Delhi District Court
Suresh Goel vs Union Of India Ans on 28 September, 2024
Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
DLST010002932014
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh.
LAC NO. 18/2016
FILING NO. 5536/2014
CNR No. DLST01-000293-2014
In the matter of :-
Suresh Goel
S/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad Goel,
R/o 145, Sultanpur,
Mehrauli Gurgaon Road,
New Delhi ........Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through
Land Acquisition Collector (South),
M.B. Road, Saket,
New Delhi.
2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Chairman
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi - 110001. .........Respondents
Reference received on : 04.03.2014
Date of Institution : 05.03.2014
Date on which order was reserved : 03.09.2024
Date of Award : 28.09.2024
LAC NO. 18/2016
Page 1 of 38
Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
AWARD BY THE COURT
1. The present reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was received from the office of Land Acquisition Collector (South) on an application moved by the petitioner, who have sought enhancement of the monetary award given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the assessment of the market value of the acquired land was done on the lower side without considering the relevant factors for correctly assessing the market value of the land in question. The reference was received from the office of LAC (South) on 04.03.2014.
2. For answering the present reference petition, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act: 01.07.2008 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act: 01.07.2008 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act: 01.07.2008
(iii) For Project: Construction of Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Ph-II
(iv) Date of possession taken: 11.08.2008
(v) Location/Name of Village: Sultanpur
(vi) Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC: 14B/2009-2010 & date of Award: 10.03.2010
(vii) Area under this reference petition: 145 m (154.69) and 154 m (830-17) total 984-86 sq. mtr.
(viii) Market value of land held by LAC: 53,00,000/-per acre
(ix) Date of reference petition to LAC: 13.05.2010
(x) Petition referred to Court on: 04.03.2014 LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 2 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
3. The present reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land situated in Village Sultanpur which was acquired for the public purpose of 'Construction of Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Ph-II'. The land in question was acquired by the LAC vide award No. 14B/2009-10 dated 10.03.2010 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 01.07.2008 which was followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 01.07.2008.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after considering the relevant factors gave its Award No.14B/2009-10 by determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition @ Rs.53,00,000/- per acre.
5. Since the petitioner did not accept the award, he preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference filed by the petitioner along with statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector for answering the same.
6. Reference was forwarded by the LAC with the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner would state that the LAC had assessed the value of the lands at a low rate, unjustly & arbitrarily, without keeping in mind the various parameters for determining the rate of compensation i.e. for assessing the market value.
7. The petitioner was the co-owner to the extent of 1/2 share and in actual physical possession of the land bearing LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 3 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Khasra No. 145 (154.69 sq. mtrs.) and Khasra No. 154 (830.17 sq. mtrs), total admeasuring 984.86 sq. mtrs. situated in the revenue estate of village Sultanpur, New Delhi along with the built up structure over the said land, thus the petitioner is the only interested person as per Section 3 of Land Acquisition Act.
8. The petitioner is also the co-owner of the other land including the land subject matter of the present acquisition proceedings and had constructed residential house as per building by-laws and building plan duly sanctioned by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner developed his farm house and a beautiful garden by planting various types of ornamental plants, flowers, fruit bearing trees and other costly wooden trees (150 in number) alongwith the boundary wall over the land. The boundary wall acquired vide the said award was having length of 137 mtrs X height 3.05 mtrs. X breadth 9 inches total area 96 cu. mtrs. above ground level and foundation area of the wall was 32 cu. mtrs. duly constructed with the factory brick.
9. That on 15.01.2008 vide notification under Section 4(1) and section 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land bearing khasra No.145 measuring 379.81 sq. mtrs and Khasra No. 154 measuring 390.83 sq. mtrs. vide notification No. F.9(72)/07/L&B/LA/MRTS(S)/14512 and Khasra No. 145 measuring 154.69 sq. mtrs and Khasra No. 154 measuring 830.17 sq. mtrs. vide notification No. F.9(72)/07/L&B/LA/MRTS (S)/3711 dated 01.07.2008 total land admeasuring 1755.50 sq. mtrs. was issued by the Additional Secretary, Land & Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for construction of Qutub LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 4 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Minar-Gurgaon corridor of MRTS Project Phase-II, on the basis of which the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the aforesaid land. The land Acquisition Collector issued only one notice under Section 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act in respect of both the abovementioned notifications and no separate notices under Section 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act in pursuance to the above notification were issued by the Land Acquisition Collector. The possession proceedings (Kabza Karwai) report also clearly speaks that there were no separate acquisition proceedings in respect of both the above mentioned notifications and the petitioner was also under bonafide belief that the land acquisition proceedings are being carried out in one proceedings collectively, hence the petitioner filed only one claim collectively, claiming compensation in respect of the entire land subject matter of both the above mentioned notifications.
10. The petitioner in pursuance of the notice under Section 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act issued by the Land Acquisition Collector (South) regarding the acquisition of land bearing Khasra No. 145 (534.50 sq. Mtrs.) and Khasra No. 154 (1221.00 sq. mtrs.) total admeasuring 1755.50 sq. mtrs. filed his claim/objections wherein the petitioner claimed market rate of the land @ Rs.2 lacs per sq. mtrs., Rs.40 lacs damages against boundary wall, Rs.4.40 crore in lieu of acquisition of tube-well and loss of agricultural produces, Rs.2,20,66,000/- against damages in respect of sewerage tanks, road, tens staff quarters, one guard room, two shops, one sprinklers system, cable, electric LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 5 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
poles, sewerage line etc., Rs.1.5 crore against damages towards cost of trees alongwith other statutory benefits.
