Delhi District Court
Shri Chet Ram Sharma (Deceased) vs Union Of India on 26 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
LAC- 3/17
1. Shri Chet Ram Sharma (Deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Leela Ram
(Through LR Sh. B.D. Sharma)
2. Shri B.D. Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Chet Ram Sharma
3. Shri Konark Sharma
S/o Sh. B.D. Sharma
4. Smt. Sunita Sharma
W/o Late Sh. S.D. Sharma
Petitioners No. 1, 3 and 4 through
their Attorney the Petitioner No.2
Shri B.D. Sharma
All R/o B-1/12, 2 nd Floor
Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector/ADM
South East District,
Old Gargi College Building,
Lajpat Nagar-IV,
New Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 1 of 130
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi. ...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 16.01.2017
Decision Reserved on : 24.01.2022
Date of decision : 26.02.2022
A W A R D:
(by the Court u/S. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) 1 The present petition was filed by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Collector (in short 'LAC') on 28.06.2005 vide Diary No. 2476/ADM(S) which was, in turn, forwarded to Court on 13.01.2017, and listed in Court on 16.01.2017. While Petitioner no.1 was already deceased a the time of forwarding of petition to Court, represented by petitioner no.2 as his legal heir. It is noted that petitioner no. 3 & 4 also executed a Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner no.2.
2 For deciding the reference petition u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short LA Act) read with statement u/S. 19 of the Act sent by the LAC Delhi, the relevant dates, features and facts are necessary and are being given herein as under:
(i) Date of notification u/S. 4 of the Act - 28.11.2002 (ii-a) Date of notification u/S. 6 of the Act - 13.06.2003 (ii-b) Date of notification u/S. 17 of the Act- 28.11.2002
(iii) for Project - PDD
(iv) Location/Name of Village - Village Bahapur LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 2 of 130 (v-a) Award Number u/S. 11 of Act by LAC - 24/DC(S)2005-06 (v-b) Area under acquisition-in question - As per statement under section 19 filed by LAC (vi-a) Date of reference petition to LAC - 28.06.2005 (vi-b) Petition referred to Court on - 28.06.2005
3 The Government issued notification u/S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 28.11.2002 followed by declaration by notification dated 13.06.2003 u/S. 6 Land Acquisition Act vide which the Government has acquired a part of land of village Bahapur, Delhi by its Award for the purpose of Planned Development of Delhi. The LAC while passing the Award under Section 11 of the Act, determined market value of the land in question @ Rs. 2,684/- per Sq. Yard, whereas the petitioner had claimed compensation @ Rs. 3,50,000/- per Sq. Yards alongwith other statutory benefits. Aggrieved with the compensation granted by the LAC, petitioners herein preferred the present reference petition u/S. 18 of the Act.
4 The copy of original petition filed by petitioner before LAC, alongwith the statement u/S. 19 of the LA Act has been forwarded to this Court by the LAC to decide the reference by giving details of acquired area, amount of compensation determined and share of petitioner.
Petitioners' Version 5 It is averred in the Reference Petition that the market value of LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 3 of 130 acquired land has not been correctly assessed. It is stated that the petitioners are the co-bhumidars/owners of the land bearing Khasra No.621/2/3/2/2/1 area admeasuring 2 bighas 16 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Bahapur, Delhi having been acquired for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. It is stated that the claimants/petitioners were not present on the day of pronouncement of Award by LAC and even notice u/S. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was not served upon them.
5.1 It is further averred that LAC had fixed the market value of the land of the petitioners at rate of Rs. 2,486/- per sq. yards, however, there was not a single place in Delhi where price of land was less than Rs. 3,25,000/- per sq. yds. in fact, on account of crucial location of land, petitioners would have easily fetched Rs. 5 lakhs per Sq. Yards. Further, petitioners also incurred cost of Rs. 25 lakhs upon construction of 15 rooms on the land in question which were available at the time of taking possession by LAC, mentioned as part of possession proceedings done by officers of LAC as well as DDA. It is also pleaded that notice u/S. 12 (2) of LA Act was received by petitioners on 24.06.2005 and thus this reference petition was filed within the period of limitation from the date of pronouncement of the impugned award. It is prayed that claimant be awarded market value @ Rs. 3,25,000/- per sq. yards apart from statutory benefits and interest as per the settled legal position in addition to compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs towards construction expenses and Rs. 10 lakhs as litigation expenses.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 4 of 130
Respondents' Version
6 Upon issuance of notice to Respondent, Ld. Counsel for UOI
appeared and filed written statement.
6.1 It is pleaded therein that the reference is barred by
limitation. It is stated that fair, reasonable and adequate market
value is always a question of fact, depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities, arising in each case however, petitioner has not brought any specific and cogent evidence on record to claim higher compensation. Thus, compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is well reasoned.
Replication/Rejoinder to WS on behalf of Respondent no.1 6.2 Replication/Rejoinder on behalf of the petitioners to the Written Statement of Respondent No.1 was filed, wherein, plaintiff reiterated the contents of plaint and denied the contents of Written Statement filed on behalf of Respondent No.1. It is specifically denied that the present reference petition was barred by Limitation as it was filed by petitioners on 28.06.2005 whereas Award was announced on 06.06.2005 and thus, reference petition was duly filed within the prescribed period of Limitation u/S. 18 of LA Act.
6.3 It is contended therein that the petitioners are entitled to higher compensation atleast @ Rs. 3,25,000/- per sq. yard being LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 5 of 130 the market value as on the date of notification u/S. 4 of LA Act on the basis of overwhelming and admissible documentary evidence filed in support of their contentions.
6.4 It is stated that petitioner no.1 purchased 28 bighas of land comprised in Khasra no. 621/2/3/2/2/1 vide sale deed dated 03.11.1955, registered on 24.11.1956 which was duly mutated in his name vide mutation no. 2357 dated 18.12.1962. Petitioners have relied upon certified copy of Jamabandi of the year 1949-50 filed alongwith rejoinder. Out of these 28 bighas, land measuring 25 bighas and 4 biswas was acquired for planned development of Delhi vide Award no. 2059 dated 24.01.1968.
6.5 It is further stated that Petitioners herein were declared co-owners of land admeasuring 28 bighas vide order dated 10.02.1981 in Suit No. 645/1980 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, pursuant to which mutation was effected in the name of all four petitioners vide missal no. 2849 dated 13.01.1990.
6.6 It is averred that petitioners preferred Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein certain directions were issued in Civil Writ Petition no. 6091/2000 to MCD and DDA with respect to communication of land use to petitioners. Certified copy of order dated 11.07.2001 and 26.09.2002 have been emphasized upon. Letter dated 31.01.2003 issued by DDA to MCD in compliance of directions issued vide order dated LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 6 of 130 26.09.2002, has also been relied upon by petitioners to contend that land use of subject land measuring 2 bighas and 16 biswas is commercial.
6.7 Petitioners have made reference to judgment dated 20.08.2014 passed in LAC No. 159/11 (South District) wherein petition/reference u/S. 30 and 31 of LA Act was decided/ answered in favour of petitioners which was subsequently upheld vide order dated 14.07.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Further, an application under Order XXII R 3 and 4 r/w Sec. 151 CPC seeking substitution of legal heir was allowed in the said reference/ petition vide order dated 26.03.2014 on the basis of registered will of petitioner no.1 as per which the compensation falling to share of deceased petitioner no.1 Sh. Chetram Sharma wholly devolved upon his son, petitioner no.2 herein.
6.8 It is further stated that the acquired land is part of revenue estate of village Bahapur which is surrounded by well developed residential and commercial colonies like Nehru Place District Centre, Kalkaji, East of Kailash, G.K. I and II, Kailash Colony, Okhla Industrial Area, New Friends Colony, Sarita Vihar, Jasola Vihar, Mathura Road and also important establishments like Eros Five Star hotel, Lady Shriram College, World Trade Centre, Ansal Plaza, Sirifort Auditorium, Sirifort Sports Complex, Asiad Village and that many other important places exist in the vicinity LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 7 of 130 of acquired land which reflects upon the great potential of the acquired land. It is stated that the land in the vicinity of the acquired land was well developed and the acquired land itself was ideally located to be used for commercial purposes having been surrounded by Nehru Place District Centre which is the commercial and IT Hub and petitioners also would have constructed multi storied building with a shopping mall or office complex or an IT electronic centre after sanction of the building plans which would have earned them huge profit. It is emphasized that all the civic amenities such as water, electricity, sevage, transport, roads, flyovers, schools, colleges, office complexes, restaurants, cinema halls, hospitals, MTNL Office, commercial complexes, porch markets were available adjacent to the land in question, much prior to the date of notification with District Centre Nehru Place and office of MTNL, being adjacent to the land of petitioners. It is pointed that the acquired property was easily accessible from Ring Road, Outer Ring Road and National Highway-2 connecting to Faridabad, Mathura, Agra, Lucknow and beyond. It is reiterated that land of petitioners was situated in a fully developed commercial centre and was fully capable of being used for any commercial purpose and thus was entitled to an auction price similar to Nehru Place District Centre, Saket City Centre and Vasant Kunj.
6.9 Petitioners elaborated upon documentary evidence filed in support of their contentions to claim compensation @ Rs.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 8 of 130 3,25,000/- per sq. yd. which included perpetual lease deed dated 23.01.1996 in respect of commercial plot no. 70 of Nehru Place District Centre, sale deed dated 09.08.2002 in respect of a shop admeasuring 195 sq, yds in block M, G.K.-II, judgment dated 30.11.2010 passed in LAC No. 1/08 pertaining to village Yusuf Sarai which was relied upon and followed in another judgment dated 02.08.2011 passed in LAC No. 116/11, auction advertisements issued by DDA or sale of commercial plots in South Delhi.
6.10 It is stated that property of petitioners was far more valuable than the auctioned plots on account of its superior location, advantages, situation and potentiality in comparison with the plots auctioned by DDA. Reliance has also been placed upon notification of circle rates issued on 22.09.2014 which reflect that Nehru Place falls in category A as per which minimum rate for valuation of land for residential use is Rs. 7,74,000/- per sq. mtr. with multiplying factor "3" applicable for commercial property which would entail minimum rate of Rs. 23,22,000/- per sq. mtr. which can also be used as an exemplar to access the market value of acquired land of petitioners as on the date of notification, which if calculated backwards, applying depreciation of 15% per year would be Rs. 3,30,285.38 per sq. mtr. and with depreciation of 12% per year, would be Rs. 5,00,788.41 per sq. mtr. It is also asserted that the price of property falling in category A is 11 times more than price of LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 9 of 130 property falling in category E, thus petitioners are entitled to 11 times higher compensation to rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per sq. mtr. granted by judgments of Ld. Reference Courts as referred in the previous paragraphs. It is underlined that the petitioners would have easily fetched Rs. 5 lakhs per sq. yd. as prevailing market rate, had their land been allowed to be sold to willing purchaser at the time of notification.
6.11 It is also stated that the petitioners had constructed 15 rooms on the acquired land at a cost of Rs. 25 lakhs duly recorded in Khasra Girdawari as 'gair mumkin makanat' with tubewell recorded as 'boring'. Thus, petitioners are also entitled to compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs qua super structures and tubewell.
6.12 It is reiterated that the acquired land of petitioners held the potentiality to be developed into a commercial complex with two wide roads abutted to it and thus, even no development cost is liable to be deducted.
6.13 It is further contended that development on the land of petitioner which has taken place since date of notification ought to be looked into to determine the potentiality of the land in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that it was open for petitioners to contend about examination of potential of land, first at the time of filing of reference, then LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 10 of 130 appeal in the High Court and then even before the Supreme Court. It is submitted that petitioners are entitled to present market rate of lands in Nehru Place on account of increased potentiality of their lands in view of host of development work having been undertaken in the vicinity during all years post notification.
6.14 It is stated that LAC grossly erred in assessing the market value of land of petitioners as too low and inadequate, having not conducted any enquiry requisite under LA Act, having merely adopted rates decided in judgment dated 03.03.2005 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petitions filed by petitioners, wherein prima facie value of land was fixed with direction of determination of matter without being influenced by said order, thus LAC completely misdirected himself and committed a patent illegality.
6.15 Petitioners also placed reliance on the Power of Attorneys issued by petitioner no. 3 and 4 in favour of petitioner no.2 and filed copies in support thereof.
6.16 Summing the contentions, it is submitted therein that Respondent No.1 has denied all the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in written statement in vague and evasive manner which amount to deemed admissions. It is stated that the claim of the petitioners for award of compensation @ LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 11 of 130 Rs.3,25,000/- per square yard, being the market value as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, is based on cogent, convincing, sound and admissible documentary evidence. The petitioners have also filed on record overwhelming and admissible documentary evidence to support their claim which would show that the petitioners are entitled to higher compensation. It is also submitted that the documents filed alongwith the replication would substantiate, corroborate and prove the claim of the petitioners for compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.3,25,000/- per sq. yards alongwith other benefits under the LA Act.
6.17 In support of Replication/Rejoinder to WS, petitioners have filed following documents from Annexure I to Annexure :
S. no. Particulars of documents Annexure
1 certified copy of Sale Deed dated 03.11.1955 Annexure P1
in favour of Sh. Chet Ram Sharma
2 certified copy of Jamabandi dated Annexure P2
25.07.2006 which records mutation in favour of Sh. Chet Ram Sharma 3 certified copy of order dated 11.07.2001 Annexure P3 passed in CWP No. 6091 of 2000 4 certified copy of order dated 26.09.2002 Annexure P4 passed in CWP No. 6091 of 2000 5 certified copy of letter dated 31.01.2003 Annexure P5 passed by DDA LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 12 of 130 6 certified copy of judgment dated 20.08.2014 Annexure P6 7 certified copy of the application, death Annexure P7 certificate, Will and order dated 26.03.2014 8 certified copy of judgment dated 14.07.2016 Annexure P8 9 certified copy of Site Plan issued by DDA, Annexure P9 certified copy of letter dated 31.01.200 10 certified copy of perpetual lease dated Annexure P10 23.01.1996 11 certified copy of Sale Deed dated 09.08.2002 Annexure P11 12 certified copy of judgment dated 30.11.2010 Annexure P12 13 certified copy of judgment dated 02.08.2011 Annexure P13 14 original copy of newspaper with publication Annexure P14 of auction advertisements 15 relevant pages of notification dated Annexure P15 22.09.2014 16 Khasra Girdawari of the acquired land Annexure P16 17 relevant pages of Eicher City Map Book Annexure P17 18 copy of Power of Attorney in favour of Annexure P18 petitioner no.2 It is submitted that the contents of written statement are denied and prayer clause therein is opposed and thus, it is prayed that pleas made in written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.1 be declined and reference petition be allowed in terms thereof.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 13 of 130 Written Statement of Respondent no.2/DDA 7 In pursuance to the notice issued to DDA, Ld. Counsel for DDA appeared and filed written statement on 03.05.2017 wherein notification u/S. 4, u/S. 6 of LA Act as well as Award passed therein by LAC were admitted. It was submitted that physical possession of acquired land was delivered by Land and Building Department, Land Acquisition Collector/LAC to DDA on 28.10.2003. It is submitted that LAC duly assessed compensation in respect of acquired land after consideration of all material documents and thus Award passed do not require any interference. It is prayed that reference petition of petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
Replication/Rejoinder to WS of Respondent no.2 8 Replication/Reoinder on behalf of the petitioners to the Written Statement of Respondent No.2 was filed, wherein petitioners have reiterated the contents of plaint and denied the contents of Written Statement of Respondent No.2. Petitioners have relied upon detailed submissions alongwith supportive documents filed in Replication/Rejoinder to WS on behalf of Respondent no.1, to be considered as part of Rejoinder to WS on behalf of Respondent no.2. It is reiterated that claim of petitioners is just and reasonable, based on cogent, convincing and admissible documents which entitle them for award of compensation @ Rs. 3,25,000/- per sq. yd. It is thus prayed that Written Statement filed on behalf of respondent no.2 be rejected and reference petition be allowed.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 14 of 130 Substitution of LRs 9 During the course of proceedings, Ld. Counsel for petitioners moved an application on 01.03.2017 under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC seeking substitution of Petitioner no.2 Sh. B.D. Sharma as legal heir of Late Sh. Chet Ram Sharma, notice of which was ordered to be issued, however this application was not taken up for disposal on the next date of hearing or thereafter. This aspect was noticed during perusal of record upon conclusion of final arguments and was put across to counsel for petitioners. Counsel for petitioner as well as Counsel for Respondents advanced their submissions upon this application which has been separately disposed of. Petitioner no.2 Sh. B.D. Sharma has been directed to be substituted as legal heir of deceased Pt. Chetram Sharma in terms of the said order.
Issues 10 After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 03.05.2017 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court :
i) What was the market value of the land acquired at the time of notification u/S 4 & 6 of the Old Act of Land Acquisition, 1894 in the present reference? OPP.
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation in tune of market value @ 3,25,000/- per square yards alongwith all other statutory benefits? OPP.
iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for interest on solatium and additional amount in view of judgment of Hon'ble LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 15 of 130 Supreme Court of India in case Sunder Vs. Union of India dated 19.09.2001? OPP.
iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for Rs. 25 lacs as expenses on account of super structure, raising 15 room, boundary walls of the land in question prior to the date of notification? OPP.
v) Whether the petitioners are entitled for Rs. 10,00,000/- as litigation charges? OPP.
vi) Whether the present reference is barred by limitation? OPR.
vii) Relief.
