Delhi District Court
M- _____/2016 vs Uoi & Anr. 1/14 on 6 August, 2016
M- _____/2016
in
LAC No. 74/10/08
06.08.2016
An application filed by petitioner under Section 152
read with Section 151 CPC for rectification of judgment and decree
dated 04.05.2016. It be checked and registered as Misc. Case.
Present: Sh. Amresh Anand, Counsel for the applicant/
petitioner.
Ld. Counsel submits that reference was filed by the
petitioner in the name and style of M/s. Structural Fabricators Pvt.
Ltd. However, during the pendency of petition, the petitioner
company was transferred to M/s. Anant Raj Projects Limited and
amalgamation was allowed by Hon'ble Company Court at Delhi
High Court. To this effect, an order was passed on 08.04.2010.
However, no amended memo of parties filed by petitioners due to
bonafide error. It is stated that M/s. Structural Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.
may be substituted with M/s. Anand Raj Projects and suitable
rectification may be carried out.
I have heard and perused the record. As per order
dated 08.04.2010, the petitioner was allowed to be substituted by
M/s. Anant Raj Projects Pvt. Ltd. But petitioner has not filed
amended memo of parties. I exercise powers under Section 152
and 151 CPC and rectify judgment to this effect. Only memo of
parties is corrected as per amended memo filed on record along
with the application. The corrected memo be typed in the judgment
and decree dated 04.05.2016. Corrected judgment be uploaded on
the Internet. Decree sheet also be amended/corrected suitably.
Application is decided accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sanjay Kumar)
ADJ-02,West/Delhi
06.08.2016
LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 1/14
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
(Corrected judgment in terms of order dated 06.08.2016)
LAC No.74/10/08
Unique Case ID No. 02401C1039172008
Area: DLF Industrial Area, Patel Road,
70, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi
Award No.: 2/DC(W)2006-2007 dated 30.08.2006
M/s Anant Raj Projects Limited,
Regd. Office at ARA Centre,
E-2, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi ....Petitioners
versus
1. Land & Building Department,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
B-Block, Vikas Bhawan,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
Through Secretary (Land)
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandani Chowk,
Delhi
Through Commissioner .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 24.04.2006
Date of reserving of judgment : 22.04.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.05.2016
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 11785.82 Sq. Mtr under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 2/14 notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9174 dated 03.09.2003 also under Section 6 vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9375 dated 02.09.2004. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9376 dated 02.09.2004. The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of grade/flyover at Najafgarh Road & Patel Road Intersection near Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 02/DC (W)/2006-2007 dated 30.08.2006 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.20900/- per square meter. The structure also valued as per valuation report submitted by DMRC Ltd. duly vetted by PWD. The structure of the petitioners assessed as per Award for value of Rs.104631/- and Rs.153504/-.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector petitioners were shown as recorded owner of the acquired land.
Sl. Entry Name of Field Total Share Kind Details of
No. No. petitioners No. area of Trees/
Bigha - soil Buildings/
Biswa Crops
Through Director Property No. 67 DLF Area 438.94
Sh. Pankaj Nakra Industrial Area Najafgarh
New Delhi
4. The petitioner 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.
LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 3/14
5. In brief the facts stated are that petitioner is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and Sh. Pankaj Nakra, one of the Directors has been authorized to sign, verify and file the present petition. It is stated that vide above award part of the property of the petitioner bearing No. 67, DLF Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, Najafgarh Road, Delhi has been acquired. The total area acquired out of property no. 67 is 438.94 sq. mts. sqm. It is further stated that the petitioners were owners in possession of 438.94 sq.mtrs. land forming part of property No. 67, DLF Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and even thereafter so the petitioners are the interested persons to file the present reference petition.
6. It is further stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector is too low, unjust, arbitrary, without any reasonable basis and the same is not acceptable to the petitioners, interalia, on the grounds as under:
7. It is stated that the property under acquisition is a part of big industrial plot situated on the main Patel Road. It is an admitted fact as per the award that the land under acquisition is an industrial property situated in Kirti Nagar and have residential, commercial activities in the vicinity. This fact alone makes it abundantly clear that the land in question had potential value as industrial as well as commercial site and all around in the vicinity the land is/was being used as industrial as well as for commercial purposes.
LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 4/14
8. It is stated that the Collector through has admitted the land to be the industrial property and having commercial potential has valued the same at the schedule of rate which was fixed by Deptt. Of Urban Development, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment vide its letter dated 16.04.1999 wherein in the indicative price of land in Patel Nagar area was given as Rs.11,550/- per sq. mtr for rersidential purposes and Rs.24,150/- per sq. mtr. For commercial purposes. The Collector had relied upon the rates fixed in the year 1999 and granted the compensation to the petitioner based on the rates which were not even revised from March, 2000. The present value of the land acquired by Collector is much higher and the valuation decided by the Collector cannot be the actual price of the land. The conversion charges are charged by the authorities with regard to residential property or other properties are sought to be converted for the purposes of user. It is stated that conversion charges by no stretch of imagination could be the market value of the land. The market value of the land is where the land of an ordinary prudent person will be prepared to sell his property and a man of ordinary prudence is willing to purchase the same. The price which is falling between the two constitutes the market value. The market value of the land around the vicinity at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act was not less than Rs.2,50,000/- lacs per sqm. meters.
9. It is further stated that the property in question is situated on main Road having a great potential value as a perfect industrial site and was otherwise fit for any commercial activities. The land in question had a permitted LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 5/14 use of industrial nature and has flatted factories. It is stated that the matter regarding user of the land which was earlier used for extensive industry came up from Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWP No. 467/1985 titled as 'M.C. Mehta vs. UOI' wherein it has been held that all plots which were earlier used to existing industries would be used only for light and service industry. As per the permissible use in Zone M (I) light and service industries the following are permissible; Hospitals, Guest House, Boarding House, Lodging House, Storage House, Warehouse, Cold Storage, Ice Factory, Gas Godown, Cinema, Bus Depot and Workshop and Nursing Home, Auditorium, Nigh Shelter, Weekly market, Junk Yard, Motel Garage, Flattered group industry, railway freight godown, vocational training centre, R & D Centre, Museum, Exhibition Centre and Art Gallery. The DDA vide resolution dated 18.08.2001 as alleged, commercial usage of industrial plot on payment of certain charges. With this back ground the plot of the petitioners would be used for any of the purposes detailed herein above and all purposes are commercial in nature and could fetch a very decent income for the petitioners. Even otherwise the permissible user being absolutely commercial, will definitely fetch a better price.
10. It is stated that the land of the petitioner is well connected to various parts of Delhi, approachable by mettled roads from all sides, one side is Patel Road, the other side is Kirti Nagar Industrial area road, the third side is Rama Road and the other road is leading towards Moti Nagar Industrial Area. The land being situated in such a position has market potential and is of great commercial/industrial value. All sort of civic amenities such as electricity, water transport, LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 6/14 telephone, bus service, sewerage, educational institutions etc. are easily available to the lands of the petitioners.
11. It is stated that the topography of the land which has been acquired is phenomenally exceptional within the close proximity of about 1 - ½/2 kms there are posh residential colonies like Patel nagar, Rajender Nagar, Rajendra Park, Rajendra Place, Karol Bagh, Pusha Road etc. on the other side are the posh residential colonies of west Delhi like Rajouri Garden, Raja Garden, Kirti Nagar residential area, Bali Nagar etc. This being the topography, the land of the petitioner is of the highest value being on the perfect location and thus enjoys a great potential value.
12. It is further stated that the question regarding fixation of market rates of the property in the vicinity came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on various occasions and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in unambiguous terms held that 2-3 kms. Distance is of no consequence in relation to the properties situated in urban areas or in urban agglomeration as the properties are capable of fetching the same market value. Petitioner also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in LC Officers vs. Eluru & others Vs. Smt. Jasti Rohini & Others, 1995 Vol. I SCC 717.
13. It is further stated that the Collector has made no effort to find out the existing market rate in the vicinity. The award indicates only one sale deed which is no way can reflect the market value of the lands in the area. Petitioner also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Dev Nagri vs. P. Veera Bhadha Rappa & others 1984 Lvol. 2 SCC 120.
LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 7/14
14. It is further stated that the land of the petitioner have huge super structure in the shape of boundary wall, gate, iron grill, rooms etc. The said construction was a class construction. The assessment as made by the LAC is very nominal. It is further stated that calculated from any method the value of the super structure which was existing on the spot at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act could not be valued less than Rs.50 lacs and the petitioner claim the same amount as value for super structure.