11. The petitioner after filing the claim did not receive any notice from the office of Land Acquisition Collector (South) intimating or communicating the date of pronouncement of award, therefore, could not be present personally or through any person before the Land Acquisition Collector at the time of passing the award. On 11.05.2010, the petitioner happened to meet one of the other owners whose land was also acquired by the same award and was informed that the Land Acquisition Collector, South has passed an award No. 14A/2009-10 under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act was passed on 10.03.2010 in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 145 (379.81 sq. mtrs.) and Khasra No. 154 (390.83 sq. mtrs.) and award No. 14B/2009-10 in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 145 (154.69 sq. mtrs.) and Khasra No. 154 (830.17 sq. mtrs.). The Land Acquisition Collector did not take into consideration the evidence filed by the petitioner and assessed the market value of the land at a very low price. The Land Acquisition Collector did not assess any compensation towards boundary wall/structure and compensation towards the damages in respect of the trees standing over the acquired land.
12. As per the Master Plan of Delhi-2021, which came into force on 07.02.2007, the land use of property in question no more remained an agricultural land. Therefore, the present land has been come out from the purview of Green Belt/Agricultural Land. As per the Zonal Development Plan for Zone-J prepared by LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 6 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
the DDA, the property in question is also shown as non- agricultural use. There are many Motels which was duly sanctioned by the competent authorities which substantiate that land is commercial and not the agricultural land. The land is situated less than one kilometer distance from Chattarpur Temple. The Qutub Minar, the famous monument is hardly two kilometers from the land in question. The land in question is very near to Vasant Kunj Residential Area and Institute of Lever and Byleri Science and Fortis Hospital. The Delhi Development Authority is developing a very huge Shopping Mall in Sec-A, Pocket-B & C, Vasant Kunj. The land of the petitioner is also near to Delhi Public School, Goenka Public School, Heritage School, Bhatnagar International Public Schook, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Indira Gandhi National Open University and SAARC University. The land in question is surrounded by the well developed farm houses of Village Sulatanpur and is very near to Vasant Kunj farm houses. The land in question touches with revenue estate of village Mehrauli, Chattarpur, Ghitorni and very near to National Highway No.8. It is further submitted that land in question is having the potential value of all natures like residential, commercial, recreational and area wise situated within the heart of the developed area of Vasant Kunj. The land of the petitioner is having every civic amenities. As per the L&D rate list dated 31.05.2003 the rate of land near Sultanpur was fixed @ Rs.8,360/- per square mtr. for residential property and Rs.17,480/- per sq. mtr. for commercial purposes. The notification under Section 4 in respect of land in question was LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 7 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
issued on 05.01.2008 and during the period, the price of land have increased manifolds. The petitioner can easily sell the property in question @ Rs.2,00,000/- per sq. mtr. to the prospective purchasers/buyers.
13. The Land Acquisition Collector had determined the market value of the land on the basis of letter dated 24.01.2008 issued by Delhi Administration fixing the minimum price for agricultural land @Rs.53,00,000/- per acre.
14. The property in question was acquired for the purpose of MRTS Project and the same had commercial use and value in view of the fact that the DMRC has constructed the Metro Station over the acquired land. The acquired land is being developed by DMRC for construction of Railway Station, Mall, Marketing Complexes, Cineplex, Video Parlors, Restaurants, commercial shops to attract customers and tourist meaning thereby the DMRC would be using the land for commercial purposes. This fact has been intentionally and deliberately ignored by the Land Acquisition Collector (South) while determining the fair market value of the land. The Land Acquisition Collector has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 11, 14, 15, 23 and 24 of the said act and has also failed to determine the market value of the land of the petitioner. The Land Acquisition Collector and the beneficiary/MRTS acted malafidely in collusion with each other in order to grab the valuable land of the petitioner by using the official and statutory powers. The petitioner seeks following reliefs:
LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 8 of 38Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
a) Adjudicate/determine the fair and proper market value of the acquired land of the petitioner and may be pleased to fix the same at the minimum rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per sq. mtr./Rs.20 crores per bigha as on date of notification under section 4 of land Acquisition Act.
b) Award a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- against cost of construction of the boundary wall and structure.
c) Award a sum of Rs.4.40 Crores in lieu of acquisition of tube-well and loss of agricultural produces.
d) Award a sum of Rs.2,20,66,000/- against the damages in respect of two sewerage tank, road, ten staff quarters, one guard room, two flowers shops, one sprinklers system, cable, three electric poles, sewerage line and against future loss to be suffered by the petitioner.
e) Award a sum of Rs.1.5 crores against the cost of trees destroyed due to the acquisition of the land.
f) Award Additional amount, solatium, damages and interest etc. to the petitioner upon the market value in accordance with law.
g) Any other relief under law for which the petitioner is entitled to.
15. In its Written Statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed the claim for enhancement in compensation. It is stated that the petitioner has not brought any specific and cogent evidence on record to claim a higher compensation. It is also stated that the present reference is barred by limitation; and that the Land Acquisition Collector had correctly assessed the market value of LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 9 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Respondent No.l, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present reference petition.
16. Respondent No.2/DMRC also filed its written statement. It is stated in the written statement that the present petition is time barred as the same has been filed after expiry of three months. The market value of the subject land was determined on the basis of indicative price fixed by the Government of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land vide letter No. F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/15065 dated 24.01.2008.
17. Petitioner filed replications to the written statements of respondents No. 1 & 2, wherein he denied the averments made in the written statement and reaffirmed the facts stated in the petition.