Evidence Led By Petitioner 11 Sh. B.D. Sharma, Petitioner no.2 appeared in witness box as PW-1. He tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein he affirmed the contents of reference petition and replication. He also relied upon following documents in evidence:
S. No. Ex. / Mark Description of document
1 Ex. PW1/1 Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated
03.11.1995 registered on 24.11.1956
(OSR)
2 Ex. PW1/2 Certified copy of Jamabandi of year 1949-
1950
3 Ex. PW1/3 Certified Copy of order dated 11.07.2001
in CWP No. 6091/2000
4 Ex. PW1/4 Certified Copy of order dated 26.09.2002
passed in CWP No. 6091/2000
5 Ex. PW1/5 Certified copy of Letter dated 31.01.2003
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 16 of 130
issued by DDA to MCD
6 Ex. PW1/6 Certified copy of judgment dated
(colly) 20.08.2014 in LAC No. 159/2011.
7 Ex. PW1/7 Certified copy of application, death
certificate, Will and order dated
26.03.2014 in LAC No. 159/2011.
(original Will seen and returned).
8 Ex. PW1/8 Certified copy of judgment dated
14.07.2016 in LAC No. 349/2014 &
410/2014.
9 Ex. PW1/9 Original plan of Nehru Place, Kalkaji
District Centre
10 Ex. PW1/10 Certified copy of perpetual Lease Deed
dated 23.01.1996
11 Ex. PW1/11 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
09.08.2002
12 Ex. PW1/12 Certified copy of judgment dated
30.11.2010
13 Ex. PW1/13 Certified copy of judgment dated
02.08.2011 in LAC No.116/2011
14 Ex. PW1/14 Original copy of relevant portions of
(colly) newspaper with publication of auction
advertisement
15 Ex. PW1/15 Relevant pages of Notification dated
22.09.2014
16 Ex. PW1/16 Original Khasra Girdawari of acquired
land
17 Ex. PW1/17 Relevant pages of Eicher Delhi City Map
(OSR)
18 Ex. PW1/18 Copy of POA executed by Petitioner No.3
(OSR)
19 Ex. PW1/19 Copy of POA executed by Petitioner No. 4
(OSR)
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 17 of 130
11.1 PW1 Sh. B.D. Sharma was put to cross examination by
Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1. In his cross examination, he deposed that he was not aware of current situation of plot in question, however, at the time of acquisition, it was vacant with a boundary wall and 10 to 12 rooms and a tube well were existing thereon. PW1 further stated that he did not purchase any other piece of land in Bahapur. He stressed that the land in question was commercial and denied suggestion that land in question was agricultural and not commercial. PW1 has further stated that he did not know whether photographs have been filed to show any construction on the land. PW1 stressed that the land in question is surrounded by posh and developed colonies, situated in the heart of Nehru Place District Center and adjoining Greater Kailash, Part-I and II. He also stated that the distance between the acquired property and Greater Kailash is less than 600 Yards as the crow flies. He denied the suggestion that the distance between Nehru Place and Greater Kailash is 3 kilometers. He also pointed out that the distance between acquired property and Sarita Vihar is about 2 kilometers and Kalkaji temple is situated at a distance of less than 200 meters from the acquired property. He denied the suggestion that the land was not capable of raising or running commercial and industrial unit. He also denied the suggestion that the land in question was not commercial, rather was only agricultural.
11.2 PW1 further stated that from 1986 till the date of LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 18 of 130 acquisition of the property, the petitioners had made efforts to develop the land and had filed number of cases in the High Court of Delhi in that regard and in one such case High Court had given direction to Union of India and DDA to pass the layout plan of the property in question, however, before it could be done the property was acquired. PW1 further stated that he has no personal knowledge of the documents Ex.PW1/3,5,10 and 11. PW1 further admitted position that property is purchased in an auction by highest bidder. PW1 further stated that the land in Yusuf Sarai falls in E category whereas the acquired land is in A category. He also added that any prior sanction for constructing the rooms on the acquired property was not taken.
11.3 Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.2 DDA adopted the cross examination done by Sh. S.K. Puri Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1 for the sake of brevity.
11.4 Petitioners thereafter examined Sh. D.V. Sharma as PW2, who produced summoned original record of DDA letter dated 31.01.2003 issued to Chief Town Planner, MCD to prove that copy of said letter is correct as per record brought by him. Said letter is identified on record as Ex. PW1/5. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1, he stated that he has no personal knowledge of the contents of letter Ex. PW1/5. Counsel for Respondent No.2 adopted the cross examination done by Counsel for Respondent No.1.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 19 of 130 11.5 Petitioners examined Sh. S.K. Kapoor as PW3, who produced the Zonal Development Plan of Zone F. placed on record as Ex. PW3/1. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1, also adopted by counsel for Respondent no.2 he stated that he was not aware of the criteria of preparation of this zonal development plan.
11.6 Ms. Meenu Mehrol was examined by petitioners as PW4, who produced the Layout Plan of Nehru Place District placed on record as Ex. PW4/1. PW4 stated that Layout Plan is correct as per record brought by him. She was put to cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1 which was also adopted by Counsel for Respondent No.2.
11.7 Further Petitioner examined Mohd. Israr as PW5, who produced perpetual lease deeds and conveyance deeds (total No.10), executed by DDA which are collectively placed on record as Ex. PW5/1. During cross-examination by counsel for Respondent no.1, adopted by counsel for Respondent no.2, he stated that he was not aware as to whether the plots sold in auction were developed or not.
11.8 Petitioners finally examined Sh. L. Baxla as PW6, who produced the original file of LAC NO. 159/2011 titled as UOI Vs. Chet Ram Sharma & Ors. He stated that the documents Ex. PW1/2, which is certified copy of Jamabandi, Ex. PW1/5 which LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 20 of 130 is certified copy of letter dated 31.01.2003 from DDA to Chief Town Planner MCD, Ex. PW1/7(colly) which is certified copy of original application under Order XXII Rules 3 & 4 CPC, Will and Order dated 26.03.2014, and Ex. PW1/16, certified copy of Khasra Girdawari, have been obtained from the file of LAC No. 159/2011, where the originals of aforesaid exhibit documents are on record. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1, also adopted by Counsel for Respondent no.2, he stated that he has no personal knowledge of the exhibited documents.
11.9 Petitioner's evidence was thereafter closed vide statement of petitioner no.2 recorded on 21.03.2018.
Respondent's Evidence 12 In support of their case, Sh. S.K. Puri, Ld. Counsel for UOI/ Respondent No.1 relied upon the copy of Award no. 24/DC(S)/2005-2006 of Village Bahapur as Ex. R1. Ld. Counsel for DDA/Respondent no.2 adopted the evidence as led on behalf of UOI/Respondent no.1.
12.1 Respondent evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
Arguments by Counsel for petitioner 13 Detailed arguments were advanced by Counsel for LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 21 of 130 petitioner. He filed written arguments supported with 15 judgments on 01.08.18, 'consolidated written arguments on behalf of petitioners' on 30.11.2018 with 3 judgments. Thereafter 'additional note of submissions' with 2 judgments was filed on 07.12.2018 followed by 'list of additional judgments on behalf of petitioners' with 10 judgments filed on 06.10.2021. Subsequently, list of additional judgments submitted during rejoinder arguments with 13 judgments and few other documents were filed on 08.11.2021. Finally, post hearing written submissions were filed consolidating all previous submissions.
13.1 Counsel for the petitioner argued that the acquired subject land of petitioners was commercial in nature as per Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan as confirmed by letter dated 31.01.2003 issued by DDA to the Chief Town Planner, MCD as per direction given in the order dated 26.09.2002 passed by Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition 6091/2000. It is further argued that the compensation assessed by LAC @ Rs. 2684/- per sq. yd. was ridiculously low as the entire revenue estate of village Bahapur was surrounded by posh and well developed residential as well as commercial colonies, important educational, commercial, medical, cultural establishments holding great future potentiality at the time of issuance of notification.
13.2 It is argued that the acquired property forms part of Nehru Place which is hub of commercial activities and office complexes LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 22 of 130 of Delhi. It is argued that the acquired land was very well connected and well developed and there was no impediment for petitioners to have constructed a multi storied commercial building which would have earned them huge profit. It is further stressed that the office of MTNL Delhi is adjacent to the land of petitioners and that land of petitioners, MTNL Office and all other commercial buildings in Nehru Place are part of Nehru Place District Centre with similar potentiality and even the acquired land has been put to use for commercial purposes. It is stressed that the acquired land already had all the civic amenities in place much prior to issuance of notification and as such did not require any further infrastructural development on account of developmental cost. It is argued that the acquired property was situated in an urban area with conglomerate of entities, multi national and corporate, situated in tall sky scrapers and as such, there was tremendous boom in the property prices when the subject property was acquired. It is stressed that the land of petitioners is situated in category 'A' locality whereas Saket and Vasant Kunj fall in category 'C' and thus land of petitioners could have easily fetched market price of Rs. 5 lakhs per sq. yd. Counsel for petitioner then elaborated upon various contemporary exemplars relied upon by petitioners in evidence specifically stressing upon perpetual lease deed dated 23.01.1996 executed in respect of commercial plot no. 70 in lay out plan of District Centre Nehru Place measuring 1784.38 sq. metrs. for a consideration amount of Rs. 34 crores 20 lakhs, as per which, the rate per square meter comes out to be Rs. 1,91,633.21/- and LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 23 of 130 Rs.1,50,254.90/- per sq. yd. as on 23.01.1996 apart from sale deed of a shop in G.K.II and that of Gulmohar Park qua property measuring 500 sq. yds. Apart from judgments passed by other Reference Courts, with respect to determination of enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land falling in Yusuf Sarai Area, auction advertisements issued by DDA in leading newspapers in respect of sale of commercial plots at various locations in South Delhi was also filed. It is stated that the acquired subject property was far more superior in location, advantages, situation and potentiality than the plots auctioned by DDA not only because it is situated in Nehru Place Area, but also been located on two very wide roads.
13.3 It is stressed that the rate of commercial properties in terms of notification dated 22.09.2014 may be looked into, to assess the market value of properties considering that the circle rates were fixed on the basis of survey of market value of properties situated in different localities and thus yardstick of difference in circle rates for the properties situated in category 'A', category 'B' and category 'C' be followed while assessing the compensation of the acquired land situated in category 'A'. It is further argued that the petitioners are also entitled to compensation of super structure and tubewell @ Rs. 25 lakhs.
13.4 Counsel for petitioner further argued that petitioners are entitled to be awarded the highest value which similar lands in LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 24 of 130 the locality is shown to have. It is stated that the acquired land has been connected by Delhi Metro Networks having been acquired 19 years back where DMRC also developed a huge mall at Nehru Place Metro Station which has increased the potentiality of land of petitioners and as such the petitioners are entitled to present rate of markets at Nehru Place. He clarified that it is settled law that where there are several exemplars with respect to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars which is the bonafide transaction will be considered and as such the transactions relied upon in this matter are that of properties sold by DDA which are completely bonafide transactions. It is pointed out that sale instances of distance of even 5 kilometers can be considered for fixing the market value whereas in this matter property no. 70 as sold by DDA and the subject property are both situated in Nehru Place District Centre with commercial usage and absolutely similar in nature in all circumstances, having similar situational advantages and there is nothing which separates the two properties in their similarities as well as their value.
13.5 Counsel for petitioner has stressed that cumulative increase @ 15% for every subsequent year from the date of sale instance relied upon is reasonable and proper. He has placed reliance upon the following judgments in respect of this aspect :
(i) Anjani Molu Desai v. State of Goa, (2010) 13 SCC 710 LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 25 of 130
(ii) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar and Anr. (2004) 2SCC 283
(iii) Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
(2015) 15 SCC 200
(iv) ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745
(v) Madhusudan Kabra & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.(2018) 1 SCC 140
(vi) Tripat Kaur Vs. UOI & Anr. LA Appeal No. 749/2008
(vii) Order of review dated 30.07.2021 passed in R.P. No. 109/21.
13.6 It is stated that compensation can even be granted for part of the year. Reliance placed upon Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 2222. It is thus argued that petitioners are entitled to annual escalation @ 15% p.a. at the compounding rate from 23.01.1996, relying upon exemplar property bearing commercial plot no. 70, District Centre, Nehru Place till notification under Section 4 of LA Act dated 28.11.2002 for a period of 6 years 10 months and 5 days, as per which the compensation amount is calculated to be Rs. 3,73,648.37/-.
13.7 It is argued that the sale deed, if available for a comparable land, has to be applied with no justification of LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 26 of 130 averaging the sale prices of various sale deeds. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments :
(i) Anjani Molu Desai Vs. State of Goa & Anr. Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa and Anr. (2010) 13 SCC 710 wherein reference has been made of two earlier judgments M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v.
Collector of Madras, 1969 (1) MLJ 45 SC and State of Punjab v. Hans Raj (1994) 5 SCC 734
(ii) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Ors.
Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 432 13.8 Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following judgments for determination of market value being the price which property may fetch in open market if sold by a willing seller to willing purchaser, unaffected by special needs of a particular purchase:-
(i) Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of Gujrat (2005) 4 SCC 789
(ii) Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulia (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 595 13.9 It is stressed that the government orders cannot be made the basis for fixing the market value of the land as they are not true indicia of the market price. However, court can indulge in LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 27 of 130 reasonable guess work to arrive at just and fair market place.
Reliance is placed upon Krishan Kumar V. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 15 SCC 22.
13.10 To assess the future potential of acquired land, following judgments have been placed reliance upon :
(i) Hasannali Walimchand (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 388
(ii) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Bipin Kumar and Anr. (2004) 2SCC 283 13.11 It is stated that sale instances of adjacent villages or localities can be seen in case there is no comparable sale instance at the proximate time of notification and distance between two villages even by 5 kilometers cannot derogate the claim of payment unless there are specific reasons to show or conclude about the variance of potentiality of two lands. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments :
(i) Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Vs. Ram Sang Bhailalbhai and Anr. (2015) 11 SCC 483
(ii) Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Ors. Vs. Executive Engineer Gujrat and Anr. (2001) 9 SCC 584
(iii) Shri Anar Singh Vs. Union of India ILR (1o84) II Delhi 863 LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 28 of 130 13.12 It is argued that sale instances of subsequent years can also be considered. Reliance is placed upon State of U.P. Vs. Jitender Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 876.
13.13 It is contended that no development cost is liable to be deducted as acquired land is situated in the heart of city and as such no development was required to be made when the land was acquired. Reliance is placed upon Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka (Dead) Through LRs v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2016) 14 SCC 279 . It is thus prayed that petition moved on behalf of petitioners is liable to be allowed in terms thereof.
Written Arguments on behalf of UOI 14 Ld. Counsel for Respondent no.1 argued that no proof of commercial use of land was filed. Further it is questionable as to why land of petitioners was lying vacant while the surrounding land was well developed giving an inference that the land was not capable of raising any construction or building or for running commercial or industrial units and hence land was agricultural in nature. It is further argued that the land of Bahapur cannot be compared with Yusuf Sarai which is of commercial use, also Nehru Place is far away from the acquired land and thus, the development carried out in Nehru Place cannot take place in acquired land. Further petitioner himself conceded that he had no income from the acquired land, which reflects that said land was lying vacant for a long time with no LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 29 of 130 development having been carried out till the date of acquisition. It is further argued that the perpetual lease deed executed by DDA cannot be relied upon for assessment of correct market value as the land is sold to the highest bidder and some plots may also fall in reserved categories. He further stressed that DDA never sanctioned the lay out plan and further nobody can be allowed to take benefit of development made by owner in its own land. It is further argued that developmental charges to the tune of 65% are liable to be deducted on account of development cost of land. It is stated that valuation of the land in question by expert without calling the LAC or his staff for participation in assessment of valuation cannot be relied upon. Support is drawn from judgment titled as (i) Kalawati Vs. State of Haryana 1992 PLR Vol. C XIV (1996-2) (ii) Lalchand Vs. UOI AIR 2010 SC 170 and P. Ramreddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. (1955) 2 SCC 305. (iii) Bhuleram & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. 170 (2010) DLT 371 (iv) Kanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI (1998) 8 SCC 136.
14.1 It is contended that the compensation assessed by Land Acquisition Collector is correct and does not call for any interference submitting that petitioners have not been able to adduce any credible evidence to prove otherwise.
Arugments on behalf of Respondent no.2 15 Counsel for Respondent no.2 did not file any written arguments and relied upon the submissions made by Counsel for LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 30 of 130 Respondent no.1.
Rebuttal Arguments 16 It is argued that village Bahapur was urabanised vide notification dated 03.06.1966 issued by Delhi Administration in exercise of powers conferred by clause A of Section 507 of DMC Act 1957 whereupon DLR Act ceased to apply. Reliance is placed upon the judgment Smt. Indu Khorana Vs. Gram Sabha & Ors. in WP(C) No. 4143/2003 dated 26.03.2010 and Swaran Lata and Ors. Vs. Kulbhushan Lal and others ILR (2014) II Delhi 1362. It is also stressed that urbanization can also be effected by issuing a notification applying a zonal development plan pursuant to the Master Plan (Shri Neelpadmaya Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Satyabir @ Satbir & Ors. 227 (2016) DLT 654) . The statutory character of Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan prepared in exercise of power under Section 7 and 8 of Delhi Development Act was also stressed upon. R.K. Mittal & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2012) 2 SCC 232 and M.G. Ramachandran & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. 213 (2014) Delhi Law Time 14 (DB). These submissions were made to bring home the point that the acquired land was urbanized long back and was not agricultural in its land use.