15. The petitioner prayed for enhanced compensation along with statutory solatium and interest.
16. Written Statement filed by Union of India, in which preliminary objections taken that the petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed only on the false and fictitious grounds and the Collector has already assessed the correct market value of the land in question at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is further stated that the title/ right of the petitioner to claim any compensation or enhancement thereof is denied as he is not the recorded owner in the revenue record. The correctness of the Khasra numbers, their area and the extent of the share of the petitioner therein are admitted only to the extent as specified by the Collector in his statement furnished under Section 19 of the Act. The petitioner had failed to furnish any evidence in their favour in respect of the relief claimed in the present petition in response to the notice issued by the Collector under Section 9 & 10 of the Act to them. The land in question was not surrounded by any LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 8/14 developed or under developed colonies and was used for agricultural purpose only. There were no standing trees, boundary, wall etc. on the land in question at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The averments made in the reference petition by the petitioner are stoutly denied and opposed. The present petition is barred by limitation. On merits all the averments and grounds made in the petition are denied. It is stated that the amount awarded by the Collector is adequate, sufficient, just and legal, which is based on cogent and reliable evidence and hence there is no scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
17. Respondent no.2 also filed written statement and denied the averments made in the petition. It is submitted that the Collector has consdiered conversion charge issued by the DDA, the schedule of rate for residential and commercial purpose circulated by the Deptt. Of Urban Development, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment vide letter No. J- 22011/4/95-LD dated 16.04.1999 and price paid within reasonable timeframe in a bona fide transaction of similar land possessing similar value. In addition to these, locational advantage of being situated on main road has been well borne in mind while assessing the market value to the tune of Rs.20,900/- per sq. meter. It is stated that the claimants did not supply any valid evidence regarding to industrial land even on being asked by the Collector to prove supportive evidence to their claim. It is stated that the Collector has relied upon the best method of compensation assessment to achieve the market value of the property. The principle of evaluating similarly advantageous land in the proximity of LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 9/14 time and place is the best one widely accepted in the judicial determination of the market value. The award of compensation passed in respect of land in question is appropriate.
18. Petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent no.1. The petitioner has denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the petition.
19. On the basis of pleadings, my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 17.07.2009 framed the following issues:
1. What was the market value of the acquired property in question at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any enhancement, if yes, to what an extent?
OPP
3. Relief.
20. In support of its case, petitioner company examined PW1 Sh. Pankaj Nakra. Thereafter, the petitioner evidence was closed vide court order dated 07.01.2016.
21. From the side of respondents, Sh. S.S. Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India tendered the copy of Award in question as Ex. R-1 and thereafter he closed LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 10/14 the R/E. Resondent no.2 has not led any evidence and evidence of respondent no.2/ MCD was closed vide court order on 18.02.2016.
22. I have heard arguments on behalf of Sh. Rakesh Lakra, Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. S.S. Mittal, Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1 & 2:
23. Issue no. 1 & 2 are taken up simultaneously as both are interconnected. It is essential to scrutinize the evidence led by parties.
24. Petitioner examined only one witness PW1 Sh.Pankaj Nakra, who in his affidavit of evidence Ex. P-1, reiterated the facts stated in the petition and exhibited copy of Board Resolution dated 04.05.2010 as Ex. PW1/1, copy of sale deed dated 17.06.2008 as Ex. PW1/2, copy of valuation report prepared by Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj as Ex. PW1/3, copy of valuation report prepared by Architect B.K. Chauhan and Associates as Ex. PW1/4, copies of documents pertaining to auction dated 30.07.2004 as Ex. PW1/5.