18. Vide order dated 24.05.2016, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor of this Court:
1) Whether reference petition of 13.05.2010 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is within prescribed period of limitation? Onus on Parties
2) What was the market value of land acquired by Award no. 14B/2009-2010 dated 10.03.2010 of village Sultanpur, on the date of preliminary notification dated 01.07.2008 under section 4 of the Act 1894? OPP
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation as prayed? OPP
4) Relief.
19. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. Petitioner/Suresh Goel examined himself as PW1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A1 and relied on the following documents:
LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 10 of 38Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
1. Photographs are Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
2. Copy of the letter dated 22.12.2006 issued by Ex. Engiener Najafgarh Zone is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of the circle rates of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 05.12.2012 is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of sale deed dated 08.06.2008 executed by Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra in favour of M/s Aarken Advisors Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to village Sultanpur is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Copy of sale deed dated 02.07.2013 executed by M/s Shivansh Properties in favour of M/s Lotus Holding pertaining to village Satbari is Ex.PW1/5.
6. Copy of sale deed dated 09.06.2008 executed by Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra in favour of M/s Aarken Advisors Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to village Sultanpur is Ex.PW1/6.
7. Copy of sale deed dated 04.02.2008 executed by Dr. Ashwani Chopra in favour of Dr. Alok Chopra & Ors. pertaining to village Sultanpur is Ex.PW1/7.
8. Copy of sale deed dated 18.06.2008 executed by Smt. Kartari Devi and others in favour of M/s Holy Star Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to village Sultanpur is Ex.PW1/8.
9. Copy of sale deed dated 18.06.2008 executed by Choudhary Munshi Ram in faovur of M/s Holy Star Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Pertaining to village Sultanpur is Ex.PW1/9.
10. Copy of latest map of Delhi is Ex.PW1/10.LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 11 of 38
Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
11. Copy of award No. 4/2009-10 pertaining to village Aaya Nagar is Ex.PW1/11.
12. Copy of judgment in LAC No. 1/2009 titled as Chander Pratap Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. dated 24.05.2014 is Ex.PW1/12.
13. Copy of judgment reported in 176 (2011) DLT 361 titled as Kapil Mehra (Major Genl.) & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. dated 24.12.2010 pertaining to village Mehrauli is Ex.PW1/13.
14. Copy of judgment reported in 2011 IV AD SC 383, titled as Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana dated 21.04.2010 is Ex.PW1/14.
15. Copy of judgment in LA Appeal No. 62/13 titled as Balwant Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. dated 11.02.2016 pertaining to village Chatterpur is Ex.PW1/15.
16. Copy of judgment in LA appeal No. 966/2010 titled as Jugal Kishore Shah Vs. UOI dated 30.03.2016 pertaining to village Kalu Sarai is Ex.PW1/16.
17. Copy of judgment in LAC No. 247/2011 titled as Rajiv Sharma Vs. UOI dated 31.03.2014 pertaining to village Yusuf Sarai is Ex.PW1/17.
18. Copy of judgment reported in 2012 V AD SC 110 dated 27.04.2012 titled as Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab is Ex.PW1/18.
20. PW-1 also filed his supplementary evidence by way of affidavit and tendered the same as Ex.PW1/A2. In his supplementary evidence, PW1 relied on the following documents:
LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 12 of 38Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
1. Copy of occupancy certificate dated 29.12.1984 issued by MCD as Ex.PW1/19.
2. Copy of BSES electricity bill dated 24.06.1999 as Ex.PW1/20 (colly.).
3. Copy of partnership deed dated 15.03.2004 in respect of the property in question as Ex.PW1/21.
4. Copy of Sale Tax Certificate of Registration No. 0284727 dated 17.03.2004 as Ex.PW1/22.
5. Copy of income tax return of the property in question and also copy of acknowledgment of DVAT Returns for the period 31.03.2010 to 31.03.2013 as Ex.PW1/23 (colly.).
6. Copy of central excise registration no.
AAEFC0142KXD001 dated 26.03.2004 as Ex.PW1/24 (colly.).
7. Copy of registration of Traders under Scheme 2006 for shops/commercial establishment with MCD dated 04.01.2007 as Ex.PW1/25 (colly.).
PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the Union of India.
21. The petitioner further examined PW2 Sh. Ramswarup Prasad, Inspector, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi. PW2 proved document Ex.PW1/24. PW2 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the UOI and by Legal Officer for the DMRC.
22. The petitioner further examined PW3 Sh. Ramavtar Meena, Income Tax Inspector, Office of the Income Tax Officer, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 13 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Minto Road, New Delhi as PW3. PW3 proved the document Ex.PW1/23 and exhibited the photocopy of the same as Ex.PW3/1. PW3 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the UOI and by Legal Officer for the DMRC.
23. The petitioner further examined PW4 Sh. Ramgopal Yadav, GST Inspector, Office of Trade & Taxes Department, Vyapar Bhawan, IP Estate, Delhi. PW4 proved the document Ex.PW1/22. PW3 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the UOI and by Legal Officer DMRC.
24. The petitioner further examined PW5 Sh. G.S. Meena, Kanoongo, Record Keeper, LAC (South), M.B. Road, Saket, D.C. Office (South District), New Delhi. PW5 proved the document Ex.PW1/11. PW5 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the UOI and by Law Officer DMRC.
25. The petitioner further examined PW6 Sh. Dalchand, Record Keeper, Building Department, South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi. PW6 proved the document Ex.PW1/19. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the UOI and Law Officer DMRC.
26. The petitioner further examined PW7 Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, Record Keeper from the Office of Sub Registrar-V, Mehrauli, New Delhi. PW7 proved the documents Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9. PW7 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the UOI and by Law Officer DMRC.