16.1 It is argued that any registered document produced in evidence carry a presumption of genuineness in terms of Section LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 31 of 130 51 A of LA Act and as such vendor or vendee need not be produced or examined to prove contents of the documents. Support has been drawn from case titled as Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya and Others (2004) 8 SCC 270 . This was putforth to counter the submission of Counsel for Respondent no.1 that a sale deed without examining witnesses is not liable to be considered.
16.2 It is argued that the land use of petitioner's land was commercial even if the petitioners were not actually using the land for commercial purposes solely by virtue of Master Plan, Zonal Development Plan, Layout Plan, Urbanisation notification and letter dated 31.01.2003 in terms of Section 53(2) of Delhi Development Act. It is also stressed that the future building potentiality is an important parameter in assessing the value of an acquired land. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments:
(i) Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4612 =176 (2011) DLT 361
(ii) Nand Kishore v. Union of India 1999(49) DRJ 158 16.3 These arguments were made to counter the contention of counsel for respondent no.1 that any evidence of commercial usage of acquired land as on the date of notification, has not been produced.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 32 of 130 16.4 That acquired land falls within the revenue estate of Bahapur coupled with its geographical/ situational advantage was stressed upon by counsel for petitioner in support of which Zonal Development Plan of entire Delhi and another map showing boundary of revenue villages and Zonal Development Plan of Division F were placed on record. Support is drawn from judgment reported in Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese v. Union of India 1991 SCC OnLine Del 260 :(1991) 45 DLT 76 (DB). It is stressed that a vague and irresponsible argument has been raised without any basis by counsel for respondent no.1.
16.5 It is submitted that judicial notice of public documents can be taken under Section 56 and 57 of Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on following judgments : (i) Mohd. Farooq & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2005 (82) DRJ 276 (DB)
(ii) Kanshi Ram (Deceased) through his LRs v. DDA 2008 SCC OnLine Del 54 :(2008) 147 DLT 472 16.6 It is argued that Khasra Girdawari placed on record as Ex. PW1/16 duly proves that the acquired land was not vacant and that there is a presumption in favour of correctness of entry in the revenue records. Reliance is placed upon (i) Regal Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. 42 (1990) Delhi Law Times 44 (ii) Gurbaksh Singh v. Nikka Singh and Anr. 1963 Supp (1) SCR 55 : AIR 1963 SC 1917.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 33 of 130 16.7 Counsel also laid stress upon potentiality of acquired land in the near future to be considered for correct assessment of market value of acquired land. Reliance has been placed upon judgments (i) Hari Chand v. Union of India 2001 (60) DRJ 821 (DB) (ii) Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4612 =176 (2011) DLT 361 (iii) Nand Kishore v. Union of India 1999(49) DRJ 158 (iv) P.N. Singh v. Union of India 1996 LAWPAK(Del) 16733 = 1997(2) RCR (Civil) 27 (v) National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Jagga Singh (Deceased) through LRs & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 74 (vi) Mallayya Shivamurthyavya Hiremath & Anr. v. The Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot & Ors. ILR 2017 KAR 123 (vii) Hasannali Walimchand (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 388.
16.8 It is thus prayed on the basis of above made submissions that the petitioners are entitled to compensation atleast @ Rs. 3,25,000/- per sq. yd. and in addition to the cost of structures and all the statutory benefits provided in the LA Act, also in terms of judgment case titled as Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211.
Decision and Legal Reasoning 17 I have heard arguments advanced by both the sides and have gone through the entire record carefully. My thoughtful LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 34 of 130 findings are as under:-
Issue no. (vi)
vi) Whether the present reference is barred by limitation?
OPR.
17.1 Onus to prove this issue is upon respondent no.1. It is pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.1 that the reference petition is barred by limitation and has to be dismissed at the very threshold. In replication/rejoinder filed on behalf of petitioner, it is stated that the objection on behalf of respondent no.1 is completely baseless and that the reference petition was filed well within the prescribed period of limitation.
17.2 Proviso to Section 18(2) of LA Act governs the aspect which is reproduced as under :
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made -
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-
section(2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
17.3 It is affirmed by petitioner as PW1 that he was not
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 35 of 130
served notice u/S 12(2) of LA Act and was not
present/represented at the time of pronouncement of Award. Same has not been counter contended or affirmed or proved on behalf of respondent no.1 at any stage. In the instant case, award was pronounced on 06.06.2005 whereas reference was filed before LAC on 20.06.2005, thus within 6 months from the date of award, accordingly it was evidently filed within the statutorily prescribed period of limitation under Section 18 of LA Act. Further, as burden was cast upon respondent no.1 to prove the issue, virtually no evidence has been led to substantiate or to prove the contentions raised and in fact even in the preliminary objection in WS filed on behalf of respondent no.1, nothing was stated as to how the reference petition was not filed within the period of limitation prescribed under LA Act. Nothing in this respect has been stated in WS filed on behalf of Respondent no.2. It is held that the reference petition was duly filed within the period prescribed under Section 18 of LA Act and thus cannot be stated to be barred by limitation. This issue is accordingly decided against Respondent no.1 and in favour of petitioners.
Issue no. 1 and 2
i) What was the market value of the land acquired at the time of notification u/S 4 & 6 of the Old Act of Land Acquisition, 1894 in the present reference? OPP.
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation in tune of market value @ 3,25,000/- per square yards alongwith LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 36 of 130 all other statutory benefits? OPP.
18 These issues have been taken up together as both entail common discussion with respect to applicable law points and case law for determination. Onus to prove these issues is cast upon petitioners. Reference under Sec. 18 of LA Act, 1894 filed by petitioners was forwarded by LAC South East against Award No. 24/DC(S)/2005-2006 Village Bahapur, Delhi, dated 06.06.2005 relating to acquisition of land at Village Bahapur for 'Planned Development of Delhi'. Notification was issued u/S. 4 LA Act and u/S. 17 LA Act of 28.11.2002 whereas notification u/S. 6 LA Act was issued on 13.06.2003 with respect to permanent acquisition of 8 bighas and 6 biswas of land in village Bahapur. The details of area of land under award, as mentioned therein are as follows :-
Field No. Khasra no. Area
621/2/3/2/2/1 min. 2-16
621/2/3/2/2/2 5-10
18.1 Land Acquisition Collector noted the name of claimants
who had filed claim for compensation in the Award Ex. R1 wherein petitioners in the present case have been mentioned to have filed claim for Khasra no. 621/2/3/2/2/1 min. (2-16) for Rs. 3,25,000/- per sq. yd. as market value alongwith other statutory benefits as per the provisions of LA Act with a noting that no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants. LAC assessed the market value of land @ Rs. 2684/- per sq. yds. He LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 37 of 130 made the following observation in Award Ex. R1 with respect to assessment of the market value.
18.2 It is evident that LAC dwelled upon adjudication made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 03.03.2005 in WP No. 6967/2003 wherein market value of the acquired land, as on the date of notification, was prima facie assessed to be Rs. 2684/- per sq. yd. It is also noted that the present reference has been filed only in respect of 2 bighas and 16 biswas of land whereas the acquired land by virtue of award was 8 bighas and 6 biswas. Further, Reference u/S. 30-31 was forwarded to the Ld. Reference Court which was answered vide judgment dated 20.08.2014, whereby the claim of petitioners herein was allowed holding that the compensation amount with approved interest was to be equally apportioned amongst all the four petitioners herein.
18.3 Award made under Section 11 by LAC was not acceptable to the petitioners who filed reference thereto under Section 18 of LA Act containing the grounds of objection to award which was then forwarded to Court for adjudication. It is noted that Award u/S. 11 LA Act was made within a period of 2 years from the date of publication of Declaration by virtue of Section 4 LA Act. As the Declaration u/S 6 LA Act was also made, no dispute has been raised that the acquired land was not needed for a public purpose. Further, possession of land was taken over on 28.10.2003 in exercise of powers u/S. 16 of LA LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 38 of 130 Act.
18.4 Section 23 of LA Act is instrumental to be read as it enumerates the factors to be considered in determining compensation and is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :
Section 23 (Matters to be considered on determining compensation. - (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration- first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1)]; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change, and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
[(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 39 of 130 under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.
(2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
It is also important to take note of provision of Sec. 24 of LA Act, 1984 which contains matters to be neglected in determining compensation. Same is reproduced hereunder :
Section 24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. - But the Court shall not take into consideration -first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition;
secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit;
fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 40 of 130 the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub- section (1); [or] [eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy.] 18.5 In the present matter, entire stress has been made upon assessment of market value of the land on the date of publication of notification u/S. 4 (1) of LA Act. The mandate of the entire exercise is that a person was compulsorily deprived of his land for public purpose must be paid adequate compensation by the State in accordance with law. This was also highlighted in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union of Territory Chandigarh 1985 AIR 1576, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 949 in the following manner :
" where land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value."
18.6 As already noted, assessment of market value of land is a prime factor qua determination of the compensation awardable under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Market value is the price of property which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to get from a willing purchaser as on the date of notification considering the position of the land on such date as well as its future potentiality.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 41 of 130 18.7 Delhi High Court in case titled as 'Bholanath Sharma through LRs. v. UOI through LAC & Anr. in judgment dated 23.03.2016 in LA. APP. 109/2013 noted as to who can be classified as a 'willing Seller' and a 'willing purchaser'. Relevant excerpt of which is reproduced hereunder :
75. A "willing seller" is a person who is not acting under any acting under any pressure to sell his property (in distress sale), he knows the advantages of his property and sells the same after ascertaining the prevailing market prices at fair and reasonable value.
Correspondently a willing purchaser is a person who has a choice in the matter of purchase of different properties and not of the choice, he voluntarily decides to buy a particular property by assessing its advantages and disadvantages and the prevailing market value thereof.
19 It is settled that the onus is upon the claimants to prove that the assessment made by LAC is inadequate and there must be positive variance to the market value of the acquired land. It is held in Kanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI (1998) 8 SCC 136 as under :
6.....It is for the claimants to prove and demonstrate that the compensation offered by the Collection is not adequate and the same does not reflect the true market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. This, according to the Apex Court, could only be done by the claimants by adducing evidence to the effect that on the relevant date, the market value of the land was in question was such at which the vendor and the vendee were willing to sell or purchase the land. The question whether the LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 42 of 130 compensation offered to the land owner reflects correct market value of the land on the date of notification or not, has to be determined on the basis of the evidence produced before the Court. This principle of law was reiterated by Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3838 of 2010, when the Court observed that the onus primarily is on the claimant, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for awarding of compensation which they rely upon.
This principle was reiterated by Supreme Court even in the case of Gafar v. Moradabad Development Authority [(2007) 7 SCC 614] and the Court held as under:
"As held by this Court in various decisions, the burden is on the claimants to establish that the amounts awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they are entitled to more. That burden had to be discharged by the claimants and only if the initial burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to the State to justify the award."
19.1 While assessing the market value of the acquired land, It is important to take into consideration the geographical situation of the land , its location or any other existing use or any other advantages or special value which can be attached with the acquired land. Following principles were laid down for determination of market value of land in case titled as "Viluben Jhalejhar Contractor v. State of Gujrat (supra) which are as follows :
18. One of the principles for determination of the LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 43 of 130 amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefore. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase.
Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4 (1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under :
Postive factors Negative factors
(i) Smallest of size (i) largeness of area
(ii) Proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior
at a distance from the road
(iii) Frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with
very small frontage compared
to depth
(iv) Nearness to developed (iv) lower level requiring the
depressed portion to be filled
up
(v) Regular shape (v) remoteness from developed
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 44 of 130
locality
(vi) Level vis-z-vis land (vi) some special disadvanta-
geous factors which would
Deter a purchaser
(vii) Special value for an
Owner of an adjoining
Property to whom it may
have some very special
advantage
19.2 An important principle, as laid down in the case law
Vyricherla Narayana Gajpatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer AIR 1939 PC 98 was relied upon by Supreme Court in Ravinder Narayan & Anr. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 481 wherein it was held that " it is an accepted principle as linked down in the case of Vyricherla Narayana Gajpatiraju (supra) that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which are willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with this land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded, neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what is worth. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 45 of 130 of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guesswork involved while determining the potentiality."
19.3 Observations made by Delhi High Court with respect to principles for assessment of market value of acquired land are reproduced hereunder as held in case titled as Hari Chand v. UOI in LA Appeal No. 127/2004 decided on 29.05.2013:
7. The following, in my view, are the broad methods to determine the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
(a) If evidence of bonafide and genuine sale transaction in respect of the acquired land or adjoining similarly situated land in the same village, transacted nearabout the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act are not available, the Court would be justified in looking for awards/ judgments in respect of the adjoining similarly situated land in the same village, which was notified nearabout the same time when the land in question was notified.
(b) If neither such sale instances nor such awards/ judgments are available, the Court would be LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 46 of 130 justified in relying upon the genuine and bonafide sale transactions in respect of the similarly situated land in adjoining villages provided such transactions took place on or about the time the land in question came to be notified. If such sale instances are not available, the Court would be justified in relying upon the awards/judgments in respect of the land which is similarly situated and was notified on or around the time the land in question was notified.
(c) If there is time lag of more than 4-5 years between the transactions evidenced by the sale deeds produced before the Court and the date on which land in question was notified, the Court may not be justified in relying upon such transactions.
Similarly, if the land in an adjoining village, which was subject matter of an award or decision was notified more than four or five years before the land in question came to be notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, it would not be appropriate to rely upon such awards/judgments.
(d) Even if the sale transactions were entered into on or around the time the land in question came to be notified, the person relying upon such sale transactions needs to further establish that the land subject matter of those transactions was similar in situation and potentiality etc to the land in question, at the time it came to be notified under Section 4 of the Act. Similarly, where the reliance is placed upon the award of judgment, it has to be shown that the land subject matter of such an award/ judgment was similar in situation and potential to the land in respect of which the Court is called upon to determine the compensation.
(e) In case reliance is placed upon the awards/judgments in respect of the land in adjoining LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 47 of 130 or nearby village, it has to be shown that such an award or judgment was based upon the evidence of sale instances in that village and was not based upon the award/ judgment given in respect of the land comprised in some other village. If, for example, while determining the compensation in respect of the land situated in Village 'A', reliance is placed upon the award/ judgment fixing compensation in respect of the land situated in village 'B', it has to be shown by the person relying upon such a judgment/ award that the said award/ judgment was based upon the sale instances of village 'B' entered into on or about the time the land in question in village 'A' was notified. If, however, the award/ judgment in respect of the land in village 'B' was based upon the award/ judgment in respect of the land situated in village 'C', it would not be appropriate to rely upon the award in respect of the land situated in village 'B' unless it is shown to the Court that the land in village 'C' was also adjacent to or adjoining village 'A' was similarly situated and had similar potential. Taking any other view would amount to using the sale instances of village 'C' for the purpose of determining compensation of the land situated in village 'A', though village 'C' may not be adjoining or adjacent to village 'A'. To take an example, if the Court is required to determine compensation in respect of the land situated in village 'A' and the award/ judgment relied upon before it is in respect of land situated in adjoining village 'B' but the award /judgment given in respect of land in village 'B' is based upon the award/judgment given in respect of the land situated in village 'C', which is say at a distance of 3 kms from village 'A', the compensation fixed in respect of the land situated in village 'C' is based upon the compensation fixed for the land in adjoining village 'D', which is at a LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 48 of 130 distance of say 6 kms from village 'A'., accepting such an award/judgment for determining compensation in respect of the land situated in village 'A' would amount to treating the land in village 'A' at par with the land in village 'D' though village 'D' is situated at a distance of 6 kms from village 'A'. It is this kind of comparison which the Supreme Court has disapproved in Kanwar Singh(supra). In that case, the contention of the appellant before the Court was that for their land in Rangpuri, they should be awarded the same compensation as awarded to the land owners of village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur. Rejecting the contention, the Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:-
"If we go by the compensation awarded to claimants of adjoining village it would not lead to the correct assessment of market value of the land acquired in the village Rangpuri. For example village 'A' adjoins village 'B', village B adjoins village 'C, village 'C adjoins village 'D', so on and so form and in that process the entire Delhi would be covered. Generally there would be different situation and potentiality of the land situated in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same."
19.4 With respect to assessment of market value of acquired land, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Kapil Mehra V. Union of India (2015) 2SCC 262, as under :
"10. Market Value : First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 49 of 130 lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to keep in mind the following factors, as also referred to in the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by LRs and Ors. V. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 595
(i) existing geographical situation of the land;
(ii) existing use of land;
(iii) already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and /or developed area and
(iv) market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/ area or adjacent or very near to the acquired land.
11. The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value"
19.5 Various methodologies of evaluation to ascertain the market value was laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquision Officer v. Adinarayana Setty AIR 1959 SC 429, in the following words :
"It is not disputed that the function of the court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) and the methods of valuation may be LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 50 of 130 (1) opinion of experts (2) the price paid of within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase of lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of then lands acquired.
