain cases, land acquisition process under the 1894 Act shall be deemed to have lapsed. It provides that in cases where the Collector has not rendered his award then the provisions of 2013 Act would apply. Section 24(2) further provides that where an award has been passed by the Collector five years or more prior than the commencement of the 2013 Act but physical possession of acquired lands has been taken over or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thus, the intent and purport of the 2013 Act was to provide the substantial benefits available under the 2013 Act to as many persons as possible. Unfortunately, for the petitioner, herein, he does not fall within the parameters of Section 24 of the 2013 Act so as to be entitled to its benefits.}
i) Now coming to the issue before hand, with the passage of time, the law for ascertainment of the market value of the acquired land has evolved and various methods have been adopted by the Higher Courts to ascertain the market value of the land under acquisition. From a holistic readings of the various LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 23 of 37 pronouncements of the various Higher Courts, the following guidelines can be safely culled out as under:-
"• While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of lands acquired by the State, market value of the same is to be determined. The basic principle is that market value means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition with all existing advantages and its potential possibility when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property had been compulsorily acquired. • There are different methods ascertaining market value. The methods of valuation which may be adopted are (i) opinion of experts (ii) price paid within reasonable time (ii) any bonafide transaction of purchase of land acquired or land adjacent having similar advantages (iii) capitalization method or its potential value for acquisition or developed or developing colonies or nearness to roads etc. • The comparable sales method is the preferred mode over other methods of valuation. The most relevant piece of evidence which can form basis of determining market value are sale deeds pertaining to portion of land belonging to the same area which has been acquired, executed prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Factors to be kept in mind for determining market value on comparable sale method are that (i) sale must be a genuine transaction
(ii) sale must have been executed at a time proximate to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act,
(iii) land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (iv) land covered by the sale must be similar to the acquired land and (v) the size of the plot of land covered by the sale must be comparable to the and acquired.
If all the factors are satisfied then there is no reason why sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However if there is dissimilarity regarding location, sale, site or nature of land between the land covered by sale and lands acquired, it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for the acquired lands than what is reflected in the sale depending upon advantages attached to the land.
• Where there were several exemplars with reference to similar land it was a general rule that highest exemplar, if the Court was satisfied that the same was a bonafide LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 24 of 37 transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bonafide transaction between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of acquisition.
• Market value of the land is to be determined as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and not as it prevails on the date on which land has been fully developed. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Court may take recourse to other methods. Admissible evidence in which cases would be the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of land made in the same village or neighbouring village. Such judgments and awards in the absence of any other evidence like sale deeds reports of experts and other relevant evidence, would be evidentiary value where notification under Section 4 of the Act is subsequent to a judgment or an award in respect of an earlier acquisition of land in the same or neighbouring villages. Increase in the market value as determined in the previous award can be given. The converse i.e. where notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act is subsequent, then a decrease can also be effected for arriving at a market value.
• Compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. Comparable instances have to be identified having regard to proximity of time as well as proximity with respect to situation. In order to determine market value of land acquired suitable adjustment will have to be made for various positive and negative factors which have been described as under:-
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) largeness of area
(i) smallness of size
(ii) situation in the interior at a
(ii) proximity to a road
distance from the road
(iii) frontage on a road
(iii) narrow strip of land with very
(iv) nearness to developed area
small frontage compared to depth
(v) regular shape
iv) lower level requiring the
(vi) level vis-a-vis land under
depressed portion to be filled up
acquisition
(v) remoteness from developed
(vii) special value for an owner
locality
of an adjoining property to whom
vi) some special disadvantageous
it may have some very
factors which would deter a
special advantage.
purchaser
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 25 of 37
• Section 23 of the Act lists the factors to be considered by the Court to determine compensation. It provides that the claimant will be entitled to market value of the land as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He would also be entitled to damages if any suffered by him because of acquisition of land. The function of the Court in determining the amount of compensation is to ascertain market value of the land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The burden is on the claimant to establish that the amount awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate and that he is entitled to more. Only if the initial burden is discharged the burden shifts on the State to justify the award. • Section 24 of the Act precludes subsequent developments from being taken into considerable to determine compensation.
• Need to take into consideration the value of the land adjacent to the acquired land or near-about area which possess same potentiality to work out the price fetched for determination of market value of the acquired land arises only when there is no evidence of value of the acquired land. Where evidence regarding value of the acquired land itself is on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence in considering market value particularly for the adjacent land. • The lands which are freehold and lands which are burdened with encumbrances make a difference while attracting a willing purchaser. Freehold land commands a higher compensation as compared to lands which are burdened with encumbrances. The effect of tenants in occupation would be an encumbrance and no willing purchaser would offer the same price as would be offered for freehold land.