27. The petitioner further examined PW8 Sh. Upender, Record Attendant from the Office of Sub Registrar-VA, LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 14 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Mehrauli, New Delhi. PW8 proved the document Ex.PW1/5. PW8 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the UOI and by Law Officer DMRC.
28. The petitioner further examined PW9 Sh Rajesh, Section Officer, BSES, Vasant Kunj Division, New Delhi. PW9 proved the document Ex.PW1/20. PW9 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the UOI and by Law Officer.
29. No other witness was examined on behalf of the petitioner. The PE was closed on 16.10.2018.
30. In RE on behalf UOI/respondent No.1, statement of Sh. S.K. Puri, Ld. counsel for the Union of India was recorded whereby he exhibited the Award No.14B/2009-2010 of Village Sultanpur as Ex.R-1. The evidence on behalf of Union of India was closed in pursuance of the statement of Ld. counsel for the Union of India vide order dated 04.06.2019.
31. On behalf of DMRC/respondent No.2, no evidence was led despite opportunity given. Thereafter, right of DMRC to lead evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
32. During the proceedings, vide order dated 03.09.2024, documents i.e. cross-examination of PW-1 Kamal Kumar dated 04.02.2020 in LAC No. 13/16 titled as Kamal Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ans., two separate sale deeds dated 21.10.2004 and 01.06.2009 were exhibited as Ex. A-1, Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3 respectively in view of order dated 24.09.2019 in this case. These documents were filed and relied upon by DMRC/respondent no.2.
LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 15 of 38Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
33. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. My issue-wise findings are as under :
ISSUE No.1: Whether reference petition of 13.05.2010 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is within prescribed period of limitation? Onus on Parties
34. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present reference petition has been filed within the limitation period of six months from the date of acquiring knowledge of the award. He has argued that limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act has to be computed having regard to the date on which the claimant got knowledge either actual or constructive.
35. Proviso of Section 18 of the Act prescribed period of limitation for filing reference petition. The reference petition was filed on 13.05.2010 before LAC. The copy of award Ex.R-1 was tendered by Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1. The date of award is 10.03.2010. The requirement of Act is that reference application can be made within prescribed period from the date of award/contents of award are made known to interested persons. There is no evidence by the respondents that petitioner had knowledge of award or its contents immediately on publication of award or the petition is barred by law by computing period from a particular date. The case of the petitioner herein falls under the part of clause (B) of the Proviso below Sub Section 2 of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference petition was filed well within the statutory period of six months time. Hence, petition is within time and LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 16 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
does not bar by time. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue No.2: What was the market value of land acquired by Award no. 14B/2009-2010 dated 10.03.2010 of village Sultanpur, on the date of preliminary notification dated 01.07.2008 under section 4 of the Act 1894? OPP
36. The petitioner examined total 9 witnesses in PE to prove his case. The petitioner Sh. Suresh Goel has examined himself as PW1 and remaining witnesses are the official witnesses from various departments alongwith summoned record which got executed in their respective evidences.
37. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A1 and Ex.PW1/A2 and relied upon certain documents, which are Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/25. Vide Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) petitioner placed on record total 9 photographs for the purpose of ascertaining fair market value of the property in question by showing development of the locality. However, no negatives of the photograph or certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was filed alongwith the photographs. No primary evidence of the same was also produced during the evidence. Moreover, no case was set up by the petitioner for leading secondary evidence while leading photographs Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.). Even otherwise, the date of taking the photographs is also neither mentioned nor proved, so it is also not clear if these photographs are of the time prior to the date of notification or of the time period around the notification or were taken thereafter. Moreover, the subject land was also not identified in the LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 17 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
photographs by the petitioner during the evidence. From the photographs itself, the exact location of the photographed places is not clear. Accordingly, these photographs cannot be relied upon.
38. Document Ex.PW1/2 is copy of letter dated 22.12.2006 issued by Ex. Engiener Najafgarh Zone to Sh. Suresh Goel. However, neither any official from the concerned department was examined to prove the same nor any ground to lead secondary evidence was set up by the petitioner while leading this document in evidence. This document shows desealing of premises No. 145, Sultan Pur, M.G. Road, New Delhi on 22.12.2006 at 05:00 pm subject to condition that the size of the shop may be reduced. No further proof was placed on record to show if the prior condition put for desealing was complied with or not. Moreover, it is also not clear from this order if the order was passed after grant of any permission from competent authority for change of land use i.e. from agricultural to commercial. Accordingly, this document cannot be relied upon.
39. Ex. PW1/3 is circle rates applicable with NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 05.12.2012. The notification under Section 4 of LA Act of the present case is dated 01.07.2008. Accordingly, this circle rate also cannot be considered in evidence in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, this circle rate is regarding minimum rate for value of land for residential use. However, no document issued from competent authority for grant of permission for change in land use was ever produced by the petitioner to show that the subject land use was changed from agricultural to residential.
LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 18 of 38Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
40. Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/9 are copies of various sale deeds.
PW-8 from the office of Sub Registrar-VA, Mehrauli, New Delhi was examined alongwith the record qua sale deed Ex.PW1/5. The sale deed Ex.PW1/5 is dated 02.07.2013 i.e. after the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act and accordingly this sale deed cannot be relied upon in favour of the petitioner.
41. To prove sale deeds Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9, PW-7 Sh. Dheeraj Kumar from the office of Sub- Registrar-V, Mehrauli was examined, who appeared alongwith the summoned record.
42. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled ' Lal Chand Vs. UOI & Anr.', AIR 2010 SC 170 held that, ".... though a certified copy of a sale deed may be received in evidence and exhibited even without examining the vendor and vendee, and accepted as proof of the transaction to which it relates, the courts have the discretion to rely upon it or reject it as unreliable or unacceptable for reasons to be recorded.
43. There would be lesser likelihood of rejection of a sale deed exhibited to prove the market value, if some witness speaks about the property which is the subject matter of the exemplar sale deed and explains its situation, potential, as also about the similarities or dissimilarities with the acquired land. The distance between the two properties, the nature and situation of the property, proximity to the village or a road and several other factors may all be relevant in determining the market value.
LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 19 of 38Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Mere production of some exemplar sale deeds without comparing the subject matter of the instrument, to the acquired lands will be of little assistance in determining the market value. Section 51A of the LA Act only exempts the production of the original sale deed and examination of the vendor or vendee.
44. In the present case, neither the vendor or vendee was examined for comparing the subject matter of the instrument to the acquired land nor the petitioner/PW1 himself or any other witness spoke about the property which is the subject matter of the exemplar sale deed and explained its situation, potential, as well as about the similarities or dissimilarities with the acquired land and also the distance between the two properties to explain the nature and situation of the property. Accordingly, in the absence of specific examination of any of the witnesses on these aspects, the said sale deeds cannot simply be relied upon. It is also pertinent to mention here that these sale deeds do not find any mention in petition under Section 18 of the Act and these sale deeds had been tendered directly in evidence of PW1. Even otherwise nothing has been placed on record to show as to how the sale amount/consideration in the exemplars as are relied upon by petitioner can be applied to the acquired land. Accordingly, these sale deeds cannot be relied upon.
45. Even otherwise, the lands were acquired vide successive notifications issued from time to time for the purpose of construction of Qutub-Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Ph.-II. Before the notification under Section 4 of LA Act dated 01.07.2008 in the present Award, the previous notification LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 20 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
under Section 4 of the Act in Award 14A/2009-10 was issued on 15.01.2008. The purpose of acquisition was also same, so the amount of compensation assessed and determined for the land acquired vide notification dated 15.01.2008 of the same village for the same purpose can be said to be governing factor and the sale deeds executed after notification dated 15.01.2008 could not have been the basis for assessing/determining the compensation with respect to the subsequent acquisition vide notification dated 01.07.2008.
46. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled 'Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Satpal & Ors.' decided on 09.02.2023, MANU/SC/0105/2023 enhanced the compensation by giving 8-12% cumulative increase while not relying upon the sale deeds executed after first notification while observing that the sale deed after the first notification could not have been the basis for assessing/determining the compensation with respect to the subsequent acquisition. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, did not rely upon the sale deed dated 02.11.2006, which was executed after first notification dated 30.06.2005 while determining the market value of the land acquired for the notification dated 05.03.2007. These lands were acquired vide successive notifications issued from time to time for the expansion of Industrial Sector 39, Sonipat. It was held that the lands acquired for the expansion of industrial sector 39, Sonipat vide notification dated 05.03.2007, the amount of compensation assessed and determined for the land acquired vide notification LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 21 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
dated 30.06.2005 of the same village for same purpose can be said to be governing factor as under both the notifications the lands acquired are for the same public purpose, namely, development of industrial sector 39, Sonipat, Haryana.
47. In the present case all sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner are found to be executed after the previous notification under Section 4 of the LA Act as abovestated, so these sale deeds cannot be relied upon.
48. Ex.PW1/10 is tendered as copy of latest map of Delhi. At first, this document is copy of original and no permission to lead secondary evidence was taken. Secondly, bottom of last page of this document mentions the phrase 'Govt. of India Copyright 2009'. This shows that this document was got prepared after the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act of present case i.e. 01.07.2008. Thirdly, the subject land has not been identified by any of the witnesses in the map. Hence, this document also cannot be relied upon.
49. Ex.PW1/11 is the copy of award 4/2009-10 pertaining to village Aaya Nagar, Delhi. Document Ex.PW1/12 is a judgment in LAC No. 1/2009 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh Vs UOI & Ors. dated 24.05.2014 pronounced by Ld. ADJ-01, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. As per award, the LAC assessed the market price of the acquired land @ 17,58,400/- per acre. However, LAC while passing the present award determined the market value @ Rs.53,00,000/- per acre which is at much higher rate than award Ex.PW1/11. Ex.PW1/12 cannot be relied upon in the present case as the same is concerned with different district LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 22 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
i.e. village Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi and the land was acquired for construction of Shahdara-Dilshad Garden Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase II at GT Road, Shahdara.
50. Ex.PW1/13 is again a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. The law discussed in this judgment is not disputed.
51. Ex.PW1/14 is the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case titled Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. The law discussed in this case is not disputed.
52. Ex.PW1/15 is again one judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Balwant Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. The law discussed in this case also is not disputed.
53. Ex.PW1/16 is judgment in case titled Jugal Kishore Shah Vs. Union of India & Anr., passed in LA. App. 966/2010 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Ex.PW1/17 is judgment in case titled Shri Rajeev Sharma & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr., passed by the Ld. ADJ-02, South District, Saket Courts Complex in LAC No. 247/2011. Ex.PW1/18 is judgment in case titled Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 4005/2012 by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The law discussed vide judgments Ex.PW1/16 and Ex.PW1/18 is not disputed. The document Ex.PW1/17 was passed in an award No. 9/2009-2010 of location Yusuf Sarai. As the location is different as compared to the subject land, so Ex.PW1/17 cannot be relied upon in favour of the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that neither LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 23 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
in the petition, nor during evidences or even during final arguments, the specific purpose of filing of these judgments of Hon'ble High Court while mentioning any specific portion of the judgments was ever disclosed. Accordingly, whole judgments were considered to decide the present case and the law discussed in these judgments is undisputed settled law.