Similar view was taken in case of Triveni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 1417, the Supreme Court held that :
"for determining compensation payable to the owner of the land, the market value is to be determined by reference to the price which may be reasonable obtained from willing purchasers but since it may not be possible to ascertain this with any amount of precision the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. While reiterating the three tests laid down in SLA Officer's case, it was further emphasized that these methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive at as nearly as possible at an estimate of the market value. In arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may be necessary to take even two or all these methods into account in as much as the exact evaluation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which the valuation can be accurately determined. It was also reiterated in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1991 4 SCC 195.
19.6 In case titled as Jawajee Naganatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595, it is held as under :
"In determining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or the other three methods to LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 51 of 130 determine market value of the lands appropriate on the facts of a given case to determine the market value. Generally the second method of valuation is accepted as the best."
"Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features would ...ish basis to determine market value. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove, in .... case of prevailing market value as on the date of notification published in the State Gazette as per Section 4(1) of the Act with reference to the sale deeds of the same lands or neighbour's lands ... assessed of same or similar advantages and features executed between willing vendor and willing vendee or other relevant evidence in the reference court."
19.7 In P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court reflected upon the building potentiality of the acquired land and made following observations :
Building Potentiality of acquired land Market value of land acquired under the LA Act is the main component of the amount of compensation awardable for such land under section 23(1) of the LA Act. The market value of such land must relate to the last of the dates of publication of Notification or giving of public notice of substance of such Notification according to section 4(1) of the LA Act. Such market value of the acquired land cannot only be its value with reference to the actual use to which it was put on the relevant date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, but ought to be its value with reference to the better use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future. Possibility of the acquired land put to certain use on the LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 52 of 130 date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, of becoming available for better use in the immediate or near future, is regarded as its potentiality. It is for this reason that the market value of the acquired land when has to be determined with reference to the date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, the same has to be done not merely with reference to the use to which it was put on such date, but also on the possibility of it becoming available in the immediate or near future for better use, i.e., on its potentiality. When the acquired land has the potentiality of being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future it is such potentiality which is regarded as building potentiality of the acquired land. Therefore, if the acquired land has the building potentiality, its value, like the value of any other potentiality of the land should necessarily be taken into account for determining the market value of such land. Therefore, when a land with building potentiality is acquired, the price which its willing seller could reasonably expect to obtain from its willing purchaser with reference to the date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, ought to necessarily include, that portion of the price of the land attributable to its building potentiality. Such price of the acquired land then becomes its market value envisaged under section 23(1) of the LA Act. If that be the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality, which acquired land could be regarded to have a building potentiality and how the market value of such acquired land with such building potentiality requires to be measured or determined are matters which remain for our consideration now.
An acquired land could be regarded as that which has a building potentiality, if such land although was used on the relevant date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act for agricultural or horticultural or other like purposes or was on that date even barren or waste, had the possibility of being used immediately or in the near future as land for putting up residential, commercial, LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 53 of 130 industrial or other buildings. However, the fact that the acquired land had been acquired for building purposes, cannot be sufficient circumstance to regard it as a land with building potentiality, in that, under clause (4) of section 24 of the LA Act that any increase to the value of land likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired, is required to be excluded. Therefore, wherever, there is a possibility of the acquired land not used for building purposes on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, of being used for putting up buildings either immediately or in the near future but not in the distant future, then such acquired land would be regarded as that which has a building potentiality. Even so, when can it be said that there is the possibility of the acquired land being used in the immediate or near future for putting up buildings, would be the real question. Such possibility of user of the acquired land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it should be a matter of inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on record to establish such possibility. Material so placed on record or made available must necessarily relate to the matters such as :
(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis, the city of the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;
(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;
(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;
(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes;
(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 54 of 130 in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;
(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and
(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.
Then, comes the question of determining the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality. Undoubtedly such market value of the acquired land with building potentiality comprises of the market value of the land having regard to the use to which it was put on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act plus the increase in that market value because of the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings, in the immediate or near future. If there is any other land with building potentiality similar to the acquired land which had been sold for a price obtained by a willing seller from a willing purchaser, such price could be taken to be the market value of the acquired land, in that, it would have comprised of the market value of the land as was being actually used plus increase in price attributable to its building potentiality. If the prices fetched by sale of similar land with building potentiality in the neighbourhood or vicinity of the acquired lands with building potentiality, as on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, are unavailable, it becomes necessary to find out whether any building plots laid out in a land similar to the acquired land had been sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer on or near about the relevant date under Section 4(1) when the acquired land had been proposed for acquisition and then to find out what would be the price which the acquired land would have fetched if had been sold by making it into building plots similar to those sold. In other words, an hypothetical lay- out of building plots LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 55 of 130 in the acquired land similar to that of the layout of building plots actually made in the other similar land, has to be prepared, and the price fetched by sale of building plots in the lay-out actually made should form the basis for fixing the total price of the acquired land with building potentiality, to be got if plots similar to other plots had been made in the latter land and sold by taking into account plus factors and minus factors involved in the process.
Hence, whether the acquired land has building potentiality or not, while has to be decided upon reference to the material to be placed on record or made available by the parties concerned, the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality, is also required to be deter- mined with reference to the material to be placed on record or made available in that regard by the parties concerned and not solely on surmises, conjectures or pure guess.
19.8 In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 650, the Supreme Court made pertinent observation about comparable sales method of valuation and relevant factors there under in the following words :
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 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 4 of the Act.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 56 of 130 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 4 of 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 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.
35. In a recent case Union of India Versus Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, the 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 therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and / or neighbouring LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 57 of 130 villages.
19.9 In respect to building potentiality, Supreme Court in case titled as The Collector, Raigarh v. Dr. Harsingh Thakur and Another (1979) 1 SCC 236 made following observation :
"the question as to whether a particular land had potential value as a building site or not is primarily one of fact depending upon several factors such as its condition and situation, the user to which it is put or is reasonable capable of being put, its suitability for building purposes, its proximity to residential, commercial and industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institutions, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future extension, whether the nearby town is a developing or a prospering town with prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired or in the neighbourhood thereof.
In The Collector, Rajgarh's case (supra) it was held that market value of land must be determined with reference to the nature of lad that whether it has potential for building sites amd the matters to be considered as aforementioned.
19.10 In Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda (2010) 5 SCC 708. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India underlined that some guesswork is imperative in detention of market value, it is observed that :
"90. ... The Court is entitled to apply some (amount) of reasonable guesswork to balance the equities and fix a just and fair market value in terms of the parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act."
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 58 of 130 19.11 In M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector of Madras, 1969 (1) MLJ 45 SC, it is held as under , "whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different Course. In any case, we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case."
19.12 In State of Punjab v. Hans Raj (1994) 5 SCC 734, method of averaging of prices was depreciated as a practice in following words :
"4.Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed a grave error in working out average price paid under the sale transactions to determine the market value of the acquired land on that basis. As the method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times, for fixing the market value of the acquired land, if followed, could bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched by sale of acquired land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value."
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 59 of 130 19.13 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made observation with respect to averaging of sale transaction prices to arrive at fair market value in Anjani Molu Desai v. State of Goa, (2010) 13 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under :
"20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, 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 reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of undervaluation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently, averaging cannot be resorted to."
19.14 Having, adverted to prevalent legal position, coming to the facts of the present case, total acquired land is 8 bighas and 6 biswas whereas this reference has been filed in respect to 2 bighas and 16 biswas. The acquired land falls under the revenue estate of village Bahapur. Although counsel for UOI during final written arguments raised doubt as to whether the entire area falls within the revenue estate of Bahapur, however, as the award itself notes that land has been acquired out of revenue estate of village Bahapur, there remains no doubt as far as this aspect is concerned. Petitioners were granted compensation @ Rs. 2684 /- per sq. yd. as per the Award Ex. R1 which was not acceptable to the claimants against which reference petition was filed which LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 60 of 130 was forwarded to the reference court for determination of the compensation in terms of provisions of LA Act. It is settled that the entire onus is upon the petitioners to prove as to what instead was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
19.15 Petitioners have contended that the land use of the subject land falling within khasra no. 621/2/3/2/2/1 min with area 2 bighas and 16 biswas in respect of which the instant reference petition was filed, was commercial as it formed part of Nehru Place District Centre as on the date of notification which was only few yards away from the iconic commercial and IT Hub of Nehru Place Towers and few hundred meters away from Kalkaji Temple surrounded by posh and developed colonies on all its sides with various social, cultural, educational, recreational, medical institutions of great importance in its vicinity and with easy accessibility and thus the assessment of market rate should encompass these factors to arrive at the right figure to do justice with the land owners in respect of deprivation of land at such a prime location in South Delhi.
19.16 It is noted that revenue estate of village Bahapur was urbanized vide notification no. F.9(2)/66-Law-Corp. dated 28.05.1966 in exercise of powers u/S. 507(a) of D& C Act wherein it was declared that remaining part of revenue estate of village Bahapur which formed part of rural areas would cease to LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 61 of 130 be rural area. It is settled that provisions of Delhi Land Reform Act would also thereupon cease to apply.
19.17 Counsel for petitioner stressed upon a communication dated 31.01.2003 issued by DDA as addressed to the Chief Town planner, MCD with copy to petitioner which is placed as Ex. PW1/5 on record to contend that land use of Khasra no. 621/2/3/2/1 in Village Bahapur, Nehru Place is commercial, since that forms part of the Nehru Place District Centre, which has since been notified vide notification u/S. 4 and 17 LA Act dated 28.11.2002. It is also intimated vide said letter that any permission for construction, therefore, cannot be given to the party. Counsel for petitioner has claimed that this commercial land use was communicated in terms and in compliance of the directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case CWP No. 6091/2000 vide order dated 26.09.2002 placed on record as Ex. PW1/4 wherein DDA was directed to communicate the land use as existing on date to MCD within a period of two weeks from the date of order. Counsel for Respondent no.1 argued that the land use as stated to be commercial can be interpreted, as only on the date of communication of letter Ex. PW1/5 which is 31.01.2003 whereas notification u/S. 4 and u/S. 17 qua acquired land was already issued on 28.11.2002 whereas it is the case of respondent no.1 that this land use can be interpreted to be commercial as on the date of the order Ex. PW1/4 which is 26.09.2002. The letter Ex. PW1/5 does not offer any clarification LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 62 of 130 that 'the land use of the subject land was commercial even prior to issuance of notification and as existing on 26.09.2002 or even prior thereto.' The contents of letter Ex. PW1/5 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference :
"To The Chief Town Planner MCD Nigam Bhawan Kashmere gate, Delhi.
Sub : Regarding Khasra no. 621/2/3/2/1 in Village Bahapur, Nehru Place Sir, This is in continuation of this letter no. F3(30)94/MP dated 12.08.96 (copy enclosed) wherein Pr. Commr., DDA intimated to the Commr, MCD that the land under reference is part of the planned development as such permission for construction can not be given to the party. Subsequently, the clarification has also been sent to Addl. Town Planner, MCD vide this office letter dated 07.02.97 (copy enclosed) As per the directions of Hon'ble High Court in case of CWP No. 6091/2000 the land use of the land under is commercial, since this forming part of the Nehru Place Distt. Centre. Further, this land has been notified for acquisition under section 17 vide notification F.S(32)01/L&B/LA/14637 dated 28.11.2002 (copy enclosed).
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (A K Manna) JT. DIR (MP) Encl : As above (three nos.) Copy to :
Sh. B.D. Sharma S/o. Sh. Chet Ram Sharma , B-1/12, 2 nd Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi."
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 63 of 130 The Award Ex. R1 also contain no specification about land use of the subject land. It only notes as under :
TREES : The land is vacant, hence no compensation assessed. WALLS & STRUCTURE: The land is vacant, hence no compensation assessed."
The award thus makes no mention as to whether the assessed compensation pertains to commercial land use.
19.18 In the Written Statement respectively filed on behalf of Respondent no.1 or Respondent no.2, there is nothing mentioned about the land use. It only admits the Khasra no. and the extent of land of petitioners u/S. 19 of LA Act, 1894. In this respect, it is important to indicate as to this aspect was not pleaded at all in the main reference petition to which Written Statement / reply on behalf of Union of India was filed. It is underlined that petitioners have not claimed in the reference petition about their land use as commercial on the date of issuance of notification.
The relevant paras of reference petition which can give valuable insight are reproduced as under :
(f) That all the civic amenities such as water, electricity, transport, school, roads and hospitals, cinema halls, Colleges, Markets are available adjacent to the land in question long prior to the date of notification u/S. 4 of LA Act in this case.
(g) That the Land Acquisition Collector has failed to take into consideration that entire acquired land of the petitioners are being used for commercial purposes and the acquired land can easily be used for commercial purposes as same is levelled and developed by the LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 64 of 130 petitioners long prior to the date of notification u/S. 4 in this case.
(h) That the Land Acquisition Collector has failed to take into consideration that the acquired land of the petitioners is adjacent to the District Centre Nehru Place as well as office of M.T.N.L. Delhi accordingly the petitioners acquired land had a great potentiality for commercial, industrial purposes.
Thus, petitioners never claimed in their reference petition that the land use as on the date of notification in the year 2002 was commercial as their khasra no. was part of Nehru Place District Centre. Reference petition rather claims that their land was adjacent to the Nehru Place District Centre as well as adjacent to Delhi and thus, their land had great potentiality for commercial and industrial purposes, more so, as their land is leveled and developed with all the civic amenities available much prior to the date of notification. It is noted that petitioners made reference of the Writ Petitions filed by them or letter issued dated 31.01.2003 issued by DDA to MCD only in replication/rejoinder wherein it was mentioned that the land use of acquired land of petitioners was commercial as admitted by DDA in the letter issued to MCD and also as it is surrounded by Nehru Place District Centre which is the hub of commercial activities and office complexes in Delhi. For the sake of clarity, it is so mentioned in written submissions filed on 25.01.2021 by petitioner as follows:
"The land of petitioners, MTNL Office and all other commercial buildings in Nehru Place are part of Nehru Place District Centre having similar potentiality. The land use of the petitioners land, admittedly, was LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 65 of 130 commercial and it was part of Nehru Place District Centre as communicated by Delhi Development Authority itself. The entire acquired land of petitioners has been used for commercial purposes."
Thus, it is noted there is a subtle shift introduced by the petitioners in the rejoinder/replication which not only witnesses various aspects of the matter elaborated but also contains host of supportive documents including letter dated 31.01.2003 strongly relied upon by petitioners to claim something which was not included in their reference petition and thus, has not been responded to by respondent no.1 as part of pleadings. Needless to mention, it is obvious that petitioners were conscious of the outcome of legal proceedings before Hon'ble Delhi High Court and also about the correspondence addressed by DDA to MCD much prior to pronouncement of award and filing of reference petition. At this stage, it is important to make reference to Section 21 of LA Act which determine scope of enquiry with Reference Court as restricted to a consideration of interests of persons affected by the objection. It is settled that plea taken in Reference Petition was sent for answering and not what was mentioned or introduced in Rejoinder. In fact adding new factual premise in Rejoinder/Replication would rather amount to amendment of basic Reference Petition which obviously cannot be allowed.
19.19 Petitioner no.2 Sh. B.R. Sharma appeared in the witness box to affirm and prove the basis of claim of petitioners who was LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 66 of 130 cross-examined by counsel for respondent no.1 wherein he responded "that the land in question was commercial ... it is wrong to suggest that the land in question was not commercial and was only agricultural land."
19.20 Counsel for petitioner has argued that counsel for respondent no.1 has not put even a single question to PW-1 with respect to the information about land use given in letter Ex. PW1/5. He also argued that while PW2 produced the summoned record of DDA letter dated 31.01.2003, he was not asked to elaborate upon the contents of the said letter, specifically about the land use mentioned therein.
19.21 It is settled that the court is not bound to accept the statement of witnesses only on account of lack of effective cross- examination or in the absence of production of rebuttal evidence. Support can be drawn from the case of Supreme Court of India Chaturbhuj Pandey v. Collector AIR 1969 SC 255 wherein it was observed as under :
"it is true that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants have not been effectively cross-examined. It is also true that the Collector had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal; but that does not mean that the court is bound to accept their evidence. The Judges are not computers... they are bound to call into aid their experience of life and test the evidence on the basis of probabilities"
19.22 Counsel for petitioner has placed strong reliance on the LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 67 of 130 letter dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 in support of his contention that the land use of the acquired land was commercial as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 LA Act and under Section 17 of LA Act. He has taken support of issuance of notification under Section 507 of DMC Act in the year 1966 which took out the acquired land out of purview of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. He also contended that urbanization can be effected also by virtue of issuance of notification applying a Zonal Development Plan pursuant to Master Plan, with strict obligation upon DDA to adhere and confirm to the Master Plan prepared under Section 7 of Delhi Development Act and Zonal Development Plan prepared under Section 8 of Delhi Development Act, which in turn specify the land use and that there cannot be any deviations or variance in respect of applicability of these provisions. He claimed that the letter dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 having been issued in terms of Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan confirmed the land use of acquired land of petitioners as commercial and falls specifically in Zonal Development Plan of Zone F, with letter dated 31.01.2003 proved by PW2 as Ex. PW1/5, Zonal Development Plan proved as Ex. PW3/1 and Lay-out plan proved as Ex. PW4/1. He also took support of Section 53(2) of Delhi Development Act which provides that provisions of the Act coupled with rules and regulations made thereunder shall have its effect notwithstanding anything therewith contained in any other law. He summed up the position in written submissions filed on 25.11.2021 as under :
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 68 of 130 "Therefore, even if the petitioners were not actually using the land for commercial purposes, but solely by virtue of the Master Plan, Zonal Development Plan, Layout Plan, urbanization Notification and letter dated 31.01.2003 (Ex. PW1/4), the land use of the Petitioners' land was commercial."
