Delhi District Court
Kunwarani Smt.Meenakshi Khurana vs Union Of India on 2 June, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC No : 29/1/07 AWARD NO : 18/198384
(Old No. : 65/88) VILLAGE : Gharauli, Delhi
In the matter of :
Dr. Kanwar Anil Kumar Shah Khurana
S/o Sh. Anant Ram Khurana
R/o 36, Netaji Subhash Marg,
New Delhi
Through his LR
Kunwarani Smt.Meenakshi Khurana
...Petitioner
Versus
1 Union of India, through Secretary,
Ministry of Land & Housing,
New Delhi
2 The Land Acquisition Collector,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
3 Sh. Seva Ram ]
4 Sh. Bali ] Sons of Kishan Sahai R/o Gharoli, Delhi
5 Sh. Palli ]
...Respondents
A W A R D REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1 Vide notification No. F.8 (67)/76L&B dated 17.11.1980 U/s 4 of the LA Act (hereinafter referred to as the ACT) and declaration was also made vide notification No. F.9(16)/80 L&B dated 29.09.1981 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act. The land including the land of the petitioner situated in the revenue estate of village Gharauli, Delhi was acquired by the Govt. for the planned development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act passed the award bearing No.18/198384 and awarded the compensation @ Rs.9,000/ per bigha for block I (A), Rs.7,000/ per bigha for Block II (B) and Rs.4,000/ per bigha for block III (C).
2 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioner herein filed petition U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value which was sent to the reference court.
3 In this reference petition, the petitioner has sought the enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the petitioner is an interested person in the lands of village Gharoli, Delhi and aggrieved against the compensation given in award no.18 of 8384 of village Gharoli, Teh. & Distt. Delhi announced on 02.07.1983. No notice was issued or received by the petitioner as such he had no knowledge of the announcement of the award on 02.07.1983. It is further stated that the LAC has admitted that the land is being adjacent to Noida Complex is quite fit for residential purposes as well as for commercial purposes and has great potentiality with regard to the prospective buyers, yet the LAC has awarded very low compensation. The LAC has further admitted that the land is most fertile yielding three crops and otherwise of great potential value. The petitioner purchased from Smt.Shiv Devi the land bearing Khasra nos. 425 (227), 1058/426/1 (97) of Gharoli, vide sale deed no.1278, Book no.1 vol. no.699, pages 175 to 178 dt. 11.06.1974 of about khasra no.425 and no.1389 book no.1, vol. no.646, pages 185 to 188 dt. 13.11.1972 about khasra no.1058/426/1 and petitioner took possession of it immediately and has been in possession of it always. The pucca roads aligned in Noida & touch this land. The land in question adjoins the boundaries of village of United Provinces just adjacent to Noida Complex. There is Rasta and pucca roads adjacent to the land in question. The petitioner has made road on the South West of 93, 94 & 95 and also a road along the boundary line of Delhi UP to attract the purchasers. There is post office, electricity, community centre, hospital and dairy farm and also sort of amenities are available. On these grounds, the petitioner has filed this reference petition claiming @ Rs.100/ per sq. yard besides statutory benefits. The petitioners has also claimed Rs.10,000/ for cost of tubewell in khasra no.1058/426/1.
4 UOI, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the grounds that the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The title of the petitioner to claim any compensation or enhancement thereof has been denied as he is not the recorded owner in the revenue record. The compensation has been assessed in favour of who is a recorded owner in the revenue record. The petitioner filed the replication to the WS of UOI wherein, the objections raised by the UOI have been denied and the averments made in the reference petition have re affirmed.
5 The DDA, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the grounds that the LAC, while making the award bearing no.18/198384 relating to village Gharoli, Delhi, had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of the sale deeds of the adjoining lands of the area as well as all other documents which were made available and produced before the LAC. Moreover, the area of the land and any appurtenace/ amenities/ facilities were also taken into consideration while assessing the compensation by the LAC. Without prejudice to the aforesaid preliminary objections, DDA has as further stated that the petitioner is not admitted to be the bhoomidhar/ owner or interested party being in possession of the land falling under the said award. The amount of compensation awarded by the LAC is adequate, sufficient, just and legal and is based on cogent and reliable evidence. The reference petition is barred by the period of limitation. All other averments made in the reference petition have been denied.