54. PW-3 appeared as a summoned witness from the office of Income Tax Officer, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi and tendered the document Ex.PW3/1 (Ex.PW1/23). However, during his cross-examination, he answered that he had no personal knowledge of the document because the same was not prepared or signed in his presence though the said document issued from the office. This document is a covering letter alongwith ITR for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 in case of M/s Chemical Sales & Services. Ex.PW3/1 was got filed in evidence by the petitioner to prove his claim that the subject land was commercial in nature by showing income from the subject land. However, it was not shown/proved that the income as mentioned in the ITRs was generated through the subject land. No document to show taking permission from the appropriate authority for change in land use from agricultural to commercial was also shown/proved by the petitioner. Accordingly, this document also cannot be relied upon in favour of the petitioner's contention for enhancement of market value of acquired land.
55. In the present case, the petitioner tendered documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/18 at the time of his examination as PW1.
LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 24 of 38Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Perusal of examination of the witnesses i.e. PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW9 shows that these witnesses were summoned witnesses and they were examined to prove the documents with nomenclature Ex.PW1/19, Ex.PW1/20, Ex.PW1/22, Ex.PW1/23 and Ex.PW1/24.
56. Ex.PW1/19 is the occupancy certificate dated 29.12.1984 in respect of Khasra No. 154, 152, 146 and 145 of Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli. The same has been mentioned in the name of Ramesh Goel and Suresh Goel. The present petition pertains to only Khasra No. 145 and 154. However, the occupancy certificate is qua the abovesaid four khasra numbers. The occupancy certificate shows that there was construction of one dinning room, one bed room, one kitchen, one verandah, one toilet, one pantry, one store and one lobby over the plot containing abovesaid khasra numbers and it was merely a single storey construction. This occupancy certificate nowhere mentions the nature of building/land or use of building/land being commercial. Moreover, petition under Section 18 shows that petitioner claimed at para 4 for damages in respect of sewerage tanks, road, tens staff quarters, one guard room, two shops, etc. His claim for abovesaid structures are contradictory to the occupancy certificate itself on which petitioner is relying to prove his case. During his cross-examination, PW1/petitioner answered that he has staff of 12 persons who were engaged in commercial activities being run by him on the said premises. As per the petitioner himself, the subject land was used to run a business of chemical products in the name and style of Chemical Sales & LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 25 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Services. However, the petitioner nowhere disclosed if the subject land was used only for the purposes of the sale of products or for the purposes of sales as well as manufacturing. The petitioner has placed on record ITRs Ex.PW3/1 for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 to show that the income generated from subject land was in crores. However, the petitioner's claims while relying on these documents i.e. document Ex.Pw1/19 and Ex.PW3/1 are self contradictory because the occupation certificate nowhere mentions any construction of shop, factory or other building for commercial purposes so that income in crores may be genereated through subject land. A bed room, a kitchen, a dinning room, verandah, toilet, pantry, store or lobby can at no stretch of imagination be presumed to be for the purpose of commercial activities while dealing with chemical products which are hazardous in nature. Ex.PW1/19 the occupancy certificate was given qua plot containing four khasra numbers. However, the subject land is only qua the two khasra numbers out of these four but the petitioner nowhere disclosed the ownership, nature and the location of the remaining khasra numbers. The petitioner also did not disclose that which of the particular construction out of the total construction as mentioned in the occupancy certificate was on the subject land and which construction was on the remaining khasra numbers. Accordingly, the document Ex.PW1/19 also does not find any support to the petitioner's contention that subject land was commercial in nature.
LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 26 of 38Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
57. Ex.PW1/20 is a copy of BSES electricity bill dated 04.11.2016, however, the energisation date is 24.06.1999. It shows the tariff category as domestic (residential) and sanctioned load as 30 kilowatt. The date of meter reading is 31.10.2016 and the billing details is 01.10.2016 to 31.10.2016 and the total consumption units are 2136. PW-9 Sh. Rajesh, Section Officer, BSES, Vasant Kunj Division, New Delhi was examined to prove this document. During his cross-examination on behalf of DMRC, he answered that the residential/domestic connection can be given if the agricultural land is being used for the domestic purpose eg. where a farm house has been constructed on the agricultural land. Despite giving the answer, which dents contention of petitioner that subject land is non agricultural, he was not re-examined by the petitioner to further elaborate his answer i.e. giving domestic (residential) connection even if the land is agricultural. Even otherwise, this bill also cannot be relied upon as it pertains to year 2016 i.e. after the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act. However, in the interest of justice, even if the bill is analyzed, it shows the delivery address to Khasra No. 136, 145, 146, 147. 152, 154 vill. This document shows the date of energisation as 24.06.1999 i.e. before the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act. However, the subject land pertains only to Khasra No. 145 and 154. However, the delivery address pertains to the abovesaid six khasra numbers. When we compare this document Ex.PW1/20 with the occupancy certificate Ex.PW1/19, it shows that the occupancy certificate was given for plot containing four khasra numbers, while the LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 27 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
electricity connection was given for total six khasra numbers. It means two more khasra numbers were also getting the electricity from the same connection apart from the plot qua which the occupancy certificate Ex.PW1/19 was issued. If we compare it with the subject land then four more khasra numbers were getting the electricity from the same connection. However, the petitioner nowhere disclosed the ownership, nature and the location of these remaining four khasra numbers. The petitioner also did not disclose that how much electricity load was distributed to the subject land and what was the actual consumption of electricity qua subject land. Accordingly, the document Ex.PW1/20 also cannot be relied upon in support of petitioner's contention qua the subject land being commercial in nature.