19.23 At the outset, it is clarified that petitioners have not claimed that the acquired land was being put to commercial use at the time of issuance of notification u/S. 4 or at any time prior thereto. PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that the acquired land was vacant with 10-12 rooms and a boundary wall at the time of acquisition and that he had no income from the said property. In the Award Ex. R1 also, acquired land is stated to be vacant with no trees or superstructures standing on it. So there is no dispute that the existing defacto land use of the acquired land was not commercial. The contention of the counsel for petitioner is that the land use communicated in the letter dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 was in respect of date of order of the Delhi High Court which is 26.09.2002 while the notification u/S. 4 of LA Act was issued on 28.11.2002. This position is disputed by counsel for respondent no.1 who stated that the land use mentioned in the letter can only be taken to be so as on date of the said letter which is post issuance of notification and which is bound to create huge difference in the criteria to be followed for assessment of compensation.
19.24 Letter Ex. PW1/5 itself notes that the land use was being LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 69 of 130 communicated in terms of directions noted in order dated
26.09.2002 in Civil Writ Petition filed by petitioners. Vide said order, DDA was directed to communicate to MCD 'the land use as existing on date' . In the said order itself, it was mentioned that petitioner had applied on 11.01.1994 for sanction of the plans, however, as the land use was not communicated to MCD by DDA, the plans could not be sanctioned. It is not part of pleadings before this Court as to when the petitioners actually submitted their plans for sanctioning of the competent authority however, same finds mention in the order dated 03.03.2005 in WP(C) 6967/2003 , WP(C) 76-79/2004 and WP(C) 2162/2004 which notes "on 26.04.2001, the petitioner had submitted his plans for sanction of the competent authority in respect of the property of the petitioner in CW.76-79/2004 the plans of the petitioners were not sanctioned nor was refused."
19.25 It is clear that DDA was not asked to communicate to MCD, the land use of the land of petitioners as on 11.01.1994 when an application for sanctioning was allegedly filed before the competent authority. Rather, it was directed that the land use as existing on date be communicated within two weeks. This communication was addressed four months later while notification u/S. 4 of LA Act acquiring the land of petitioners was issued during the intervening period. An important development took place between date of order of Delhi High Court and letter issued by DDA to MCD. The letter itself notes that the land LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 70 of 130 under reference has been acquired being part of planned development. It is the case of petitioners that responsible public officials issued this letter only on the basis of credible information available as part of official record, which in this case was Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan. It is important to mention that the Layout Plan filed in support of the contention which is Ex. PW4/1 was only approved by 221st Screening Committee on 24.02.2003. There is no clarity in the letter dated 31.01.2003 that the land use of the land of petitioners was commercial even prior to issuance of notification. It only gives inference that this land was being acquired for the purpose of 'Planned Development of Delhi' in terms of applicable Zonal Developmental Plan. While petitioners have placed great stress on consideration of letter dated 31.01.2003 as the basis of their claim, they could have easily substantiated the same by summoning concerned official / officer to give necessary clarification on this aspect. While the onus is upon the claimants to prove their case, in the same breath, it is noted that counsel for respondent no.2 which was the agency itself in question, could also have brought in the necessary clarification. The letter itself notes that the land use was commercial as it formed part of Nehru Place District Centre. Thus, it can be understood that the acquired land was part of expansion plan of Nehru Place District Centre which was to be implemented in terms of the Layout plan approved only in February, 2003.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 71 of 130 19.26 It is noted that the land acquired formed part of Revenue Estate of Bahapur (even though it was urbanized way back in the year 1966 and was out of purview of applicability of Delhi Land Reforms Act) and not Nehru Place itself as it was existing on the date of issuance of notification. The land was purchased by petitioner no.1 way back in the year 1955 whereas the Nehru Place Plaza was developed in the decade 1970s and early 1980s but petitioners did not put their lands to any commercial usage while they approached the Delhi High Court seeking permission /direction for intimation of land user only in the year 2000. Thus, the acquired land was only meant to be put to possible future potential use in terms of provisions of Zonal Development Plan and Layout Plan to be developed in pursuant thereto, whereas it cannot be interpreted that the existing land use on the date of issuance of notification was commercial. Emphasis is also drawn towards Section 24(1) which enlists factors not to be considered while determining compensation, one of which is the use to which acquired land was meant to be put to subsequently. Thus, whether actually it was meant to be used for commercial purpose later could not lay down a criteria for determining market value on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of LA Act. Further, market rate has to be assessed as on the date of issuance of notification only.
19.27 Having said that no words can be minced to point out that the acquired land had the requisite building potentiality to be developed into residential, commercial or industrial use. While LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 72 of 130 the acquired land was planned to be developed as part of the Nehru Place District Centre, presumably its land use was categorized as Commercial and not Residential or Industrial. It also lends a necessary inference that land was meant to be acquired for building purposes. It is stated in the reference petition that the land was levelled and was fit and ready for building purposes. Nature of land as mentioned in Jamabandi of year 1949-50 issued on 25.07.2006 which recorded mutation in favour of petitioner no.2 placed on record as Ex. PW1/2, notes the nature of land as 'gair mumkin pahad' which can be plainly described as uncultivable waste land. Notice is taken of the premise that the entire Nehru place was located on a rocky hill which entailed change in level at different points on account of which different courts were to be connected with the help of series of steps/stairs.
19.28 Potentiality of the acquired land of being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future is considered as building potentiality. It is the case of petitioner that acquired land was surrounded by posh and well developed residential as well as commercial colonies and was ideally located to be used for commercial activities and capable of holding multi-storied buildings, already having access to all the civic amenities, commercial complexes, posh markets, adjacent to the acquired land , also having accessibility from Ring Road, Outer Ring Road and NH2. It is settled that only a projection of affirmation that LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 73 of 130 acquired land has been so acquired for building purposes is not sufficient to prove that land has building potentiality rather it is to be gathered from the material placed on record with respect to its geographical situation, surrounding areas, location, accessibility, frontage, existing civic amenities, educational, cultural or medical facilities nearby and any other like factors coming as advantage or disadvantage to the acquired land.
19.29 In the present case, although acquired land is 8 bighas and 6 biswas and reference has been filed only with respect to 2 bighas and 6 biswas which is depicted to be covered within the layout plan of Nehru Place Kalkaji District Centre with the remaining acquired land also forming part of same khasra no. although belonging to other claimants not before this Court in the reference petition, it can safely be understood that part of this khasra no. was earlier acquired in 1960s which was developed by DDA as Nehru Place Commercial Complex, and thus enjoys proximate value in that respect. Notice can also be taken that Nehru Place Complex has G.K.-I, G.K.-II, Kalkaji, Chirag Enclave, Kailash Colony, New Friends Colony within range of few kilometers. Apparently, there were no statutory impediment with respect to usage of land for construction of residential or commercial buildings. It enjoyed good accessibility and connectivity on account of efforts put in by the public agencies for development of a commercial complex within range of a kilometer and with well developed residential colonies growing in the vicinity. It is stated in the reference petition that the LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 74 of 130 subject land was leveled at the time of issuance of notification. It is noted that nothing stands mentioned as part of the award about the nature of land or nature of soil at the time of issuance of notification so as to derive any inference to the contrary. It can thus be deduced that the acquired land held the capability of construction of buildings and also enjoyed locational advantage with basic civic amenities already in place on account of developed neighbourhood areas and easy accessibility as well as connectivity.
19.30 Having so determined the potentiality, this Court proceeds to undertake the exercise of assessment of market value as on the date of issuance of notification u/S 4 of LA Act. As discussed earlier, market value of the acquired land encompasses a host of factors including the actual use of the said land as on the date of notification and also its potentiality and utility in the immediate or near future. It is important to be understood that we have to asses the entire circumstance, looking away from the period when the land was notified to be acquired and possibility of development which it entailed at that point of time and not as looking back 10, 15 or 20 years till the date of issuance of notification. It is important to be understood that the assessment of the market value has to be on the date of issuance of notification so the immediate or near future potential and utility of land needs to be looked into in addition to the actual user of land. How and what the land has developed into after 20 years or LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 75 of 130 would develop into, after 50 years is not directly relevant for the assessment of market value which is why relative assessments of comparable lands during the period preceding or succeeding by few years attain relevance. 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. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record several exemplars for the Court to consider as comparable rates as per the promising potentiality of the subject land, which are enumerated as under :
1. Perpetual lease deed dated 23.01.1996 in respect of commercial plot no. 70 in the Layout plan of District Centre, Nehru Place measuring 1874.38 meters for a consideration of Rs. 34,20,000,00/- placed on record as Ex. PW1/1.
2. Sale deed registered on 09.08.2002 of a freehold shop measuring 195 sq. yds. in block M, G.K. II for a sale consideration of 3 crores.
3. Judgment dated 30.11.2010 passed by Ld. Reference Court in LAC No. 1/08 bearing Award no. 25/2005-06 pertaining to village Yusuf Sarai which had two sale deeds adduced in its evidence (a) Sale deed dated 17.02.2000 in respect of residential property no. B-39, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi measuring 500 sq. yds. sold for a consideration 2,95,000,00/-
(b) perpetual lease deed dated 07.06.1991 in the Layout plan of Yusuf Sarai District Centre measuring 2438.10 sq. mtrs. To be used for office purposes, sold for a consideration of Rs. 25,33,69,689/-, certified copies of all placed on record collectively as Ex. PW1/12.
4. Certified copy of judgment dated 02.08.2011 passed by Ld. LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 76 of 130 Reference Court in LAC no. 116/11, pertaining to Village Yusuf Sarai in respect of notification dated 29.04.2003 bearing Award no. 25/2005-06 placed on record as Ex. PW1/13.
5. Newspaper Auction Advertisement issued by DDA for conducting sale of commercial plots in South Delhi. The tabulated details are reproduced as under :
S. Date of Locality/ Plot Area Reserve
No. auction/openi Place No. (Sq. Price fixed
ng of tender Mtrs.) (in Crores)
1. 29.06.2001 Nehru 45 1783.15 30.96
Place crores
District
Centre
2. 15.01.2003 Communit 12 302.80 3.95
y Centre, 13 302.80 3.95
Sector-B, 14 261.14 2.39
Pocket-I,
Vasant
Kunj
3. 14.02.2003 Saket A2 6782.00 50.92
Place C1 3020.00 36.21
C2 1734.00 20.78
4. 14.02.2003 Saket A1 9492.00 78.29
Place A3 15884.5 133.87
A4 0 123.54
D1 15659.5 43.40
D2 0 43.40
D3 2500.00 49.85
D4 2500.00 44.48
3000.00
2713.00
5. 03.03.2003 Local 04 564.40 1.92
Shopping 12 1160.30 3.95
Centre, 13 1160.30 3.95
Sector-B,
Pocket-I,
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 77 of 130
Vasant
Kunj
6. 30.07.2003 Saket A1 9492.00 78.29
Place A4 15659.5 123.54
D2 0 43.40
C2 2600.00 20.78
1734.00
7. 29.09.2003 District D1 2500.00 43.40
Centre D2 2500.00 43.40
Saket
Copies of relevant newspaper with publication of auction advertisements collectively placed on record as Ex. PW1/14.
19.31 It is settled 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. Use of yardstick on how the lands developed into after a period of 20 years on account of widespread expansion and implementation of various plans and policies to bring about the desired planned development, cannot be termed to be safe to reach out to a price happily acceptable to both seller and purchaser at the relevant time. Further, any such comparison cannot be accepted to be done with mathematical accuracy and would fairly entail rational guess work, although at the same time trying to reach out to objective criterias as the guiding light of various pronouncements by the Hon'ble Delhi LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 78 of 130 High Court and Supreme Court applicable in such like cases, so as to minimize the element of speculation to the least.
19.32 In the present matter, two judgments of the Ld. Reference Courts with respect to acquired areas of village Yusuf Sarai have been placed reliance upon not because of the proximity of village Yusuf Sarai to the acquired land of village Bahapur but to show that while an acquired land in village Yusuf Sarai which falls in category E, was awarded a compensation @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per sq. mtr. for an award pronounced in the year 2005-06 for a notification of land in the year 2003, the acquired land in village Bahapur falls in category A and is thus, entitled to receive compensation of atleast 10 times considering the difference in circle rate between category E and category A. As conceded by the counsel for petitioner, these judgments do not pertain to an award in respect of acquired land in near vicinity. It is highlighted that the categorisation of localities from 'A' to 'F' was undertaken only in the year 2007 when the circle rates were first introduced in Delhi and were not in existence in the year 2002 when the subject notification was issued. Further, categorisation of various colonies in Delhi has not been adopted as a criteria to determine the market value of acquired land. Each area offers unique advantages with respect to situation, potential utility and has to be assessed accordingly. The assessment arrived at by Ld. Reference Court with respect to another village which is about 6-7 kilometers away was done on its own merits and cannot LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 79 of 130 be accepted as a yardstick to draw comparison with the acquired land in revenue estate of village Bahapur.
19.33 With respect to two exemplars relied as part of judgment Ex. PW1/12 are respectively sale deed of commercial property in Gulmohar Park and Lease Deed of commercial plot of Yusuf Sarai District Centre. Neither Gulmohar Park nor Yusuf Sarai District Centre can be considered as exemplar of same revenue estate. Village Yusuf Sarai does not share its boundary with village Bahapur and has almost boundary of four villages falling in between. The exemplar of Gulmohar Park also offers no comparison with the acquired land, not only considering that it is residential and also pertains to an area, nowhere comparable with the acquired subject land but also is located at a distance not less than 6 kilometers which can stated to be comparable a property with respect to acquired land in Yusuf Sarai considering its proximity to Yusuf Sarai but is nowhere comparable to subject land in Nehru Place therefore cannot be even considered as a comparable sale instance for further assessment.
19.34 Counsel for respondent no.1 has stated that these are not admissible as vendor and vendee of sale exemplar have not been produced in the witness box whereas the case of the petitioner is that, the certified copies of registered sale deed are admissible without having to examine any vendor or vendee with respect to the sale deeds as exemplars for assessment of compensation. No LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 80 of 130 doubt Sec. 51 of LA Act makes certified copies of registered sale deeds as admissible evidence without the necessity of calling upon vendor or vendee to prove its genuineness, however it is also settled that examination of vendor or vendee as a witness in respect of sale deed is necessitated to understand its bonafide or that it was a decision taken out of prudent mind with reasonable justification and not just a fanciful or exaggerated or even distress sale transaction which offers a reasonable and credible basis for the court to place reliance upon with respect to assessment of compensation of any adjoining or neighbouring land in the vicinity since the areas of Yusuf Sarai as well as Gulmohar Park are not comparable at all thus, this aspect of any vendor or vendee not produced in witness box is not being further delved into as the areas are not comparable with the acquired land and thus rejected.
19.35 Further, only categorization cannot be and has never been accepted as a criterion for determination of market value payable as compensation. There may be a unit which requires vast even undeveloped land for its setup whereas there may be another which needs sophisticated well developed and planned set up to survive. It thus cannot be accepted as a straight jacket formula to contend that any property falling under any categorisation of locality would fetch comparative price regardless of its location, utility, any specific geographical advantage, keenness of purchaser, suitability with respect to certain activities for which LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 81 of 130 it is put to use and so many like others. Thus, the contention of petitioners of accepting auction exemplars in Yusuf Sarai and rather to rely upon a judgment qua award pertaining to village Yusuf Sarai to make up the ground for grant of 10 times the compensation as per the difference in circle rates fixed for various categories is totally untenable and hence rejected.
19.36 Petitioners have also placed reliance upon Sale Deed registered on 09.10.2002 of property i.e. shop in M Block measuring 195 sq. yds. registered on 09.08.2002 placed on record as Ex. PW1/11. This Sale Deed pertains to shop in a market place in residential colony of M Block G.K.-II measuring less than 200 sq. yds. whereas acquired land do not constitute to be plotted lands in any existing commercial complexes or market having dimensions more than about 50 times to the size of shop located somewhere at a distance of about 4 kilometers from Nehru place Complex cannot be treated as good exemplar. This is an exemplar of a shop for setting up a retail business establishment in a well developed residential colony which is ready to be put to commercial usage equipped with all basic facilities and amenities, ready for reaping profits, also having its ornamental value on account of its locality and immediate commercial usage it entails, presumably having all pre requisites in place to run a successful business establishment so it cannot be compared to the acquired land which admittedly was largely unused at the time of notification. Also, as mentioned in the said LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 82 of 130 sale deed, it was purchased together with construction thereupon alongwith all common passages, sewer, water tanks, lights, electricity fixtures, water meter, electricity meter installed in it. Also it appears to be a part of complex where other shops are also located, catering to needs of people of residential colony.
