Delhi District Court
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh.I.S. Dahiya ) vs Union Of India on 25 January, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC No. : 157/1/07 AWARD NO : 6A/1974-75
Old No. : 115/76 VILLAGE : Oldenpur, Delhi
In the matter of :
Sh. Raghunath Parshad (deceased)
through his LR
i Sh.Yatinder Kumar Bansal ] son
R/o 46, Maya Apartment,
Near F-Block, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh.I.S. Dahiya )
...Petitioner
Versus
1 Union of India
through Land Acquisition Collector
(East), office at L.M. Bandh,
Shastri Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi
2 Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh.Pranesh & Ms. Beena Sharma)
...Respondents
AWARD REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1 Vide notification No.F15(iii)/59-LSG dated 13.11.1959 U/s 4 of the LA Act (hereinafter referred to as the ACT) and declaration was also made vide notification No.F4(9)/65-L&H(i) dated 09.08.1966 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act. The land including the land of the petitioner situate in the revenue estate of village 2 Oldenpur, Delhi was acquired by the Govt. for Planned Development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requirements as provided under the Act passed the award bearing No.6-A/1974-75 and awarded the compensation @ Rs.800/- per bigha for block-I and Rs.200/- per bigha for block-II besides statutory benefits.
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 the reference petition, the petitioner has sought the enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the land comprised in khasra nos.697/442 (6-8), 698/442 (7-14) & 699/442 (5-19) situated in village Oldenpur Illaqa, Shahdara, Delhi. None else other than the petitioner has any right, title or interest in the aforesaid land. The land under acquisition abuts on the main road and is most suitable for building purposes. The said land is surrounded by thickly populated buildings and colonies. All sorts of civic amenities such as electricity, water, telephone, transport, schools, hospitals and college are easily available at site. The land 3 in question had never been used for agriculture purposes even at the time of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The LAC was also in error for classifying the land of the petitioner into two blocks. On these grounds among others, the petitioner has claimed Rs.25/- per sq. yard of the acquired land in question besides statutory benefits.
4 The UOI, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the ground that the Delhi Land Reform Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The correctness of the khasra nos., their area and the extent of share of the petitioner therein has been admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished U/s 19 of the LA Act. In response to notice issued by the LAC U/sec 9 & 10 of the LA Act, the petitioner has preferred claim. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or un-developed colony and can only be used for agriculture. There was no structure, tree, well, or tube well on the land in question at the time of publication of notification U/sec. 4 of the LA Act. Despite opportunities given, DDA has not filed written statement, therefore, the right of filing of the written statement by DDA was closed.
5 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this court on 08.01.2008 which are as under : 4
1 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act? Onus on parties.
2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 3 Relief.
6 The counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case, has tendered in evidence the certified copy of the judgment dt. 31.05.2007 passed by this court in LAC No.10/2/07 titled UOI Vs Raghunath Prasad & Ors. as Ex.P-1 and certified copy of the judgment dt. 01.11.1999 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.132/93 titled Nain Singh Vs UOI as Ex.P-2. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the copy of the award No.6-A/1974-75 pertaining to village Oldenpur, Delhi as Ex.R-1.
7 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire records. My issue-wise findings are as under : ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 8 Before deciding the issue nos.1 & 2, let us examine whether the petitioner has any right, title or interest in the land in question. Perusal of the revised statement U/sec. 19 of the LA Act reveals that there was a dispute of the land in question. The counsel for the LR of the deceased petitioner has argued that the 5 dispute of the land has already been decided and in support of his arguments, the counsel for the LR of the deceased petitioner has filed the certified copy of the judgment dt. 31.05.2007 passed by this reference court in LAC No.10/2/07 titled UOI Vs Raghunath Prasad & Ors. u/sec. 30-31 of the LA Act which is Ex.P-1. In Ex.P-1, it was discussed by this court that as to what share or apportionment in compensation each of the IPs is entitled to. According to Naqsha Mutzamin, the compensation was sent in respect of 8 bighas 3 biswas and it was clarified by the LAC that the total awarded land is 20 bighas 1 biswas and the possession of the land measuring 8 bighas 3 biswas was taken over. The dispute among the petitioner herein and the disputants has been decided in favour of Raghunath Prasad petitioner herein pertaining to the land bearing khasra nos.697/442 min (2-0), 698/442 min (2-15) & 699/442 min (2-00) total measuring 6 bighas 15 biswas for jheel and the land comprised in khasra nos.697/442 min (0-8), 698/442 min (0-14) & 699/442 min (0-6) for Rasta total measuring 8 bighas 3 biswas of village Oldenpur, Delhi pertaining to the award no.6-A/1974-75 Suppl. Thus, I hold that the petitioner herein has got the right, title & interest in respect of the land measuring 8 bighas 3 biswas in question as aforesaid.