• The guideline value or circle rates fixed by the authorities under the Stamp Act for determination of market value of the property are not final but are only prima facie rates prevalent in the area. The guideline value or circle rate cannot be taken to be of such worth on the aspect of market value of the land. However such guideline factors which are contained in non-statutory basic value registers are different when compared to the guideline market value and circle rates as determined by expert committees constituted under State Stamp law. Determination of guideline value or circle rates by expert committees constituted under a State Stamp LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 26 of 37 Act are effected after following detailed procedure laid down in the relevant rules and publication in the State Gazette after inviting objections or suggestions from the members of public. Such guidelines value or minimum rates for registration of properties determined under statutory procedure can form a relevant piece of evidence for determining market value.
• If the sale deeds relied upon by the State reveals a lesser market value than the compensation awarded by the Collector, the same cannot be ignored but Section 25 of the Act provides that the Court should not award an amount which is lesser than what was awarded by the Collector. • In the case of Om Prakash versus State of Haryana & Others reported in 2011 IV AD (SC) 384 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the question of potentiality or potential value of acquired land can be recognized only some time in future and it was open to the land owners to contend that potential can be examined firstly at the time of reference under Section 18 of the Act, first appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or even in the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. It was held that the collector is an agent of State Government and they are extra ordinarily chary in awarding compensation and land owners have to fight for decades before they are able to get their dues. It was held that although the Act provided for payment of solatium, interest and additional about it was common knowledge that even these payments do not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of India and most certainly in North India and these payments cannot fully compensate for acquisition of land and payment of compensation in driblets. It was held that 12% per annum increase which courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose lands have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15 per cent per annum but is often up to 100% in a year for the land which has the potential of being urbanized or commercialized. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that there is wide spread tendency to undervalue the sale price and provision of Collector's rates has only marginally corrected the anomaly as these rates are also abnormally low and do not reflect the true value.
• In the case of Shub Ram versus State of Haryana & Another reported in 2010 (I) AD (SC) 619 the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the sale deeds relied upon by the LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 27 of 37 LAC reveals consideration which was far less than the compensation offered by the LAC. In view of large variance in the market value disclosed by the sale deeds relied upon by the LAC and those by the claimants and the fact that value of the land disclosed in the sale deed relied upon by the LAC was even less than it was offered by itself. The inference which was drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that the sale deeds relied upon by the LAC were undervalued or were distress sales and are to be excluded from consideration as being unreliable."
j) The principles of law as enunciated are now to be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case in order to ascertain market value of the land of the petitioner which have compulsorily been acquired by the State. Before proceeding further, it will be first appropriate to ascertain the nature of the land which was acquired by the LAC. For this purpose one can straight away refer to the contents of the award of this case i.e. Ex.R-1 of the LAC relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:-
"The village Khureji Khas has already been urbanized and there is no agriculture land right now, the total area of this Khasra no.10/16 is 4 bigha 5 biswas as per revenue record. Out of this area, 2 bigha 6 biswas has been notified and acquired vide Award No. 15/DC (E)/2004-05 announced on 06.09.2004. The remaining area of Khasra no.10/16 min, 1 bigha 19 biswa was required by requisition on agency (MCD). During survey on 04.08.2006, it was found that 0-7 Biswa of land was under heavy built up and 1 bigha 12 biswas of land is available for acquisition. The physical possession of the land under acquisition has already been taken over/handed over to the Land & Building Department on 24.01.2007 U/s 17 (1) L.A. Act, 1894.
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 28 of 37 To arrive at a fair market value, the locality of the site, the situation of the area, the quality, potentiality and use of land were kept in mind. The properties under acquisition are situated in Village Khureji Khas and surrounded by residential areas therefore the same are being assessed on residential rates.
Keeping the above facts in mind, two methods of valuation of land under execution are examined. As a second method, the schedule of rates circulated by L&DO Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment vide letter dated 15.04.1999 for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 was referred. It was noted that the indicative price of the land in the nearby area of Geeta colony was notified @ of Rs.2805/- per sq. metr. for residential use. The residential colony of Geeta Colony is adjacent to the village Khureji Khas. Therefore, the rates notified for Geeta Colony are taken as the basis for arriving at the market value of the above referred land in Khureji Khas. However, the rates notified by the L&DO are applicable up to 31.03.2000 only and the same are not yet revised. By looking into rates announced in the past by the L&DO for different period is was found that the rates were applicable up to 31.03.1998 were enhanced by 10% to arrive at the new rates which made applicable from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000. On the same basis and in view of the non- availability of the new rate from 01.04.2000. I consider 10% enhancement of the notified rate of Rs.2805/- per sq. meter for every two years without cumulative effect. Thus, for a period from 2000 to 2006 (2006 is the date of notification u/s 4), there has been 10x3=30% rise in six years on the basic price of land. Under this criteria, the basic land price of Rs.2805/- per square meter gets the 30 per cent rise which works out to be 3647/- per LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 29 of 37 square meter. The year of notification u/s 4 of L.A. Act, 1894, that is, 2006, the market value of land comes to Rs.3647/- per sq. meter. Therefore, I assess the market value of the land as Rs.3647/- per sq. meter."