19.37 It is important to understand that this was a free hold shop in developed G.K.-II residential colony and cannot be looked as a vacant land in revenue estate of village Bahapur. Property thus was presumably numbered in Municipal records and was part of developed colony, hence, it was not part of land to be planned and developed into a developed residential colony. Mere certified Sale Deed has been produced in evidence without examination of any vendor or vendee to understand bonafideness and genuineness of transaction coupled with the premise upon which it could be connected with the acquired land. Emphasis is laid upon on the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lal Chand v. UOI & Anr. (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 769 : (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 766 : 2009 SCC Online SC 1498, as under :
74 . 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 LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 83 of 130 the market value.
75. Mere deduction of some exemplar deed without "connecting" the subject-matter of the instrument, to the acquired lands will be of little assistance in determining the market value. Section 51-A of the LA Act only exempts the production of the original sale deed and examination of the vendor or vendee.
Thus this exemplar cannot be considered to be a guiding factor in respect of subject acquired land.
19.38 Petitioner also relied upon various auction advertisements issued by DDA in leading newspapers to show high time premium reserve price fixed by DDA in various residential complexes in South Delhi placed on record. These advertisements pertain to commercial complexes / District Centres at Saket place, Vasant Kunj and Nehru Place, all collectively marked as Ex. PW5/1. As far as perpetual lease deed of Saket District Centres ae concerned, these belong to an area located about more than 8 kilometers from the acquired land, seemingly, having no comparison with each other. These have been relied upon assuming that acquired land is part of Nehru Place Complex. It is not to be forgotten that these are developed, ready for possession commercial plots, in premium to be commercial complexes / cineplexes/ multi-plexes / District centres in fully planned layouts which offered ample parking, roads, pavements, connectivity, accessibility with the advantage of other similar plots, being brought in as part of business centre, LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 84 of 130 with traffic management for the purpose of retail business or office purpose or for service apartments. Acquired was the land, not a commercial plot in a planned commercial premium complex. Creating any such place was meant to offer premium competitive advantage over others at a scaled price. The arrangement has been conceptualized by public advertisement agency which meticulously planned as well as developed centres with availability of all attendant and like spaces for bringing out public complex, catering to specific requirement or services with arrangement of electricity sub station, necessary public utility offices, telephone substations, offering exclusive services to smooth running in all these complexes.
19.39 As such Saket is located at a distance of almost 8 kilometers whereas Vasant Kunj is at a distance of more than 13 kilometers from Nehru Place. It is settled that the distance between the acquired land and the land situated in other localities is a relevant factor for consideration of an exemplar apart from the comparability of the nature of land, potential, current usage, utility and other factors. Relied upon are all auction proceedings of developed commercial complex, located at distance of 8 to 13 kilometers from the acquired land, having their own set of peculiar locational advantages and disadvantages and cannot stated to offer a comparable sale instance for the acquired land and are thus rejected.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 85 of 130 19.40 Petitioners have also placed reliance on the circle rates, notified in the year 2014. PW1 in Para 25 of Ex. PW1/A has affirmed as under :
"The notification of Circle Rates bearing no. F.1(953)/Regn. Br./Div.Com/HQ/2014/5943 dated 22nd September, 2014 issued by Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi, the minimum rates (circle rates) for valuation of lands and immovable properties in Delhi were revised. Clause 2 of the said notification also fixed the minimum land rates for commercial, industrial and other uses of lands. In respect of commercial lands, the multiplying factor of 3 is employed to the minimum land rates fixed for residential use, to arrive at the cost of land. Nehru Place falls in category 'A'. The minimum rate for valuation of land for residential use in respect of category 'A' locality as per the said notification is Rs. 7,74,000/- per square meter. Using the multiplying factor of 3, to arrive at the cost of land of commercial property, the minimum rate would be Rs. 23,22,000/- per square meter. The said minimum rate, even though based on the notification dated 22.09.2014 , can be used as an exemplar, to assess the market value of the land of the petitioners, as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, issued on 28.11.2002 which is the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. If the value is calculated backwards from 22.09.2014 to 28.11.2002 (for 12 years) by using depreciation of 15% every year, the value of land of the petitioners, which was commercial in nature would be Rs. 3,30,285.38 per square meter, as on 28.11.2002. However, if the depreciation is taken as 12% every year, then the value of the petitioners land, as on 28.11.2002, would be Rs. 5,00,788.41 per square meter. I have brought the original book containing the notification dated 22.09.2014. The relevant pages of the notification dated 22.09.2014 are Ex. PW1/15."
19.41 Circle rates were first notified in the year 2007 by virtue LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 86 of 130 of Notification no. F.2(12)/Fin.(E.I)Part File/Vol.1(ii)/3548 dated 18.07.2007, as minimum rates for valuation of lands and immovable properties in Delhi for registration under the Registration Act, 1908 in respect of instruments relating thereto, whereby the localities in Delhi were placed under 8 categories starting from A to H with respective specification of minimum rates for valuation of land and also for cost of construction. Multiplicative use factors depending upon different uses of land were also brought in. It is noted that the circle rate for residential use in the year 2007 for category A was for Rs. 43,000/- per sq. mtr. If at all it is the contention on behalf of petitioners that circle rates can be treated as relevant examplers, then, even though circle rates were never in place in the year 2002, however, if at all circle rates are to be considered then most relevant would be of the year 2007 and not those of 2014. Rates in the year 2007 can still be considered to be reflective of possession of land rates in the year 2002 but consideration of the rates in the year 2014 is totally uncalled for, considering the gap of 12 years between the two. Petitioners probably chose to rely upon 2014 rates because of the huge leap it had over 2007 rates. Further, in case Lal Chand v . Union of India (supra), examined as to whether circle rate could be considered as a basis for the purpose of determination of market value wherein it adverted to other decisions including Jawajee Naganatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595 and U.P. Jai Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (1996) 3 SCC 124 and made following observations:
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 87 of 130 "39. There is also another set of decisions considering if such circle rates could be considered as prima facie basis , for the purposes of ascertaining the market value and determining whether there was any undervaluation of the instrument for the purposes of stamp duty, which is a revenue collection exercise. We may refer to one of those case, that is, Ramesh Chand Bansal v. District Magistrate/Collector wherein this Court held : (SCC pp.67-68, para5)"
"5. ...Reading Section 47-A with the aforesaid Rule 340- A it is clear that the circle rate fixed by the Collector is not final but is only a prima facie determination of rate of the area concerned only to give guidance to the registering authority to test prima facie whether the instrument has properly described the value of the property. The circle rate under this rule is neither final for the authority nor to the one subjected to pay the stamp duty. So far sub-sections (1) and (2) are concerned they are very limited in their application as they only direct the registering authority to refer to the Collector for determination in case the property is undervalued in such instrument. The circle rate does not take away the right of such person to show that the property in question is correctly valued as he gets an opportunity in case of undervaluation to prove it before the Collector after reference is made."
"44. One of the recognized methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committees, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 88 of 130 roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalised after inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it may."
"46. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the circle rates have been determined by any statutorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis. Hence, the principle in Jawajee Nagnatham will apply and they will not be of any assistance for determining the market value. Further, they do not purport to be the market value for lands in rural areas on the outskirts of Delhi, nor the market values relating to Rithala Village. The circle rates relate to urban/city areas in Delhi and are wholly irrelevant."
19.42 In R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha (2004) 2 SCC 9 :
2004 SCC (cri) 377, it is held as under :
"22. .... The guideline value is a rate fixed by authorities under the Stamp Act for purposes of determining the true market value of the property disclosed in an instrument requiring payment of stamp duty. Thus the guideline value fixed is not final but only a prima facie rate prevailing in an area. It is open to the registering authority as well as the person seeking registration to prove the actual market value of property. The authorities cannot regard the guideline valuation as the last word on the subject of market value."
19.43 Circle rates in Delhi have not been determined by any statutorily appointed Expert Committee upon adoption of a scientific basis. Further, prior to the year 2007, Nehru Place was not identified or categorized separately for the purpose of determination of any land rates rather it used to be considered part of Kalkaji. Also, consideration in this matter is about acquired vacant land in village Bahapur, not to fully developed LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 89 of 130 urban conclave of Nehru Place. Acquired lands were acquired to be developed for further expansion of Nehru Place for planned development of Delhi and thus by any stretch of imagination, the rates applicable to Nehru Place even in the year 2007 could not be the basis for determination of market value on the date of issuance of notification in the year 2002. It can be understood that acquired land did not strictly fall within any municipal limit in the year 2002. Therefore, even the rates of land as issued by Ministry of Urban Development and the applicable rates of conversion from leasehold to freehold were available only for Kalkaji as a zone, being an urban comparable land in the vicinity. The categories of colonies identified in the notification of circle rate were not in existence at the time of issuance of notification. Acquired land was in the vicinity of urban space but was yet to be developed into one. For the sake of reference, although not directly applicable for assessment of market value, relevant only as indicative prices, as circle rates notified in the year 2014 have been relied by petitioners, judicial notice is taken that the circle rates as per notification bearing no. F2(12)/Fin.(E.I)/Part File/Vol.1(ii)/3548, dated 18.07.2007, applicable to Nehru Place was Rs. 43,000/- per sq. mtr. which upon 15% depreciation scales down to Rs. 19079/- in the year 2002. This is so when rates of Nehru Place were taken while in the year 2002 if at all only rates of Kalkaji which is a category B colony were applicable which scales down to Rs. 15103/- in the year 2002. Further, these are retail land prices which as such, without further deduction, cannot be applied to vast tracts of unused vacant land so even this rate LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 90 of 130 cannot be imported to determine market rate of acquired village land.
19.44 It is pertinent to mention that petitioners pleaded in reference petition that LAC did not consider the schedule of rates fixed by fixed by Ministry of Urban Development for the developed land in South Delhi which falls in the coloumn of Kalkaji area. As per the Schedule of market rate of lands in Delhi, made applicable vide letter no. J-22011/4/95-LD dated 16.04.1999 from Min. of UA&E, rates of Kalkaji w.e.f. 01.04.1998 till 31.03.2000 were Rs. 9,240/- per sq. mtr. for residential and Rs. 19,320/- per sq. mtr. for commercial land. It is also taken note of that the rates of Kalkaji location applicable for conversion of land w.e.f. 01.04.2000 onwards, were also specified as Rs. 9,240/- per sq. mtr.
19.45 Petitioner has laid great stress upon perpetual lease deed dated 23.01.1996 in respect of auctioned commercial plot no. 70 measuring 1784.38 sq. mtrs.for a consideration amount of Rs. 34,20,00,000/-, certified copy of which has been placed on record as Ex. PW1/10 for consideration as sale exemplar with respect to the acquired land on the premise that it is the nearest property as the acquired property as well as property no. 70, are both situated in Nehru Place District Centre and have commercial usage with similar situational advantages and also a bonafide transaction with DDA as vendor thereof. Counsel for the petitioner has LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 91 of 130 argued that cumulative increase @ 15% per annum every subsequent year at compounding rate ought to be granted, relying upon the sale price of this exemplar to arrive at fair assessment of market value. He has filed the calculation, adopting this methodology, as per which, it comes to be Rs. 3,73.648.37 per sq. yd. as on the date of notification. It is also stated that judicial notice be taken that there was a boom in property prices in Delhi in 1990s and 2000s. Counsel for Respondent no.1/ UOI counter submitted on the aspect that the acquired land was not to put to any use till the date of notification and as such there can be no comparison between the auctioned commercial leased plot with the acquired subject land.
19.46 Before proceeding further, certain observations made by Supreme Court with respect to reliability of auction sales as a credible sale exemplar are reproduced hereunder :
In Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag.(2011) 2 SCC 246, Supreme Court has observed :
"6. But auction sales stand on a different footing. When purchasers start bidding for a property in an auction, an element of competition enters into the auction. Human ego, and desire to do better and excel other competitors, leads to competitive bidding, each trying to outbid the others. Thus in a well advertised open auction sale, where a large number of bidders participate, there is always a tendency for the price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On the other hand, where the auction sale is by banks or financial institutions, courts, etc. to recover LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 92 of 130 dues, there is an element of distress, a cloud regarding title, and a chance of litigation, which have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders and making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There is therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction sale transactions when other regular traditional sale transactions are available while determining the market value of the acquired land. This Court in Raj Kumar v. Haryana State - 2007 (7) SCC 609, observed that the element of competition in auction sales makes them unsafe guides for determining the market value.
In Lal Chand v. UOI (supra), Supreme Court considered the viability of adopting auction sales as a criteria to determine market value as under :
"Allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment ratees of development authorities are with reference to smell plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, market value of freehold land is under consideration, whereas the allotment 'rates' in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis.
25. Some development authorities allot plots on freehold LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 93 of 130 basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DDA allot plots on leasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent.
26. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership) rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the property.
27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant."
In Balwant Singh v. Union of India 2016 SCC OnLine Del 154 : (2016) 226 DLT 626 : (2016) 154 DRJ 276, Delhi High Court while rejecting Ex. PW1/1 perpetual lease granted by DDA in the year 2000 of a commercial plot in a shopping complex of Lado Sarai at an approximate distance of about 2.5 kilometers from acquired land, as a comparable sale exemplar for acquired land located on main Chatarpur Road, made following observations:
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 94 of 130
12. From the statement of PW2, Patwari, Village Chattarpur, it is evident that the required land is situated on the main Chattapur Road. The acquired land is 2-2½ kilometers away from Chattarpur Mandir and Qutub Minar. Therefore, it is evident that the acquired land had considerable geographical advantage. The fact that the statement of PW-2 was recorded on 24.05.2011 and the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 2000, does not take away from the locational advantage that the land enjoyed, as the said facts existed even when the notification under Section 4(1) was issued.
15. perusal of Ex. PW-1/1 shows that the same pertains to a plot auctioned by the DDA on 27.11.1995, for grant of lease hold rights of a commercial plot in a Local Shopping Centre at Lado Sarai. I have difficulty in accepting the said instance as a good exemplar for the present case. Firstly, the same pertains to a commercial plot, whereas the land in question is agricultural.
Secondly, the said plot is situated in a fully developed Local Shopping Centre of the DDA which means that it has the advantage of being developed in a planned manner with proper access through roads, pavements, walkways and all other attendant facilities which a Local Shopping Centre of DDA has. Presumably, it would also have planned parking areas and other commercial plot in the LSC - thus making it a part of a larger commercial complex. The same would, obviously, lead to synergy and enhance the value of the plot. Thirdly, the said commercial plot is much smaller than the land in question. Fourthly, being an auction sale, the sale place cannot be straightaway accepted as the true market price of the said plot on the date of the auction.
19.47 Before proceeding further, it is noted that this sale exemplar coupled with letter dated 31.01.2003 issued by DDA to MCD was also placed before Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition no. 76-79/2004 filed by petitioners LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 95 of 130 for the purpose of prima facie assessing market value on the date of issuance of notification. There are directions in the aforementioned judgment dated 03.03.2005, that the Court of competent jurisdiction would determine the matter in issue not being influenced by the order, being prima facie view of the Court, with parties left free to contest their rival claims before the Court by leading documentary or oral evidence to determine the compensation. It is also noted that the said perpetual lease deed as sale exemplar was rejected and the observations made thereunder are being reproduced for the sake of reference:
" This argument of the petitioner at the first instance appears to be attractive but when examined in consonance of the settled principles of law, the claim is not only ex-facie, exorbitant, but is also imaginative and lacks merit. The alleged potential location of the petitioner as on 2002 is not in any way attributable to or is a consequences of any effort or investment made by the petitioners or that land owners. In fact, they are claiming benefit of the development work carried on by the DDA and various auction purchasers who invested these moneys number of years back. The area has not suddenly developed. It is a continuous effort on the part of the concerned departments, spreading over a long period that Nehru Place is seen as a commercial area as it exists today. The petitioners could have some benefit thereof, but cannot by any standards argued that they are entitled to the same price or even a comparable price thereof. While determining prospective use of the land or its future potential and development by itself, cannot be the only basis for the court to determine the market value of the acquired land. It is for the claimants to prove on record that the land or its surrounding areas have been fully developed at the time of notification, Granting of compensation is a matter of serious consequence and thus cannot be based upon the element of conjuncture."
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 96 of 130 "10. Thus we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the auction held by the DDA in regard to plot no. 70 in the year 1995 cannot be sale criteria for determining the compensation payable to the land owners. Prima facie and at this stage of the proceedings. We would not prefer to rely upon this document as the petitioner can hardly be permitted to take undue advantage of public obligations of the Government and its development policies."
19.48 As per the plan of Nehru Place District Centre, it is an odd 98 acres site with about 67 acres earmarked for commercial establishments, about 14 acres for government offices, about 13 acres as work centres and about 3 acres for Master Plan Green which was first conceptualised as per Delhi Master Plan, 1961 and has distinction of one of the first District Centres to be built in early 1970s or in Mid 1970s till early 1980s. The proposed development came up in phases, thus, there was no overnight transformation of the area into what it can be seen today. It is apparent that it constitutes well defined square plazas with several linear buildings linked by elongated spaces with earmarked space for parking and shopping arcades. There was a provision of telephone and electricity sub stations as well as fire station. Out of 67 acres of commercial establishments, smaller commercial plots were carved and numbered for the purpose of leasing out to suitable investors. There are about 98 odd such commercial plots as apparent from the said plan Ex. PW1/9. Out of these, one such commercial plot was leased out as commercial plot no. 70 with plot area of about 1784.38 sq. mtrs. so it forms part of main commercial well of Nehru Place plaza.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 97 of 130 19.49 As stated earlier, development in Nehru Place conceptualised by DDA was implemented / taken up in phases with some ports of multi storied buildings, already brought up in late 1970s-early 1980s. In fact, major chunk of total land belonging to petitioner was acquired in the year 1968 for such phased development. So this commercial plot forms part of core of the commercial complex with similarly planned carved out plots forming part of the said complex with earmarked ample parking spaces, with pavements, with walkways, with signages and with good accessibility.