25. In his cross-examination PW1 Sh. Pankaj Nakra deposed that he has not filed any authority letter before this Court at the time of filing the suit. He volunteered that he has filed Board of resolution dated 04.05.2010 in his favour. He has also filed on record Board resolution dated 05.09.2006 in his favour. He does not remember whether he had appeared LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 11/14 before LAC. He admitted that he had filed a claim for enhancement of compensation before LAC during award proceedings. He has filed certain sale deeds before the LAC during award proceedings. One of the sale deed is Ex. PW1/2 and the other is Mark C. He admitted that part of their land i.e. 438.94 sq. meter was acquired by the Government. The a question that whether the industrial unit set up by him at the premises in question was acquired. To which the witness replied that the front portion of the built up area i.e. the main portion was acquired and volunteered that it was main valuable portion. He denied the suggestion that the property in question was not situated on the main road. To a question that the property was not situated on the main road i.e. road of 120 feet wide road. The witness answered that it was partly on said road.
26. PW1 in his cross-examination further deposed that he does not remember if he has issued any letter etc. to LAC that he intends to assess the value of the property from approved valuer. The property in question is situated on main Patel Road. The property in question is at distance of 3.5 kilometer from Karol Bagh. He admitted that the said property is situated at around 3.00 kilometer from Pusa Raod. He does not remember if on the day when notification under Section 4 of the Act if he was holder of valid license to run industry from the property in question. He has claimed Rs.2.10 lac per sq. yards as compensation. He has filed valuation report in this regard. He has filed sale deeds of the property of the same vicinity showing the rates in this regard. He does not remember if he has filed any document of conversion rates of DDA. The unacquired land is being used as commercial use LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 12/14 i.e. shops, malls etc. He does not remember the exact area owned by him prior to acquisition, approximately it was around 8 acres. At the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the same vicinity certain commercial activities were also going on. He does not remember if the said commercial activities were going with approval of government/DDA etc. He denied the suggestions put to him.
27. I have considered the respective submissions of the parties and perused the evidence led by parties. The petitioner relied on Mark B i.e. valuation report of Sh.B.K. Chauhan. However, the valuer Sh. B.K. Chauhan failed to appear in the witness box and the valuation report has not been proved as per law. Therefore, same cannot be looked into for appreciating the alleged market value by the petitioner. The petitioner further relied on sale deed Ex. PW1/2. The sale deed pertains to year 2008. However, in the present reference petition the land in question acquired on 04.03.2003. Therefore, the sale deed of the year 2008 is not relevant to be looked into to determine the fair market value of the land in question. Neither of the parties produced and exhibited any sale deed of the same area of the adjoining area with regard to Section 4 notification dated 02.09.2004. Therefore, the fair market value cannot be determined on the basis of sale deed. The petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that the value of structure assessed by the Collector is not just and property and same should have been enhanced.
28. Now coming to the other factor, the acquisition of land of the same area vide award No. 07/DC (W)/2004-05 can be referred, wherein the Section 4 notification was issued on LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 13/14 04.03.2003. The fair market value determined by Ld. ADJ in M/s. Sylvania & Laxman Ltd. vs. UOI & Another in LAC No. 127/09/06, decided on 08.05.2009. The market value was fixed at Rs.26896.62 per sq. meter, thereby enhanced the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.7236.62 per sq. mtr. This judgment challenged before Hon'ble High Court. However, as per contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent, the same has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, in my considered opinion, as per well settled law in the case of Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India, 93 (2001) DLT 150, normally 12% appreciation per year is given by the courts keeping in view the appreciation of the land value. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act notified on 02.09.2004. So there is a gap of around 18 months. In order to arrive at a fair market price, appreciation shall be given for 18 months @ 12% per annum. Hence, fair market value is Rs.31733.59 per sq. meter. Petitioner is held entitled to the enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,833.59 per sq. meter only in respect of the acquired land. Accordingly, both the issues are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
29. In view of my finding on issue no. 1 and 2 and additional issue, the petitioners are awarded compensation @ Rs.31733.59 per sq. meter (Rupees thirty one thousand seven hundred thirty three and paisa fifty nine only). The petitioners are thus entitled to enhancement to the tune of Rs.10,833.59 (Rupees ten thousand eight hundred thirty three and paisa fifty nine only) per sq. meter along with 30% solatium.
LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 14/14 Petitioners are also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification till the date of possession as per Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking over of possession of the land in question and 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the entire payment of compensation is made as per Section 28 of the Act.
30. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and deposit of balance amount immediately to avoid further burden upon the Government Exchequer.
31. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
32. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 4th May, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 04.05.2016 LAC No. 74/10/08 Anant Raj Projects Limited vs. UOI & Anr. 15/14