Delhi District Court
Lac No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & ... vs . Uoi & Anr. 1/12 on 20 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS SAVITRI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 16/13
New No. LAC - 103/16
Area: Mundka
Award No.: 03/DC(W)/2005-06 dated 27.01.2006
1. Ram Kumar son of Sh. Jyot Ram, deceased, through
i. Smt. Chameli Devi - Wife
ii. Sh. Narender Lakra - Son
Both R/o H. No. 315,
Village Mundka, Delhi
iii. Mrs Mukesh W/o Dinesh Kumar
R/o Village Matindu,
Sonepat, Haryana - daughter
iv. Mrs Sudesh W/o Prahlad Thakran
R/o Cachiya Patti, Jharsa, Gurgaon -daughter
v. Mrs Pushpa W/o Shri Amit Chikara
R/o GH-587, Paschim Vihar, Delhi -daughter
2. SATYA PAL son of Sh. Jyot Ram, deceased, through:
i. Smt. Daya Wati - widow
ii. Shri Devender Kumar - son
Both R/o H.No. 216, Village Mundka,
Delhi-41
iii Shri Joginder
R/o H. No. 201, Pana Machhli, Nizampur,
North West, Delhi-81
iv. Smt. Rekha W/o Sh. Joginder
R/o H. No. 201, Pana Machhli, Nizampur,
North West, Delhi-81
3. SRI BHAGWAN son of Shri Ramji Lal, deceased through;
I. Shri Surender Singh Son
R/o 203, Mundka, New Delhi
ii. Smt. Saroj Bala w/o Sh. Satyawan daughter
LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 1/12
R/o R-555, Swatantar Nagar,
Gali No. 6, Narela, Delhi
4. Shri Deepak son of Shri Om Parkash
5. Jai Bhagwan son of Shri Sultan
6. Krishan son of Shri Sultan
7. Sunil Kumar son of Shri Rajinder
8. Ashok Kumar son of Shri Rajinder
9. Deepak son of Shri Anil
10. PEHLAD son of Pirthi, deceased, through :
i. Than Singh @ Rakesh - Son
ii. Rajesh - Son
Both R/o Village Mundka, New Delhi
11. Praveen son of Shri Dalel
12. Ram Niwas son of Shri Dalel
13. Roshan son of Shri Anoop
14. Mohit @ Mohit Lakra son of Shri Devender @
Surender
15. Daya Kishan son of Shri Bharte
16. Mrs Moorti daughter of Sanjati
17. Mrs Jeeto daughter of Sanjati
18. Mrs Angoori daughter of Sanjati
19. Raj Singh son of Hardei
20. Suresh Kumar son of Hardei
21. Ravinder Singh son of Hardei
LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 2/12
22. Jasbir son of Mrs Ratni
23. Dalbir son of Mrs Ratni
24. Satbir son of Mrs Ratni
25. Rohit son of Shri Ranbir
All residents of V.P.O. Mundka
Delhi- 110041
....Petitioners
versus
1. Union of India
Through: Land Acquisition Collector
Plot No. 3, Shivaji Place
Raja Garden, New Delhi
2. D.S.I.D.C
Through Director
New Bombay Life Building
Baba Kharak Singh Marg
Connaught Place, New Delhi
.....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 17.01.2013
Date of reserving of judgment : 12.04.2019
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.04.2019
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 1703 Bigha and 18 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.11 (19)/2001/L&B/LA/20112 dated 21.03.2003 LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 3/12 also under Section 6 vide notification no. F.10 (7)/2004/L&B/LA/28210 dated 19.03.2004. The land was acquired for the purpose of Rohini Residential Scheme under Planned Development of Delhi.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)') passed award no. 3/DC(W)/2005-2006 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the agriculture land @ Rs.15,70,000/- per acre.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector, petitioners were not shown as recorded owner of the acquired land in the statement under Section 19 of the L.A. Act filed on behalf of LAC and accordingly they had objected before the LAC. Since the dispute regarding apportionment of compensation had arisen, the same was accordingly, referred for determination by my ld. Predecessor Judge under Section 30-31 L.A. Act. That reference was decided on 05.12.2016 and it was held that the petitioners were entitled to 25% of the compensation of the acquired land i.e 11 bighas and 4 biswas. As per the directions of ld. P.O the copy of that judgment dated 05.12.2016 was kept in the present case file. It is also important to note that the petitioners had preferred an appeal impugning the above mentioned judgment.