19.50 DDA which is an instrumentality of the Government, largely responsible for planned development of Delhi conceptualised establishing commercial centre as part of its city planning, and thereafter acquired lands to implement the approved plans, worked on the acquired lands to provide all the requisite infrastructured requirements for a functional complex. So acquiring land was part of that larger design whereupon those lands were given structural makeovers to bring about its suitability requisite under the applicable development plan. Then began the process of attracting investors who possess technical and financial viability to be able to raise buildings strictly in tandem with the conditions notified so only a person or a company who has such investment potential were worthy target investors. Being one of the first District Centre, it was to offer a LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 98 of 130 competitive advantage upon other competitors placed elsewhere in the city as it was to be developed as a conglomerate of many such buildings which also explains the hefty initial premium earmarked for such plots. This perpetual lease deed Ex. PW1/10 with area of 1784.38 sq. mtrs. was executed for an amount of Rs. 34,20,00,000/- in the year 1996. It is noted that in newspaper carrying auction advertisement Ex. PW1/14, plot no. 45 of Nehru Place District Centre with area 1783.15 sq. mtr had reserved price as quoted for development of Cinema cum commercial complex of Rs. 30.96 crores in the year 2001. Although it is just the reserve price, and final bid is bound to be higher than this, however, it reflects upon the range of fluctuation of prices that for a similar commercial plot located in the same complex with same attendant facilities being auctioned by the same agency, although apart from each other by 5 years, however the figure of reserve price is on the lower side of the lease deed previously executed. It is important to understand here that no title is changing hands rather possession of the commercial plot is being demised to be used for specified purposes and subject to strict compliance of the conditions mentioned in the said deed, including payment of annual rent and an obligation upon the lessee not to deviate from the technical specifications of the layout plan.
19.51 For a better understanding whether it relates or connect with the subject acquired land, it is important to ascertain the location of the acquired land vis-à-vis commercial plot no. 70.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 99 of 130 As far as the time lag is concerned, there is a difference of 5 years between execution of lease deed and issuance of notification in respect of acquired land. In respect of location of the acquired land, any competent official from the office of LAC was not examined to specify the exact location of the acquired land vis-à- vis the already existing Nehru Place Complex and other landmarks including Kalkaji Mandir, Okhla Industrial Area, Greater Kailash or other colonies. PW-1 Sh. B.R. Sharma affirmed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A about the location of the acquired property, relevant excerpts of his testimony are reproduced hereunder for ready reference :
"15. I say that as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, the entire revenue estate of village Bahapur, was surrounded by posh and very well developed colonies, residential as well as commercial, developed by Delhi Development Authority as well as private colonizers, such as Nehru Place District Centre, Kalkaji, East of Kailash, Greater Kailash-I and II, Okhla Industrial Area, Kailash Colony, Sarita Vihar, New Friends Colony, Jasola Vihar, Mohan Co-operative Society, Mathura Road, Apollo Hospital, Paras Cinema, Satyam Cinema, Kalkaji Police Station, Office of MTNL, Lotus Temple, Kalkaji Mandir and many other group housing societies important commercial, civic, educational, medical establishments, such as Nehru Place District Centre, Five Star Hotel (Eros), Lady Sri Ram College, Greater Kailash residential colonies and N Block and M Block markets in Greater Kailash Part-I, Market in Greater Kailash Part-II, World Trade Centre, Ansal Plaza, Siri Fort Auditorium, Asiad Village, Siri Fort Sports Complex and other important places, exist adjoining to and in the near vicinity of the acquired land, since decades, and therefore the acquired land had/has a great potential. The learned Land Acquisition Collector LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 100 of 130 did not consider the potential value of the land in question at the time of assessing the market value.
17. The District Centre Nehru Place and Office of MTNL Delhi are adjacent to the land of the petitioners.
19. I say that the petitioners have filed a plan filed by DDA in respect of Nehru Place Kalkaji District Centre. In the said plan, the subject land of petitioners, for convenience shown in red colour. The red colour is not part of the original plan but the subject land has been shown and bounded in red for easy identification and convenience of this Hon'ble Court. The plan is Exhibit PW1/9."
19.52 PW 1 was put to cross-examination in this respect by counsel for Respondent no.1 to which he stated as under:
" I do not know the present situation of the plot in question..... the land in question is surrounded by posh and developed colonies. The property in question is situated in the heart of Nehru Place District Centre and adjoining Greater Kailash, Part-I and Part-II. East of Kailash and Greater Kailash only separated by a road. The distance between acquired property and Greater Kailash is less than 600 yards as the crow flies. It is wrong to suggest that the distance between Nehru Place and Greater Kailash is 3 km. I do not know the exact distance between Sarita Vihar and Okhla Industrial Area, however, they are very closed to the acquired property. The distance between acquired property and Sarita Vihar is approx. 2 km. The distance between Lady Shri Ram College and Siri Fort is less than 2 km. Kalkaji Temple is at a distance of less than 200 meters from the acquired property. It is wrong to suggest that the distance between LSR College and Siri Fort is more than 3 km."
19.53 It is thus evident that PW-1 affirmed that subject land was LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 101 of 130 adjacent to MTNL Office which has also been marked as red in Ex. PW1/9, however in his cross-examination stated that he was not aware of the present situation of the plot in question. Also, it is the entire acquired land which has to be considered having been acquired by the same award and not only subject land in exclusion of the remaining area qua which no reference has been received. Only factor which can be deduced from the evidence as well as the location marked as red in Ex. PW1/9 is that while the commercial planned, developed and established zones began from one far end of Nehru Place at intersection, located on the corner of Outer Ring Road and Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, the acquired land can be understood to be on the far other end of the proposed / to be expanded Nehru Place District Centre, purportedly earmarked for public utility service. It can be understood to be flanked by Kalkaji just across the road with Kalkaji Mandir only few hundred meters away. So it is located on the outer periphery of the Nehru Place District Centre as it was proposed to be expanded in terms of the Layout Plan. So the acquired land even though having potentiality cannot be stated to be a commercial developed plot within the main central zone of the Nehru Place District Centre. Its purpose appears to provide ancillary support, to facilitate usage and augment potentiality of earmarked established commercial zones of the complex. It is located far nearer to the residential colony of Kalkaji than the commercial plazas of Nehru Place Complex. Therefore, acquired land cannot be equated with a commercial plot in a commercial zone equipped with all facilities to reap its complete potential to LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 102 of 130 yield maximum profit even though both eventually formed part of the same proposed / to be expanded Nehru Place District Centre. It is like one has to refer the map or the plan to understand whether the peripheral part which afford transition from one colony or area or locality as it is called, to another for this part of same complex. As apparent from the plan, it has MTNL office, proposed Fire Station, Traffic Pit, Bus Station in the immediate vicinity with the commercial space located in the much interior of Nehru Place District Centre if approached from the side of acquired land. Thus, it cannot be stated that all the lands sold or acquired in the year 1996 or for few years thereafter would fetch the same price of commercial plots leased out by DDA.
19.54 Lease Premium charged by DDA cannot be equated to the market value of the property. Also it is to be taken note that these are executed for a very long period of time coupled with payment of annual rent and both, lesser and lessee have to abide by certain terms and conditions noted in the lease deed. It is thus for a specific person that lessor and lessee have entered into an agreement and it cannot be equated with the seller purchaser relationship where upon taking money all the rights in the property exchange hands. Tenders were opened in respect of lease of commercial Plot No. 70 Nehru Place for grant of perpetual lease hold rights wherein premiums were applicable which cannot be applied to determine the compensation for acquisition of land for public purposes and thus, this cannot be LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 103 of 130 categorized even as an auction sale. Deduction in respect of competitive hike as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag.(2011) 2 SCC 246, also is not hence applicable as the transaction do not qualify to be an auction sale.
19.55 In view of the abovemade observations, perpetual lease deed of commercial plot of Nehru District Centre is held not to be comparable sale instance for the assessment of market value of acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification in the year 2002.
19.56 It is an admitted case that the acquired land was lying vacant with no usage and there was no income of the petitioners from the said land even though petitioners remained in possession of the said land for about 50 years. PW-1 claimed that land use was not communicated on account of which there was no development, however, it is also his case that they had built about 10-12 rooms with a tubewell on the said land without making any effort to seek any permission for construction of those rooms or to understand the usage of the land at that point of time. Further, the commercial plaza first came into being in mid-late 1970s - early 1980s still no effort was put in by petitioners to put their land to any commercial usage to earn profit out of it. It was only in the late 1990s, rather in the year 2000 that a writ petition was LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 104 of 130 filed with respect to communication of the land user and sanctioning of the plans, within a short span of which that subject land were acquired.
19.57 Important at this juncture to refer the observation made by Supreme Court in the case Lal Chand v. Union of India (supra), reproduced as under :
"72. If the acquisition is in regard to a large area of agricultural lands in a village and the exemplar sale deed is also in respect of an agricultural land in the same village, it may be possible to rely upon the sale deed as prima facie evidence of the prevailing market value, even if such land is at the other end of the villar at a distance of one or two kilometers. But the same may not be the position where the acquisition relates to plots in a town or city where every locality or road has a different value. For example in a place like Delhi there are some areas where the plot value is many times more than the value of plots in a neighbouring middle class locality which in turn may be many times more than the value of plot in a neighbouring slum area. Or the price of a property on a main road may be many times more than the price of a property on a parallel smaller riad, though the two properties may be situated back to back.
73. It cannot be said that merely because two properties adjoin each other or touch each other the value applicable to the property facing a main road, should be applied to the property to its rear facing a service road. Therefore, while a distance of about a kilometer may not make a difference for the purposes of market value in a rural village, even a distance of 50 meters may make a huge difference in market value in urban properties."
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 105 of 130 19.58 Comparison in this case is being sought between a vacant semi urban land with building potentiality with a well planned and plotted developed land having ornamental value of a premium commercial space offered by a public agency which enjoyed exclusive patronage over it, with all the backing of Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan. Thus, even though, two of these appear to be less than a kilometer away from each other (even though there is no specification by any official from the LAC Office with respect to the exact location and DDA development plan having no provision for mentioning of khasra numbers of land being planned) still the two cannot be stated to be comparable to each other in terms of their specific location and usage within the proposed / to be expanded Nehru Place District Centre as on the date of issuance of notification. No effort has been put in by petitioners to adduce independent expert evidence about the state of buildings, college, hospitals, colonies as existing on the date of notification rather all stress has been laid to approach the aspect from the Nehru Place as it is seen and understood today on account of accessibility brought in by Delhi Metro or various malls, having come up after connectivity of Nehru Place with Delhi Metro in the year 2010.
19.59 Acquired was the land in village Bahapur which even though urbanized with basic amenities in place, it cannot be said that over night it became developed into what is projected today rather consistent efforts for development in sync with the LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 106 of 130 applicable Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan have been put in for all the years running into decades with many agencies pooling in the efforts to bring about the desired and ambitious planned development with infrastructural back up and money pumped in by commercial investors to bring about multi storied buildings for exclusive commercial usage to create an urban space with all facilities and privileges to own an office space in the commercial IT Hub. The result of the above made efforts cannot simply be handed over in a bouquet to the petitioners, thus, their claim of assessment of market value of acquired land simply equated with commercial plot of DDA deserves rejection.
19.60 In the light of discussion made above, all the sale exemplars relied upon by the petitioners as comparable sale instance to form basis for determination of market value of the acquired land have been held to be not relevant for the purpose on account of reasons specified with each of those. It is noted that not even a single sale exemplar of same nature of land of the same village with contemporary sale transaction has been produced for the Court to place reliance upon. No sale exemplar even of the neighbouring village/ revenue estate has been produced for the consideration of the Court. Sale exemplars produced are of fully developed commercial local centres which are not comparable to the acquired vacant land which although has a promising potentiality for residential, commercial or industrial use, but is yet to be developed and projected into one.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 107 of 130 19.61 Moving further, to arrive at market value, appropriate 'deductions towards development' also have to be adjudicated upon. Observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Lal Chand v. Union of India (supra) are reproduced as under :
"14. The deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilized for development works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilize around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities ), etc. "15. The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, undersigned drainage and sewage facilities, laying water lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" can can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot."
17. The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout.
19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40% as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 108 of 130 contrary.
20. Therefore, the deduction for the "development factor"
to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized private layout or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure.
21. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilized for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout - whether it is residential, residential- cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community facilities, parks and playgrounds provided.
22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. In addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks , playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%.
19.62 In Sabida Mohammad Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by LRs v. Special Land Acquisition officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595, while determining the amount of deduction for development for underdeveloped and undeveloped land, the Supreme Court has held as under :
"19. In fixing the market value of the acquired land, LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 109 of 130 which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354, the Court held : (SCC pp. 359-60, para7) "7. It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for road and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low- lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough, particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character or a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one sides abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required , needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 110 of 130 than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3 rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case for development purpose. The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525, V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745".
19.63 To arrive at the fair market value of the acquired land and considering the element of potentiality and location of the acquired land, the Supreme Court in Trishala Jain & Anr. v . State of Uttranchal & Anr. CA no. 7496-7497 of 2005 has held as under :
"42. The cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence on record is that it is a case of acquisition of land which is situated on a reasonably good location surrounded by developed areas having civic amenities and facilities and further development activity was going on in nearby areas. It was also submitted by the claimants that plotting has already been done on the acquired land and some plots of land have been sold immediately prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is evident that the land acquired had the potential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes and as already noticed, the same was acquired for construction of a Government Polytechnic Institute. Therefore, it is a case where the Court should apply minimal deduction which will meet the ends of justice and would help in LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 111 of 130 determining just and fair compensation for the land in question. We are of the considered view that 10% deduction from the market value of the acquired land would meet the ends of justice."
19.64 In the present matter, the acquired land is 8 bighas and 6 biswas. It is stated to be levelled land surrounded by developed colonies and commercial Nehru Place District Centre. It presumably had access to basic civil amenities. Considering the extant of land and that not the entire land can be stated to be abutting any main road, thus, internal access roads, pavements, public utility facilities, plottings, infrastructural development is needed to be done. Further, it is to be borne in mind that the land has been acquired for public purposes. Accordingly, deduction of 20% towards cost of development would be reasonable in the present case to arrive at the market value of the acquired land.
19.65 In the present matter, LAC did not make any independent assessment to reach out for determination of market value and fixed the rate as decided by judgment dated 03.03.2005 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition no. 6967/2003 @ Rs. 2684/- per sq. yard. It is noted therein that various parcels in the said acquired land were purchased respectively by other petition- ers therein in the year 1990s. Sale Deeds as well as respective mutation records were filed in the said writ petition vide which the acquired land itself was registered. Although any such sale deed do not form part of record in this case, however, it was noted in the order dated 03.03.2005 as a fact that the average sale LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 112 of 130 consideration for all the land forming part and parcel of the ac- quired land would be Rs. 1000/- per sq. yd. in 1990s. This aspect has neither been brought to the notice of the Court by counsel for Respondent no.1 or by Counsel for Respondent no.2. It is impera- tive to take note of same on account of settled legal position that consideration paid by owner qua acquired land in few preceding years could form basis of assessment of market value. (Support can be drawn from judgments State of M.P. v. Santabai & Ors., (C.A. No.2844/34) and Salgoankar v. Union of India (C.A. No.3800/89) decided on 11.1.1990, reiterated in Smt. Shakuntalabai & Ors v. State Of Maharashtra 1996 SCC (2) 152, JT 1995 (8) 501. ) Although petitioners in this case purchased the subject land in the year 1957 , however substantial part of the total acquired land was purchased in the year 1990s for an average sale consideration of Rs. 1000/- per sq. yds. It is noted that any of the parties before the Court have neither pleaded nor filed any such documents in evidence, might be, as the present reference petition has been filed only by petitioners who purchased the land in the year 1957. However this becomes material of the prevalent market prices back in the year 1990s while presumably some of the commercial plazas District Centres were already in existence with the distinction of one of its first kind of project brought in by DDA as well as the colony of Kalkaji with G.K. and with Okhla Industrial Area already in these place, as in the year 2000.
19.66 Counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon judgment LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 113 of 130 passed by Ld. Reference Courts pertaining to village Yusuf Sarai but nothing was mentioned or filed with respect to assessment of market value by any of the Court pertaining to village Bahapur. In the matter of Bholanath Sharma through LRs. v. UOI through LAC & Anr. in LA. APP. 109/2013decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 23.03.2016, the market value of acquired land as on 30.06.1978 pertaining to award for land acquired in village Bahapur was fixed at Rs. 2000/- per sq. yd. In LAC No. 159/1/2006 Shambhu Nath Sharma and Radha Sharma v. Union of India and DDA in respect of Award no.9/DC/5/200-02 decided by the then Reference Court on 08.09.2006 with respect to preliminary notification dated 12.10.1998 pertaining to Award of acquired land of village Bahapur, the market value was fixed at Rs. 4760/- per sq. yds. Further, in LAC No. 31/2011 titled as Mahender Kumar v. Union of India decided on 02.02.2016, by the Reference Court, the market value was assessed @ 7089/- per sq. yds. as on the date of preliminary notification dated 10.05.2002 for acquired land measuring 10 bighas and 14 biswas in the revenue estate of village Bahapur. It is also noted perpetual lease deed of commercial plot no. 70 was also filed as a sale exemplar in the aforesaid case but was not relied upon by the then Ld. Reference Court. It would be pertinent to mention that none of the parties before the Court have made any reference to the judgment mentioned above, however as these are public documents, with adjudication made by the Ld. Predecessor Court of the undersigned, those have been made part of the discussion herein, LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 114 of 130 on account of awards pertaining to acquired land of the same village of the period within five years and even same year of notification.