58. Ex.PW1/21 is a document showing partnership deed dated 15.03.2004 between Sh. Suresh Goel, Sh. Gautam Goel, S/o Sh. Suresh Goel and Suresh Goel & Son, (HUF) through its Karta. This document merely suggests at point 3 that the Head Office of the partnership firm shall be at 145, Sultanpur, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, New Delhi (i.e. part of the subject land) or at any other place as the partners hereto may decide and its branches may be opened at such other place or places as the partners may decide from time to time. Point 4 mentions that business of the partnership shall be that of dealing in chemicals, caustic soda, as commission agents and manufacturers, representatives and/or any other business or businesses as may be mutually agreed upon from time to time by the partners. The petitioner nowhere mentioned/proved whether business of LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 28 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
partnership was used for dealing in chemicals or for caustic soda or as commission agents or as manufacturers or for any other business. This partnership deed also nowhere shows the use of subject land for generating the income except its uses as head office of the partnership firm. No change of land use from appropriate authorities for using the subject land for commercial purpose has also been shown/proved by the petitioner. Accordingly, this document cannot be relied upon in favour of the petitioner.
59. Ex.PW1/22 was proved by examining PW4 from the office of Trade & Taxes Department, Vyapar Bhawan, IP Estate, Delhi. It is a certificate of registration. The witness stated that when the document Ex.PW1/22 was prepared, the firm namely Chemical Sales and Services was a going concern. However, the document is illegible and accordingly cannot be relied upon. Moreover, this document pertains to document Ex.PW1/21 and when Ex.PW1/21 is not relied upon in support of petitioner's claim for enhanced compensation then this document also cannot be relied upon for the same purpose. Ex.PW1/24 is Central Excise Registration Certificate and was proved by examining PW2 from Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs. This document also cannot be relied upon due to the similar reasons for document Ex.PW1/22. Ex.PW1/25 is a customer copy bill payment. This document is copy of original. Neither any primary evidence of this document was led nor any witness to the document was called to prove the same as well as no ground was also set up to lead the secondary evidence at the time of tendering LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 29 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
the document by the witness. Accordingly, this document is not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon.
60. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A1 deposed at Point No.8 that the entire estate of Village Sultanpur has been declared urbanized by the government vide notification dated 03.06.1966. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that as the entire estate of Village Sultanpur had already been urbanized in the year 1966 so the DLR Act, 1954 became ineffective since 1966 and accordingly, the land in Village Sultanpur cannot be said to be agricultural in nature and it became non-agricultural in the year 1966. However, no notification showing such urbanization was ever placed on record by the petitioner. Judicial notice may be taken of notification No. F7(128)/DLB/2019/000580156/14600-15 dated 20.11.2019 as notified in Delhi Gazettee dated 21.11.2019. This notification shows the Village Sultanpur at Sl. No.44 in South District in column No. 4 of the notification. It has been mentioned that the old abadis as well as the entire estate of said village declared as urban. Accordingly, the contentions of the petitioner that village Sultanpur was urbanized vide notification in the year 1996 is not found to be correct rather the village Sultanpur was found to be notified as urbanized vide notification dated 20.11.2019 i.e. post notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894 in the present case. Accordingly, this contention of the petitioner is of no help in proving the nature of land use as non-agricultural. The petitioner also contended that as per the Master Plan of Delhi- 2021, which came into force on 07.02.2007, the land use of LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 30 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
property in question no more remained an agricultural land and provision of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 ceased to be applicable on the land in question. Therefore, the present land has been come out from the purview of Green Belt. However, no document in support of this contention was ever led by the petitioner. The Master Plan 2021 includes the land for recreational area also. Onus was on the petitioner to show that the acquired land falls in commercial category in which the petitioner failed miserably in absence of any reliable evidence. Accordingly, this plea of the petitioner is not sustainable. The petitioner also contented that Zonal Development Plan for Zone-J prepared by the DDA also shows the property in question as non agricultural use. However, no document/evidence was ever led by the petitioner to prove this contention. Judicial notice of the fact that Zone-J also includes land for recreational area may be taken. Onus was on the petitioner to show that the acquired land falls in commercial category in which the petitioner failed miserably in absence of any reliable evidence. Accordingly, this contention also cannot be relied upon to consider the subject land use as non agricultural use. Rather judicial notice may be taken from pending cases under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in this court where a number of sale deeds were found to be executed in the revenue estate of Sultanpur in or around the year 2008 while mentioning the nature of land use as agricultural.
61. The petitioner claimed the enhanced compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per sq. mtr./Rs. 20 crores per Bigha. The petitioner contended that the LAC failed to appreciate the location, LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 31 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
situation and potentiality of the subject land as revenue estate of Village Sultanpur touches with revenue estate of village Mehrauli, Chattarpur, Ghitorni and very near to National Highway No.8. It was contended that the subject land is situated nearby the educational institutions and universities such as Delhi Public School, Goenka Public School, Heritage School, Bhatnagar International Public School, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Indira Gandhi National Open University and SAARC University. It was also contended that the subject land has potential value of all natures like residential, commercial, recreational and other facility of civic amenities were available to the land under acquisition and there was a great scarcity of the land in the area and similar land first of all is not available if at all, the same is available the land cost is very very high.