6 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor Court on 21.04.1989 which are as under :
1 What is the effect of the applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act on the market value of land?
2 Whether the applicant has any right, title or interest in the land in question?
3 To what compensation if any the applicant is entitled to receive?
7 During the pendency of the proceedings of this reference, Dr. Kanwar Anil Kumar Khurana, the petitioner had expired and the application U/o 22 Rule 3 r/w/sec. 151 CPC was filed on behalf of Kunwarani Smt.Meenakshi Khurana wd/o Dr. Kanwar Anil Kumar Khurana wherein it was stated that Dr. Kanwar Anil Kumar Khurana expired on 25.10.1990 leaving behind the LRs namely, Kunwarani Smt.Meenakshi Khurana - widow, Sh.Sumit Khurana & Sh.Shailender Khurana - both sons, Miss Alka Khurana, Miss Neeru Khurana, Miss Nutan Khurana & Miss Maneesha Khurana - all daughters of Dr. Kanwar Anil Kumar Khurana. Separate statements of the LRs of Dr. Kanwar Anil Kumar Khurana were also recorded in the Ld.Predecessor Court on 14.03.1991 and 11.04.1991 whereby all the other LRs relinquished their rights in the compensation amount in favour of Kunwarani Smt.Meenakshi Khurana wd/o Dr.Kanwar Anil Kumar Khurana. Vide order dt. 15.07.1991 of the Ld.Predecessor Court, Kunwarani Smt.Meenakshi Khurana wd/o Dr.Kanwar Anil Kumar Khurana was substituted as the sole legal heir of Dr.Kanwar Anil Kumar Khurana. On 13.08.1991, Sh.S. K. Chadha, counsel for the petitioner made a submission before the Ld. Predecessor Court that this reference u/s 18 of the LA Act be stayed sine die since the reference u/s 3031 was pending for disposal in another court. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent/UOI had not objected to the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, vide order dt. 13.08.1991, this reference u/s 18 of the LA Act was stayed sine die with the direction to revive this reference as and when the reference u/s 3031 is decided. On 04.05.2002, Mrs. Meenakshi Khurana wd/o Dr.Kanwar Anil Kumar Khurana filed an application for revival of this reference on the grounds that the reference u/s 3031 of the LA Act was decided. Vide order dt. 30.09.2002 of the Ld. Predecessor Court, the proceedings of this reference was revived and DDA was also impleaded as necessary and proper party in view of the judgment reported as AIR 1995 SC
724. The counsel for the petitioner also filed the certified copy of the judgment passed in the reference u/s 3031 of the LA Act. An application u/s 151 CPC was filed by Sh.Sewa Ram and Sh.Beli Pal
- sons of Sh.Kishan Sahai for staying this reference petition. Smt.Meenakshi Khurana also filed reply to the said application. Since Sh.Sewa Ram and Sh.Beli Pal filed the RFA No.429/2002 wherein the dispute about the shares of the parties was pending and vide order dt. 26.09.2002, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi admitted the said RFA. Therefore, vide order dt. 22.05.2006 of this court, this reference u/s 18 of the LA Act was adjourned sine die with the direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to revive this reference petition as and when required in future. Smt. Meenakshi Khurana/ the petitioner again filed the application u/s 151 CPC for revival of this reference on the ground that the dispute between the petitioner and Sh.Sewa Ram & Bali Pal has been settled amicably before the Hon'bl e High Court of Delhi vide order dt. 29.05.2007. Vide order dt. 01.06.2007 of this court, the proceedings of this reference u/s 18 of the LA Act have been restored to its original number.