19.67 It is settled that the market value has to be assessed by balancing the requirement of the state to mandatorily acquire the land for public purposes and the right of land owner to be suitably compensated in terms of statutory provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Following observations by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, (1989) 2 SCC 150 serve as guiding light :
"while determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. It is an accepted principle as laid down in Vyricheria Narayana Gajapatriaju v. Revenue Divi. Officer AIR 1939 PC 98, that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded; neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 115 of 130 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the potential value is writ in large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guesswork involved while determining the potentiality."
Further, in Raj Kumar and Ors. V. Haryana State and Others (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 609 : 2007 SCC Online SC 1055 it is held as under :
"May be the lands are held in severalty by several owners. Even then suitable adjustments had to be made while determining the land value."
19.68 It is noted that petitioner averred in Reference Petition that the Land Acquisition Collector did not consider the schedule of rates fixed by Ministry of Urban Development for the developed lands in South Delhi which fall in the column of Kalkaji area. In the evidence led on behalf of petitioners however, schedule of rates fixed by Ministry of Urban Development was not relied upon, rather circle rates notified in the year 2014 was requested to be considered as an exemplar and market rate to be assessed with 15% progressive depreciation starting from the year 2014 back till the year 2002 to reach out at the fair market price as on the date of notification.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 116 of 130 19.69 As already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the total acquired land by this award are 8 bighas and 6 biswas, whereas this particular reference is only with respect to part of acquired land which is admeasuring 2 bighas and 6 biswas. Acquired land belongs to revenue estate of Village Bahapur for the purpose of 'planned development of Delhi'. It is noted that any particular or specific purpose for which the land was to be utilized was not mentioned as part of the Award. The nature of the soil is rocky but leveled. In the award, it is mentioned to be vacant land. Although any official from the Revenue Authorities were not called to specify the exact location of the acquired land and its distance from the nearby surrounding colonies and specifically from the Nehru Place Commercial Plazas as it then existed, petitioners have all alongwith stated that their chunk of land was adjacent to location of MTNL Office. Although there is no independent evidence to support that however it has not been refuted anywhere by counsel for Respondent no.1. Position of the part of acquired land belonging to petitioners has been red marked in the DDA City Planning Map Ex. PW1/9 however it does not specify position of the entire acquired land and there is nothing to independently ascertain as to whether this land pertain to Khasra no. of the entire acquired land or one belonging to petitioners as the said map/plan do not carry any specification of location of khasra numbers. Petitioners have laid great stress on letter dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 which has already been LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 117 of 130 discussed in preceding paragraphs to claim that the acquired land was commercial in nature having to form part of Nehru Place District Centre.
19.70 It can be understood that the acquired land was to be part of planned expansion of Nehru Place visa-a-vis adjoining areas. Nehru Place as already discussed, was created as an urban space of business /financial/ commercial significance which came up in phased development over the decades. It is part of evolution over the years which Nehru Place witnessed. Be that as it may be, the acquired land as per the applicable Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan was to flank the edge of Nehru Place District Centre upon expansion. Part of acquired land can be seen to be marked for the usage as public utility. This land do not form part of the zone of commercial establishments as per its usage which stood on the other side reaching out to the middle of Nehru place. Nonetheless, it is no denial that Nehru Place District Centre stood in its vicinity of few hundred meters as it then existed. It is apparent that Kalkaji is just across the road from the acquired land as Shri Kalkaji Mandir was only 200 meters away from the said acquired land at the time of notification, thus, the acquired land appears to be much nearer/ just across the road from the colony of Kalkaji than the commercial plazas of Nehru Place and in fact appeared to be supplementary /ancillary/ transitional zone between Nehru Place District Centre and colony of Kalkaji. In fact prior to notification of circle rates in the year 2007, it was LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 118 of 130 considered to be part of Kalkaji with L&DO rates of Kalkaji also applicable to Nehru Place as it then existed.
19.71 It is testified by PW1 that Village Bahapur has a government school and a government college within its periphery. It is noted that the acquired land possessed building potentiality and was reasonably capable for raising any residential /commercial or industrial building in the near future. PW1 has testified that the land possessed all basic amenities like electricity, water, roads as on the date of notification. As there was Nehru Place Complex in the vicinity with Kalkaji, G.K.-II as developed adjoining areas, it cannot be stated that that the land fell in a rural belt and was undeveloped or untouched with no basic civic amenities available therein. Although, there is nothing on record to understand as to whether acquired land fell in green zone, there appears no statutory impediment for the usage of land for building purposes. There is nothing stated that the nature of land was not such to support or provide structural stability to the buildings. It also enjoyed easy accessibility with various arterial roads in near vicinity. Revenue estate of village Bahapur is adjacent to village Jasola which has Sarita Vihar, Apollo Hospital, Mohan Estates in its periphery, Sukhdev Vihar, Greater Kailash, Okhla Industrial Area within range of 3-4 kilometers from the acquired land. Thus, acquired land enjoyed locational, geographical and usage potentiality for future development. However, it is also a factor to be considered that petitioners were LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 119 of 130 not deriving any income from any existing land use from the acquired land on the date of notification.
19.72 As all the sale exemplars relied on behalf of the petitioners have already been held to be not depicting a comparable sale instance, this Court has virtually nothing to fall back on for the purpose of assessment of the fair market of the acquired land. No sale deed or sale exemplar were filed by counsel for UOI or by counsel for DDA for consideration by the Court. No sale deed of any vacant land in the revenue estate of village Bahapur as executed between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser was filed. Sale deeds of part of acquired land as executed in the year 1990s as filed before Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court on behalf of petitioners do not form part of the evidence in this case.
19.73 As all the exemplars sought to be relied upon have been rejected with no contemporaneous sale deed of comparable land instance having been placed on record, determination of market value by applying the principle of comparable sale instance is not possible in this case. It is also noted that the market value cannot be assessed on the mere asking of the petitioners who are under an obligation to produce material documentary evidence to prove not only the existing use but the future potentiality based on its location, size, special value, other attenuating advantages or disadvantages with respect to usage of the land in vicinity, the LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 120 of 130 potential use it may be put to in near future, its accessibility and so many other analogous factors. It is also noted that market rate was assessed to be Rs. 2000/- per sq. yd. as in the year 1978 in the case of Bholanath Sharma v. UOI, LA Appeal 109/13 decided on 23.03.2016. It is to be underlined that part of the acquired land was purchased in the year 1990s by several land owners upon sale price which was computed to be Rs. 1000/- per sq. yd. (Rs. 867/- per sq. mtr.) and applying 12% progressive increase over the years, was the compensation amount was Rs. 2684/- per sq. yds. (2244.166 per sq. mtr) earlier granted by the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is also noted that market rate of Rs. 7,089/- per sq. yd. (Rs. 5927.307 per sq. mtr.) was assessed by the then Ld. Reference Court in LAC No. 31/2011 titled as Mahender Kumar v. Union of India decided on 02.02.2016 for acquired land in revenue estate of village Bahapur. Judicial notice is being taken that the land prices in Delhi although increased by leaps and bounds, have intermittently also witnessed depressed periods, further, that the land prices witnessed a boom till mid or late 1990s succeeded with periods of stagnation for many years.
19.74 Judicial notice u/S. 56 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is taken of the applicable L&DO rates as well as the rates of land applicable for conversion of leasehold into freehold which was also one of the plea raised by the petitioners in their reference petition, also as the acquired land falls and is surrounded by LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 121 of 130 urban space, the base rate as notified by Ministry of UA&E as well as DDA is taken to be Rs. 9240/- per sq. mtr. (support drawn from Virender Singh etc. v. UOI RFA 299/84 decided on 23.04.1991, Ram Lal Bansiwal v. UOI in RFA 131/88 decided on 28.11.1995, Anil Kumar Sharma v. UOI 86(2000) DLT 825 and Sh. Hari Chand v. UOI in LA Appeal as decided on 30.03.2001, schedule of rates issued by L&DO were held to be relevant piece of evidence) . Support is also drawn from the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 869 wherein the Apex Court held that the process of determination of market value in any case must depend largely on evaluation of any imponderables and hence it must necessarily be to some extent a matter of conjecture or guess work. Applying deduction of 20% towards development cost as assessed in the preceding paragraphs, upon Rs. 9240/- per sq. mtr, the figure comes out to be Rs. 7392/- per sq. mtr. (Rs. 8840.758 per sq. yd) as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of LA Act. The market value of acquired land of 2 bighas and 16 biswas comprised in Khasra no. 621/2/3/2/2/1 is assessed at Rs. 7392/- per sq. mtr. (Rs. 8840.758 per sq. yds.) 19.75 In addition to the enhanced market value, the petitioner will also be paid a sum of 30% on the determined market value in LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 122 of 130 consideration compulsory nature of acquisition in terms of Section 23(2) LA Act, 1894. An additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act @ 12% per annum on the determined market value shall be payable for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification u/S. 4(1) of the Act i.e. 28.11.2002 in respect of acquired land till the date of the award or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In the present case, the possession was taken over on 28.10.2003, while the award was announced on 06.06.2005. Therefore, an additional amount @12% p.a. upon market rate shall be payable w.e.f. 28.11.2002 till the date of taking over possession i.e. 28.10.2003.
ISSUE NO. 3iii ) Whether the petitioners are entitled for interest on solatium and additional amount in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Sunder V. Union of India dated 19.09.2001? OPP.
20 LA Act 1894 provides for payment of interest to the claimant under statuary provisions of Section 28 and Section 34 of the Act which are reproduced as under for ready reference :
28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation - If the sum, which the collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the collector shall pay interest on such excess LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 123 of 130 at the rate of (9%) per annum form the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court.
[provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date or expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry].
34. Payment of interest - When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of (9%) per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited.
[provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15% per p.a. shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.] 20.1 Section 28 of the Act thus provides for payment of interest on the awarded sum in excess of the sum already awarded as compensation by LAC which is payable @ 9% p.a. for the first year after taking possession and 15% p.a. thereafter if the amount of compensation was not deposited within a period of one year and was deposited anytime thereafter. Section 34 of the Act puts an obligation on the Collector to pay interest on the amount of compensation @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession till LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 124 of 130 the amount is deposited. Further, if this amount is not deposited within one year from taking possession, then rate of interest applicable becomes 15% p.a. from the date of expiry of period of one year.
20.2 It was held by the Constitution Bench in case Sunder v. UOI (2001) 7SCC 211 that the interest awardable u/S. 28 of the Act would include the market value as well as statutory solatium. This position was further approved as well as clarified by subsequent Constitution Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh v. UOI (2006) 8SCC 457. Relevant excerpts are reproduced as under:
"32. In the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the award of compensation is at different stages. The first stage occurs when the award is passed. Obviously, the award takes in all the amounts contemplated by Section 23(1), Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and the interest contemplated by Section 34 of the Act. The whole of that amount is paid or deposited by the Collector in terms of Section 31 of the Act. At this stage, no shortfall in deposit is contemplated, since the Collector has to pay or deposit the amount awarded by him. If a shortfall is pointed out, it may have to be made up at that stage and the principle of appropriation may apply, though it is difficult to contemplate a partial deposit at that stage. On the deposit by the Collector under Section 31 of the Act, the first stage comes to an end subject to the right of the claimant to notice of the deposit and withdrawal or acceptance of the amount with or without protest.
33. The second stage occurs on a reference under Section 18 of the Act. When the Reference Court awards enhanced compensation, it has necessarily to take note of the enhanced amounts payable under Section 23(1), LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 125 of 130 Section 23(I-A), Section 23(2) and interest on the enhanced amount as provided in Section 28 of the Act and costs in terms of Section 27. The Collector has the duty to deposit these amounts pursuant to the deemed decree thus passed. This has nothing to do with the earlier deposit made or to be made under and after the award. If the deposit made, falls short of the enhancement decreed, there can arise the question of appropriation at that stage, in relation to the amount enhanced on the reference.
34. The third stage occurs, when in appeal, the High Court enhances the compensation as indicated already. That enhanced compensation would also bear interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation, when Section 28 is applied. The enhanced amount thus calculated will have to be deposited in addition to the amount awarded by the Reference Court if it had not already been deposited.
35. The fourth stage may be when the Supreme Court enhances the compensation and at that stage too, the same rule would apply."
20.3 It is thus held that the petitioners are entitled to interest on the excess amount in terms of Section 34 of the Act.
Issue No.4
iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for Rs. 25 lacs as expenses on account of super structure, raising 15 room, boundary walls of the land in question prior to the date of notification? OPP.
21 Petitioner has claimed that there was construction of about 15 rooms on the land in question at the time of taking possession by the LAC which was also mentioned in the possessions LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 126 of 130 proceedings done by the LAC as well as DDA. The possession proceedings conducted by the LAC do not form part of evidence or record in the present case. PW-1 has proved Jamabandi Ex. PW1/16 to state that existence of construction was duly recorded in document Ex. PW1/9 placed on record "gair char mumkin diwari" recorded on 24.03.99, "gair mumkin char diwari bagichi makanat mai boring" as on 14.10.1995, also on 15.03.96, 18.10.96, 04.02.97, 14.10.97, this document was released on 02.01.1998. There is no record filed for any subsequent entry in duplicate copy of khasra girdwari, there is absolutely no mention anywhere as to whether the structure if at all was created was a kachcha/ temporary structure or a pakka/ built up structure. In the Award Ex. R1 filed by counsel for UOI, it is mentioned that the acquired land was vacant and had neither standing tress upon it nor any sort of construction. Petitioner has relied solely upon entry made on copy of khasra girdawari with respect to construction on the acquired land. The entry does not specify number of rooms which were constructed as well as any type of construction carried out at the acquired land. The entries are indicative in nature and cannot be stated to be conclusive with respect to the number of rooms as claimed by the petitioners and also the type or nature of construction. Nothing has been stated by petitioner with respect to usage of the structure as well if at all available. No photographs or any electricity or water bill has been produced with respect to usage of the structure. Petitioner in his cross-examination has stated that no permission was sought from any authority for the construction of rooms. Considering the submissions made above, the evidence relied upon on behalf of LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 127 of 130 petitioners only clarified the position to some extent till October 1997 whereas the notification was made in the year 2002 and the possession was taken over in the year 2003. There is absolutely nothing on brought on record apart from the bald unsubstantiated testimony of PW-1 with respect to construction of 15 rooms on the acquired land. In fact petitioner has made variation with respect to number of total rooms the property possessed. He stated somewhere that there were 10 rooms at other places 12 or even 15 rooms. Petitioners cannot be stated to have discharged burden to cast upon them to prove that 15 rooms were constructed on the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification. In view of the above discussion, this issue stands decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. No amount against compensation for structure on the acquired land deserves to be granted to the petitioners.
Issue No.5
v) Whether the petitioners are entitled for Rs. 10 lacs as litigation charges? OPP.
22 The compensation was awarded to the petitioner against which petitioner filed a reference petition as the amount was not acceptable so the petitioners themselves chose to contest the sum awarded. As such, the interest on enhanced compensation as per the statutory provisions and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has already been granted. Therefore, any amount towards litigation charges is not called for. This issue also LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 128 of 130 decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondents.
Relief 23 In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is enhanced from amount of Rs. 2244.166 per sq. mtr. (Rs. 2684/- per square yd.) as awarded by LAC to Rs. 7392/- per sq. mtr. (Rs. 8840.76/- per sq. yd.) in respect of petitioner's land acquired (as detailed in the statement filed under section 19 of the Act, 1894); besides 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land, interest @ 12% p.a. u/S. 23(1)(A) of the Act on excess amount awarded by Court (from the date of notification till the date of taking of possession), 9% interest on excess amount awarded by Court from the date of possession of land for period upto one year and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in Court in terms of Sec. 34 of the Act. The respondent no.2 is beneficiary of the land, therefore both respondents no.1 and 2 will be liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. The compensation shall be disbursed to the petitioners as per their share, as detailed in the statement u/S. 19 of the Act. Petitioners have been held entitled for apportionment of award amount equally in terms of judgment dated 20.08.2014 in reference petition u/S. 30-31 of LA Act in LAC no. 159/2011, also confirmed in LA Appeal 349/2014 dated 14.07.2016 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 129 of 130 24 The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, South East, Delhi for necessary information, action and immediate compliance for remittance of amount.
Digitally signed by SHELLY 25 File be consigned to Record Room. SHELLY ARORA Date: ARORA 2022.02.27 04:23:00 +0530 Announced in the open (SHELLY ARORA)
Court on 26.02.2022. Additional District Judge - 01 (SE) Saket Courts, New Delhi LAC - 3/17 Chet Ram Sharma Vs. UOI pg. 130 of 130