k) Upon holistic reading of this award it can safely be gathered that the land in question is urbanized and not agricultural. Further, substantial portion of the land sought to be acquired is under heavy built-up structure, so could not be acquired. Further, acquired land is surrounded by residential areas and is adjacent to Geeta Colony. Further, as per joint survey report and sketch site plan Ex.PW1/12A and Ex.PW1/13A, land in question is surrounded by road on three sides, heavy built up structures, residential areas and it is adjacent to Geeta Colony. Existence of a developed park since 1970 is also not in dispute. Therefore, the contentions contrary to this raised by the ld. Counsels for the respondents are rejected outrightly. Now, the factual matrix emerging on the basis of record is as under:-
l) The land in question is a part of total land admeasuring 4 bigha 5 biswas on which MCD was maintaining a park since 1970. Large piece of the land in question was already acquired by the LAC vide Award No. 15/DC(E)/2004-05 dated 06.09.2004.
Out of remaining portion of 1 bigha 19 biswas, 1,345 sq. metre (1 bigha 12 biswas) was only acquired since the left over was heavily built up, meaning thereby, the land in question was surrounded by buildings and residential units. Further, as per the site plan, sketch plan and joint survey report vide Ex.PW1/12A and Ex.PW1/13A and kabza karwahi vide Ex.PW1/40 prepared LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 30 of 37 at the instance of respondents only, the land in question was surrounded by roads from three sides and the construction on the fourth side. Upon conjoint reading of kabza karwahi, site plan and joint survey report and the findings of the Ld. LAC recorded in the Award No. 01/2007-08, it can safely be gathered that the photographs Ex.PW1/42 to Ex.PW1/51 placed on record by the petitioners reflect the true picture and the status of the land in question at the time of acquisition. As per these photographs, the land in question is surrounded by fully developed residential units and having all the basic amenities. Admittedly, MCD park is in existence since 1970. Meaning thereby, basic amenities ought to have been made available for the beneficial enjoyment of the park. Thus, the contentions of respondents qua land being undeveloped and lacking basic amenities is rejected. At the same time, the contention to the effect that land in question could not fetch commercial value is upheld since it was primarily a residential area. Even the presence of MCD park indicates it to be residential area. However, reliance by the petitioner on the judgment of another Court in case titled as "Chandra Pratap Singh" (supra), is misplaced it being passed by concurrent jurisdiction Court and of different area. Further, as far as contention of lease deeds/ sale deeds not proved by vendor or vendee is concerend, the law is no more res integra that examination of vendor or vendee is not necessary as held in "Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Purya & Ors." (Civil Appeal No. 6986/2003). Hence, this contention is also rejected. As far as claim of damages from the date of actual possession i.e. year 1970 is concerned since it has been raised only at the stage of arguments, the same cannot be considered being beyond LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 31 of 37 pleadings. Another contention that every land has different potentialities and thus, sale instances of adjoining land cannot be considered also do not hold water since, the LAC himself relied upon the rates of Geeta Colony stated it to be adjacent colony. Further since neither side has tendered the sale deed of the land in question, the best way to assess the market value is by comparing the sale deeds of adjacent land. Keeping in mind the above said factual position, potentiality and the status of the land in question, at the time of notification of the acquisition, the market value of the land in question has to be assessed.
m) The LAC has awarded the compensation on the basis of the Schedule of Rates circulated by L&DO Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment for the period 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000, however, as per the catena of judgments, the same cannot be the basis of ascertainment of true market value of the land in question and the best method to assess the market value of the land in question is what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a similarly placed land. Further, the Schedule of Rates placed on record by R2W1 (though not proved) shows that the Schedule of Residential Land Rates vide Ex.R2W1/1 are the rates accepted by the L&DO to align the rates of residential land being administered by L&DO to that of conversion land rates of DDA for residential properties only and thus does not depict the market rates. Further, on perusal of these land rates, it is observed that the common rates were prescribed for the entire East Delhi irrespective of the potentiality, development and topography of the different areas of East Delhi. Thus, since the entire East Delhi has been categorized in Zone-V and the common rate has been LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 32 of 37 prescribed, the same cannot be the basis for ascertaining the true market value of the land in question.