8 The counsel for the petitioner tendered in evidence the certified copy of the judgment dt. 09.05.1997 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.20/96 titled Smt.Suman Kumari Pal & Anr Vs UOI & Anr as Ex.P1. The counsel for UOI relied upon the award 18/198384 pertaining to village Gharoli, Delhi as Ex.R1. 9 I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the entire records. My issuewise findings are as under : ISSUE NO. 1 10 The onus to prove this issue is upon the respondents. The respondents in their evidence have relied upon the award No.18/198384 announced by the LAC. In the said award, the LAC has specifically stated that the land situated in village Gharauli, Delhi has been acquired vide the notification dt. 17.11.1980 U/s 4 of the LA Act. The agriculture land situate in village Gharauli, Delhi has been acquired by the Govt. for planned development of Delhi. The respondents have not led any evidence that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. Even otherwise, mere applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act does not affect the acquired land in question. The respondents have not proved on record as to how the land of the petitioner is affected by the application of the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act. Therefore, this issue is answered against the respondents. ISSUE NO. 2 11 The onus to prove this issue is upon the petitioner. The present reference u/s 18 of the LA Act has been filed by the petitioner for enhancement in compensation for the land bearing khasra no.425 (227) and 1058/426/1 (97). As per note mentioned on page no.2 of the statement u/s 19 of the LA Act filed by the LAC, the petitioner herein is not the recorded owner of the aforesaid land and Sh.Sewa Ram and Bali Pal are the recorded owners in the revenue record. On page no.3 of the said statement u/s 19 of the LA Act, the compensation was not assessed in the name of the petitioner Sh.Kanwar Anil Kumar Khurana and the compensation was sent to the court of Ld. ADJ, Delhi u/s 3031 of the LA Act on 12.01.1988. The petitioner has filed certified copy of the judgment dt. 23.03.2002 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.29/88 titled UOI Vs Sewa Ram & Ors. wherein there was a dispute in respect of the apportionment of compensation for the land bearing khasra no.971/155160 (04), 1058/426/1 (97) & 425 (227) total measuring 31 bighas 18 biswas situate in Gharauli, Delhi acquired vide award no.18/198384. The Ld. ADJ, Delhi held that IP no.14 i.e. Sh.Anil Kumar Khurana represented through his LRs has been in continuous possession of the land comprised in khasra no.1058/426/1 (97) & 425 (227) since its purchase and till its acquisition. Therefore, the LRs of IP no.14 Sh.Anil Kumar Khurana were held entitled to compensation of the said land except for the land sold by him in the shape of plots to various persons. The list of those persons was given by the LRs of IP no.14 therein by way of affidavit indicating the names of 31 persons with the area of the plot. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Ld. ADJ, Delhi, Sh.Sewa Ram Bali Pal filed the RFA no.429/2002 entitled Sh.Sewa Ram & Anr. Vs Meenakshi Khurana before the Hon'bl e High Court of Delhi. The application u/o 23 Rule 3 r/w/sec. 151 CPC was filed on behalf of the parties in the RFA No.429/2002. The relevant part of the contents of the said application signed by Mrs. Meenakshi Khurana, Sewa Ram & Sh.Beli Pal reads as under :
' '4 That during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the parties thereto have amicably settled their disputes and differences due to intervention of their well wishers and common friends. As per the compromise arrived at between the parties the appellants are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation as well as other benefits as admissible under the Land Acquisition Act of land bearing khasra no.425 measuring 6 bighas only and the compensation of the remaining land in respect of khasra no. 425 measuring 16 bighas and 7 biswas is to be received by the respondent.
5 That the enhanced compensation in respect of land of khasra no.1058/426/1 (97) situated in the revenue estate of village Gharoli, Delhi is to be received by the respondent and the appellants/ IP nos 1 and 2 shall have no right, title and interest therein of any kind whatsoever.
6 That in case the respondents or her husband has sold out any plot of land out of the above said two khasra nos. before pronouncement of the award, then it would be respondent who shall be liable to deal with them. The appellants/IP nos. 1 & 2 shall not in any manner held liable to satisfy any claim of any plot holder since the appellants have already relinquished their right, title and interest in respect of the remaining land of both the khasras numbers land to meet out the claim of the plot holders. In view of the arrival of an amicable settlement between the parties the factum of execution of the sale deed by the mother and uncle of the appellants in favour of husband of the respondent is admitted and the sale deeds disputed is not disputed by the appellants. Further the LRs of the appellants will also not have any right, title or interest in the compensation or to challenge the said sale deed. The land measuring two bigha held by the Hon'b le court for precautionary measures to meet out the demand of any other plot holder or claimant comes forward is also to be borne by the respondent and the land of the appellants is not within the purview of the said land of 2 bigha held by the court.