4. The petitioners filed the present reference under Section 18 of the Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Land Acquisition Collector, West has been referred to the reference LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 4/12 court, being aggrieved that the Ld. LAC had not assessed the true market value adequately and they deserved much higher amount of compensation.
5. In brief the facts stated are that the land of the petitioners bearing Khasra Nos. 8/19/1 (1-4), 20 (2-6), 21/1 (1-
12), 17/4 (2-13), 8/1 (1-6) and 26 (2-3) total measuring 11 Bighas 4 biswas of village Mundka, Delhi has been acquired vide award in question.
6. It is stated that the criteria adopted for the assessment of the market value of the land as on 21.03.2003 is arbitrary, unjust and unwarranted. It is stated that as per award the value of agricultural land was fixed @ Rs.15,70,000/- as per policy applicable with effect from 01.04.2001 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was passed on 21.03.2003. The Collector took no pain to assess the actual value in 2003.
7. It is stated that the land of the petitioners is ideally situated and is surrounded by a fully developed colony known as Prem Nagar. The said colony came up in existence in the year 1991 and because of the said colony, the land was being sold in the shape of plots and the value was prevalent in yards and not in bighas. The value of the land in the said undeveloped colony was more than Rs.10,000/- per sq. yds. in the year 2003. It is stated that detailed map/layout of this colony was submitted to Delhi Government for sanction of unapproved colony and the name of this colony also appears in the list of unauthorized colonies which are supposed to be recognized.
LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 5/12
8. It is stated that the land of the petitioners is very close and near to main Rohtak Road having full fledge market. The land of the petitioners had great potential value in as much as there are developed roads, schools and all the basic amenities such electricity, water and other facilities area easily available to the land of the petitioners. The value of the land on the date of notification U/S 4 of the Act was not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. yds. and the petitioners claim the same value.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that in the petition the respondent no. 2 was Delhi Development Authority and ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2/DDA had moved an application under order 1 Rul1 10 CPC for deleting the name of respondent no. 2/DDA from the array of the parties and to implead the DSIDC as respondent on 29.07.2013 and vide order dated 08.10.2015 my ld. Predecessor Judge had allowed the application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC and DDA was deleted from the array of the parties and DSIDC was impeladed as respondent no. 2.
10. Written statement filed by respondent no.1/ Union of India and taken the preliminary objections that the present reference is barred by limitation. The designated land acquisition court derives its power under the Land Acquisition Act only and hence it has to confine its jurisdiction only to the issue of assessing market value and issue of apportionment if any and no other relief under any other Act could be granted by the designated land acquisition court. The petitioners have not brought any specific and cogent evidence on record to claim a higher compensation.
LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 6/12
11. On merits, all the averments made in the reference petition are denied. It is stated that petitioners are not entitled to any relief and reference is liable to be dismissed.
12. Respondent no.2/DSIIDC also filed written statement. In the preliminary objections, it is stated that the answering respondent is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present petition. The petitioners neither having any locus-standi nor any cause of action for filing the present reference petition. The petitioners are not the recorded owner/ bhumidhar of the land under reference. There is no previty of contract between the petitioners and the answering respondent no.2. The petitioners have not placed any document or made any specific averment as to how he is entitled to enhance compensation.
13. On merits, again all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied and it is reiterated that the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. The petitioners have not filed any replications to the written statements of the respondents.
15. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 14.01.2016 by Ld. Predecessor Judge:
LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 7/12
1. What was market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s -4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so at what rate? OPP
3. Whether the petition is time barred? OPR
4. Relief.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that after framing of the issues the matter was adjourned till the reference under Section 30-31 of L.A Act was decided. Vide judgment dated 05.12.2016 a reference under Section 30-31 of the LA Act bearing LAC No 20A/10/08 was decided by my ld. Predecessor Judge and copy of that judgment also placed in this case file. As per that judgment IP No. 1 to 8 i.e. Narayan Singh S/o Kanhiya, (through his L.Rs), Sardare, Harikishan, ( through his LRs), Ishwar Singh, Diwan Singh, Satbir Singh, Amarjit Singh and Ombir Singh were held entitled to get 75% of the compensation of the acquired land against their respective shares in the land and objectors no. 1 to 25 (petitioners herein No. 1 to 24) are entitled to get 25% of the compensation of the acquired land as per their respective shares in the land.