n) However, since it is a case of a scanty evidence led by the petitioner versus no evidence led by the respondents, at this juncture, I am remindful of the observation made in the case titled as "Narendra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors." 2017 XII AD (SC) 288 wherein it is held that:-
"Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon who explains the meaning and contour of social justice adjudication as the application of equality jurisprudence evolved by the Parliament and the Supreme Court in myriad situations presented before courts where unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and where courts are called upon to dispense equal justice. Apart from the socio-economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. In such a situation, the Court has to be not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice. The Courts, in such situations, generally invoke the principle of fairness and equality which are essential for dispensing justice".
o) Applying the above principles and considering the fact that the respondents have not led any evidence to rebut the evidences led by the petitioner, the best way to ascertain the market value in the case before hand is to rely upon comparable sale deeds/lease deeds filed by the petitioner only. Though the petitioner has relied upon the sale deeds/ lease deeds of various areas such as Vivek Vihar, Preet Vihar, Dayanand Vihar etc., however, apart from Geeta Colony, the rest are discarded as neither proximity LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 33 of 37 nor similarity with the land in question has been shown, rather pertains to the affluent areas of East Delhi. However, since the LAC himself has relied upon the rates of Geeta Colony and stated it to be adjacent to the land in question, I find no reason to differentiate between the market value of Geeta Colony and the land in question if similarly placed. Therefore, in order to assess the market value of land in question on the date of notification, reliance is placed on the sale deeds/ lease deeds of Geeta Colony i.e. Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5. Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5 are the lease deeds pertaining to the residential plots of Geeta Colony for the years 2004 & 2005. As per these lease deeds, market value of the lease hold plots are ranging between Rs.16,000/- per sq.m. to Rs.18,000/- per sq.m. Ex.PW1/4 is the sale deed of April, 2006 for residential built-up property of Geeta Colony @ Rs.18,684/- per sq.m.
p) Admittedly, rates of lease hold property are lesser than freehold property. At the same time, built-up property attracts more market value as compared to vacant land. In "Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa & Anr." (2010) 13 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"13. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of all the exemplars, which is a bona fide transactions, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price.
But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 34 of 37 reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-
valuation or other price depressing reasons."
q) Thus, taking average of above sale transactions vide Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5, the market value of residential plots in the vicinity of Geeta Colony between year 2004 to 2006 comes to Rs.17,746/- per sq.m.
r) However, since there cannot be a straight jacket formula to assess the market value of one piece of land on the basis of market value of other pieces of adjacent land, other factors such as size, status, development of the area concerned comes into picture. At the same time, though circle rates cannot be the sole criteria to assess the market value but a good prima facie indicator. In this case, the circle rate for land in question falling in the area of Chander Nagar under Category 'F' was Rs.16,100/- per sq.m. in the year 2007.
s) Therefore, in the totality of circumstances, considering the prevailing market rate of residential plots in Geeta Colony, their size, development status, potentiality, proximity in time/place vis-a-vis land in question, I am of the considered opinion, that after deducting 10% on account of size difference, 10% on account of development status and 10% on account of proximity in place, from the average market value of residential areas of Geeta Colony would be the comparable market value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. 24.08.2006. Hence, it is held that market value of the land in question i.e. 1 bigha 12 LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 35 of 37 biswas (1,345 sq.m.) falling under Khasra No. 16/10 situated in the revenue estate of Village Khureji Khas is assessed at Rs.12,422/ per sq.m. (Rs.17,746-30% = Rs.12,422/ per sq.m.).
t) Accordingly, the petitioner herein, namely, Sh. Chander Prakash Gupta is held entitled to the compensation @ Rs.12,422/ per sq.m. in respect of his 1/8th undivided share out of 1 bigha 12 biswas land acquired vide award in question. Accordingly, issue nos. 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
4.) Relief.
a) In view of the findings on issue nos. 1, 2 and 3, the petition/ reference filed U/s 18 of L.A. Act, is allowed. The petitioner had claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- per sq.metre, which is now fixed and allowed @ Rs.12,422/- per sq.metre.
b) According to the awards, 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 petitioner has 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 (24.08.2006) till the date of possession i.e. 24.01.2007. Accordingly, the same is also allowed on the present market value, fixed as above.
LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 36 of 37
d) According to the award, interest U/s 34 of LA Act, 1894 was also allowed observing that MCD had taken the land on 24.01.2007 and as such petitioner is entitled to interest on the balance amount, as per section 34 of LA Act, 1894 @ 9% per annum from the date of possession i.e. 24.01.2007 till expiry of one year and thereafter, @ 15% per annum till payment. The same is also allowed on the enhanced market value of the land in question, as determined above.
e) 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, as were fixed by the LAC vide Award No.01/2007- 08/East dated 03.05.2007.
A copy of this judgment be sent to SDO/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 15.03.2023 (Ajay Garg) Additional District Judge-01 (East)/KKD/Delhi LAC No.17/18 Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India Pg No. 37 of 37