7 That the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at between the parties of their own free will and accord and without any outside pressure from any corner whatsoever and the same shall be binding on them as well as their respective legal heirs.
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the compromise between the parties may be recorded and the appeal may kindly be decided accordingly.'' 12 The counsel for the petitioner herein filed the certified copy of the order dt. 29.05.2007 passed by the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi in the said RFA No.429/2002. It was held by the Hon'bl e High Court that :
' 'Parties have compromised to amicably settle their disputes and have reduced the terms of compromise into writing. The compromise is Exhibit C. It is signed by the parties and their respective counsel, duly supported by the Affidavits of the parties.
We are satisfied that the terms of compromise are lawful. In these circumstances, the application is allowed and the appeal is allowed, as compromised, in terms of Exhibit C.' '
13 In view of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the respondents Sewa Ram & Bali Pal, the petitioner herein has got the right, title and interest in respect of the land bearing khasra no.425 (167) and 1058/426/1 (97) situate in the village Gharauli, Delhi. The respondents Sewa Ram, Bali Pal have only got right, title and interest in respect of the land bearing khasra no.425 (60) situate in the village Gharauli, Delhi. This reference is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3 14 The onus to prove this issue is upon the petitioner. The petitioner has sought enhancement in compensation on the aforesaid grounds which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It has been held in Catena of judgments of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court as well as the Hon'bl e High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which is sought to be acquired by the government, situation, nature, potential/ user and neighbouring land, etc, is to be considered. In this context, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :
''The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes'' In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam Vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'bl e Supreme Court of India that :
''In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.'' In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1996) 2 SCC 152 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when on record there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself, then it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
' 'It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.''
15 In the present reference, the petitioner has sought the enhancement in compensation of the acquired land as on 17.11.1980 i.e. the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act relying upon the judgment dt. 09.05.1997 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.20/96 titled Smt.Suman Kumari Pal & Anr Vs UOI & Anr which is as Ex.P1 wherein the land situate in village Gharauli, Delhi was acquired vide the same notification dt. 17.11.1980 U/s 4 of the LA Act and the declaration was made U/s 6 of the LA Act on 29.09.1981 vide award no.18/198384. The Ld. ADJ, Delhi after considering the materials and the judgments placed on record fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.76,550/ per bigha as on 17.11.1980. In this context, I would also place a reliance upon the judgment dt. 11.08.1994 passed by the Hon'bl e High Court of Delhi in RFA No.185/93 titled Karan Singh & Ors Vs UOI 55 (1994) DLT 511; 68 (1997) DLT 900 SC wherein the land situate in village Gharauli, Delhi was acquired vide the same notification dt. 17.11.1980 u/s 4 of the LA Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi fixed the market value of the land at Rs.76,550/ as on 17.11.1980. My decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments in the case of Smt.Suman Kumari Pal & Karan Singh (Supra), therefore, the petitioner herein is also entitled to enhancement in compensation of the acquired land. Thus, the market value of the land in question is fixed at Rs.76,550/ per bigha. The petitioner has not led any evidence in respect of the claim for tubewell, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the said claim. This issue is answered accordingly. RELIEF 16 In view of my findings on the above issues, the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation of the land bearing khasra no.425 (167) and 1058/426/1 (97) situate in the village Gharauli, Delhi as per the statement U/s 19 of the LA Act and the market value of the said land is fixed at Rs.76,550/ per bigha as on 17.11.1980. Besides it, the petitioner shall also get 30% solatium on the enhanced market value and interest on the enhanced amount in compensation awarded by this court U/s 28 @ 9% per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment. Since the date of the award is after 30.04.1982, the petitioner will also get additional amount of 12% U/s 23(1A) of the Act as per the judgment of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court of India in the case of K.S.Paripoornan Vs State of Kerela & Ors JT 1994 (6) Supreme Court. The petitioner is further entitled to interest on solatium in terms of judgment of Hon'bl e Apex Court titled Sunder Vs UOI reported in 93 DLT 2001 (SC) 569. This reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioner within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 02.06.2007 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
LAC No. 29/1/06
02.06.2007
Present None
Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioner within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/02.06.2007