17. In support of his case, son of petitioner no. 2 Shri Devender got himself examined as PW1 and tendered his LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 8/12 evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. He deposed that a reference under Section 30-31 of L.A Act was decided on 5.12.2016 marked as Mark A, Thereafter they filed appeal being L.A ( App) No. 120/2017 titled Ram Kumar & Others Vs Narain Singh. The said appeal has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court and passed the order that compensation may be released to the claimants subject to furnishing surety. He proved the true copy of the order dated 27.03.2017 marked as Mark B. He also rely upon the copy of order of Hon'ble High Court dated 16.05.2017 in L.A App. 120/17 as Mark C and certified copy of judgment dated 25.04.2013 in LAC No. 45/12 as Ex. P-3.
18. It is stated that the shares of the petitioners should have been 23/24 and not ¼. Shri Narayan Singh etc. were entitled to share of only 1/24. The final determination of the shares by this court in reference under Section 30-31 of the Act is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the petitioners will be entitled to enhancement for the share that will be determined ultimately by the Hon'ble High Court and vide separate statement of PW-1, evidence on behalf of the petitioners was closed on 10.05.2018.
19. From the side of respondent no.1/ Union of India, Sh. S.K. Puri, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered copy of award No. 03/DC (W)/2005-06 pertaining to Village Mundka as Ex. R1 and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.1 on 28.09.2018.
LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 9/12
20. Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Counsel for respondent no.2/ DSIIDC adopted the evidence led by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 and closed the R/E on behalf of respondent no.2/ DSIIDC on 28.09.2017.
21. I have heard Sh. J.K. Jain, Counsel for the petitioner; Sh. S.K. Puri, Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India; Sh. Pankaj Sharma,, Counsel for respondent no.2/ DSIIDC and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
First of all I shall take issue no. 3.ISSUE NO. 3
22. The award in this case has been pronounced by the Collector on 27.01.2006 and endorsement on the petition filed by the petitioners before the Collector, bears the date of filing as 15.06.2006. Therefore, as per Section 18 (2) of the L.A. Act, the present reference is within limitation. Therefore, the issue is decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE Nos. 1 & 223. The onus to prove these issues is on the petitioners. Petitioners proved the judgment of 'Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.' decided by Sh. Paramjit Singh, Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 25.04.2013 and another judgment of 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' dated 08.07.2011 decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog of the same award no. 03/DCW/2005-2006, whereby the fair market value has been determined and enhancement LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 10/12 granted to the other villagers of the same acquired land. Accordingly, in these circumstances, law is well settled in cases titled 'Nand Ram vs. State of Haryana' 1988 (4) JT 260 and 'Goa Housing Board vs. Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar & Anr.' AIR 2012 SC 193.
24. By applying the principles of law, petitioner is also entitled to equivalent fair market value and compensation as of Rs.19,36,440/- per acre by enhancing the amount of Rs.3,66,440/- per acre.
ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF)
25. In view of my discussion and observations on the issues, it is held that petitioners are entitled to fair market value and compensation as of in the Jamna Case (Supra). Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land is fixed @ Rs.19,36,440/- per acre by enhancing the amount of Rs.3,66,440/- per acre.
26. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
27. The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 11/12
28. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
29. The interest on compensation for the period of delay due to impleading of LRs or stay of High Court or any other court may also be deducted.
30. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioner be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
31. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
32. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court SAVITRI Digitally signed by SAVITRI CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY ATTRI today the 20th day of April 2019. ATTRI Date: 2019.04.22 12:57:44 +0530 (SAVITRI) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 20.04.2019
( Note: The above order has been dictated directly on computer and shorthand dictation was not given to the stenographer).
LAC No. 16/13 (New No. 103/16) Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. 12/12