62. In a recent case Union of India Versus Pramod Gupta(Dead) by LRs and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the two methods laying down the principles for determining the market value. Firstly, what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser. Secondly, comparison of sale deeds. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. The area of land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the land. Evidence admissible therefore inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 32 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages.
63. In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001) 7SCC 650, Hon'ble Supreme Court made pertinent observation about comparable sales method of valuation and relevant factors thereunder in the following words;
64. 3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as Capitalisation of Net Income Method or Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for LAC - 3/18 Renu Saini & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4of the Act. However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded,according to the value the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down" inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sales must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sale must be similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However,if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 33 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.
65. The scale is of a willing seller and a willing purchaser and the domain is a fair and reasonable understanding of the potentiality of land and a just decision based thereupon. The onus is upon the claimants to show in quantitative terms, the existing and prospective development of the acquired land so as to enable the Court to fairly adjudge the market value of the said land.
66. It is settled law that the exemplar to be considered has to be that of a comparable land in respect of being contemporary in time and also enjoying situational proximity so as to give a fair idea of the market value of similarly placed lands in the immediate vicinity or in the neighbouring areas at the relevant time of issuance of notification.
67. It is also settled law that each piece of land might suffer from locational advantages or disadvantages and cannot simply be equated to apply to any land, even in the same village.
68. I am unable to appreciate the contentions on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of notification under Section 4 of LA Act, there was a great scarcity of the land in the area. Large tracks of land were available in this area in the year 2008 and the development has been made consistently over the years by leaps and bounds. What to talk about the area of Sultanpur but even Saket was not fully developed at that point of time. The proximity of posh colony is misplaced. Moreover, any parity LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 34 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
cannot be made between the posh areas and that of Village Sultanpur on the basis of proximity in January, 2008.
69. The petitioner did not produce anything on record apart from the bare affirmation that acquired land was having potential value as abovestated. There is nothing to show that any change of land use was permitted by the concerned authorities at any point of time qua the subject land.
70. To quantify and to come to any conclusion as to what would be a best market value of acquired land, there cannot be any straight jacket formula. No standard formula can be adopted to determine exclusively in the market value year by year. In the matter of Krishna Yachandra Bachaduvaru Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 869, the Apex Court has held that the process of determination of market value in any case must depend largely on evaluation of any imponderable and hence it must necessarily be to some extent as matter of conjuncture or guess work.
71. Respondent no.2/DMRC relied upon certain documents i.e. Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. Ex.A1 is cross-examination of one Mr. Kamal Kumar, who appeared as PW1 in LAC No. 13/16. Document Ex.A1 was filed by the respondent no.2, however, the purpose of filing the same was not mentioned. It was also not disclosed that as how the cross-examination of witness Sh. Kamal Kumar in Ex.A1 is related to the subject land in the present case. Accordingly, this document cannot be relied upon. Ex.A2 is a sale deed executed on 21.10.2004 between Sh. Ashok LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 35 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Kumar and Smt. Durga for purchase of 1 Bigha land in Village Sultanpur for a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. Ex.A-3 is sale deed dated 01.06.2009 for sale consideration of Rs.53,00,000/-. The sale deed was executed on 01.06.2009 between Smt. Ram Wati and Sh. Rahul Mittal for purchase of 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas in Aya Nagar, New Delhi.
72. It is settled law that each piece of land might suffer from locational advantages or disadvantages and cannot simply be equated to apply to any land. Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents to show how the sale amount/compensation in the exemplar sale deeds Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 can be relied upon at that point of time. There is no deliberation with respect to the distance of acquired land with the exemplar sale deeds relied upon or any locational advantageous or disadvantageous factor with regard to specification of location of acquired land vis-a-vis the exemplar. There is nothing to show that the acquired land enjoy similar locational advantages and disadvantages. Accordingly, the exemplar sale deeds Ex.A2 and A3 cannot be relied upon.
73. The award Ex.R1 shows that while determining the market value of the acquired land, the LAC relied upon the indicative price of Rs.53,00,000/- per acre as fixed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land vide letter dated 24.01.2008. In view of the abovesaid discussion, material available on record and in view of the abovesaid settled law, I am of the considered opinion that LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 36 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act. Hence, issue no.2 is decided against the petitioner. Issue No.3: Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed? OPP
74. As issue no.2 is decided against the petitioner, so the petitioner is held not entitled to any enhancement for the compensation already awarded. Accordingly, issue no.3 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.4: Relief
75. The petitioner also claimed Rs.40,00,000/- against cost of construction of the boundary wall and structure of the subject land, Rs.4.40 Crores in lieu of acquisition of tube-well and loss of agricultural produces, Rs.1.5 Crore against the cost of trees destroyed due to the acquisition of the land and also Rs.2,20,66,000/- against the damages in respect of two sewerage tank, road, ten staff quarters, one guard room, two flowers shops, one sprinklers system, cable three electric poles, sewerage line and against future loss to be suffered by the petitioner. However, neither any issue was framed nor any evidence was ever led on these claims. Accordingly, these claims are also dismissed.
76. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition is dismissed.
77. The reference petition under Section 18 of LA Act is answered in terms of findings on issues no.1 to 4. Statement under Section 19 of the L.A. Act be annexed to the award. Copy be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 37 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024 Suresh Goel Vs. Union of India & Anr.
information and necessary compliance. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Pronounced in the open Court Digitally signed by YADVENDER on this 28th Day of September 2024. YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.09.28 18:58:13 +0530 (DR. YADVENDER SINGH) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI LAC NO. 18/2016 Page 38 of 38 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.09.2024