69 The issue nos. 1 & 2 are inter-connected and I shall decide both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the LR of the deceased petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner has sought enhancement in compensation on the grounds mentioned in the reference petition which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It has been held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which is 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'ble 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'' 7 In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam Vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'ble 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 8 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.''
10 Let us examine the case of the petitioner herein after applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The counsel for the petitioner, in support of his evidence for enhancement in compensation, has relied upon the certified copy of the judgment dt. 01.11.1999 passed by the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.132/93 titled Nain Singh & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors. which is Ex.P-2. In Ex.P-2, the land situate at village Oldenpur, Delhi was also acquired vide the same notification dt. 13.11.1959 U/s 4 of the LA Act. The then Ld.ADJ, Delhi, after considering all the facts, materials, the judgments of the Ld. ADJs, Delhi and relying upon the judgment dt. 08.12.1998 in RFA No.74/80 titled Brij Mohan Tayal Vs UOI (77 DLT 831) fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.11,800/- per bigha as on 13.11.1959 in addition to the statutory benefits. In the present reference, the land situate at village Oldenpur, Delhi was also acquired vide the same notification dt. 13.11.1959. Thus, my decision is also 9 supported with the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi. Therefore, the market value of the acquired land as mentioned in the statement U/s 19 of the LA Act is fixed @ Rs.11,800/- per bigha as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 13.11.1959. 11 During the pendency of the reference, petitioner had expired. Vide order dt. 20.10.2007, Sh.Yatinder Kumar Bansal, the only LR of deceased petitioner has been brought on record in this reference. Now, let us further examine whether the LR of deceased petitioner is entitled to interest for the stay period. On 17.03.1978, the counsel for the parties were present. Vide order dt. 17.03.1978, the Ld. Predecessor court observed that the reference u/sec. 30-31 of the LA Act of the land in question was pending, therefore, this reference was stayed with the direction that the claimant will not be entitled to interest for the period of stay. On filing of the application for revival of this reference, the Court vide order dt. 20.10.2007, revived this reference u/sec. 18 of the LA Act with the condition that the interest for the intervening period i.e. for stay period shall be decided at the final stage of this reference. The counsel for the LR of the deceased petitioner has argued that on 17.03.1978, the petitioner was not present for giving the statement that the petitoner shall not claim the interest for the stay period. The counsel for the LR of the deceased 10 petitioner, in support of his arguements, has relied upon the judgment dt. 29.07.2005 in RFA No.360 of 2001 reported in the case of Chander Vs UOI & Anr. 122 (2005) DLT 517 (FB). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment considered at length the distinction between inviting order of court and court making order of its own. The Hon'ble High Court held that :
''In a case where the court has made an order of its own of staying the proceedings, then the claimant should not be asked to suffer. In such a situation it was open to the other side to move the higher forum with the request to proceed with the matter so as to avoid the payment of amount of interest for the interregnum. In the case of M/s Lekh Raj and Co. V. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No.5690 of 1985 decided on 24.03.1992, the Apex Court in a somewhat similar situation, where the Court had stayed proceedings of its own and refused to grant interest during the interregnum for the period 17.11.1968 to 23.07.1974 as there was a stay order, pointed out that, ''Though the grant of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is discretionary with the Court but in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the discretion has wrongly been exercised by the High Court. A dispute of apportion of compensation under section 30 of the Act is the progency of the Act and since the court thought to stay the proceedings for enhancement of compensation, the act of the court in these circumstances could not go to prejudice the accrual of interest on compensation which was kept retained by the State in the interval''. It is in view of this the Apex Court allowed interest for the period for which it was declined...'' It was further held that :
''In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, we hold that the principle laid down in the case of Union of India Vs Rajiv Gupta 11 (Supra) for payment of interest during the period the proceedings remained stayed at the instance of the claimant with the statement that he shall not claim interest during the period of stay, interest is required to be granted is not in consonance with law. This court is of the opinion that when a claimant requested the Court to stay the proceedings with the statement that the party shall not claim any interest during the period of stay, the party cannot claim any interest for such period.'' 12 In the present reference, it reveals from the order dt.
17.03.1978 passed by the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi that no specific statement was made either by the petitioner or the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall not claim any interest during the period of stay. The facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, in view of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, I hold that the LR of the deceased petitioner is also entitled to the interest for the stay period on the enhanced compensation. These issues are answered accordingly.
RELIEF 13 In view of my findings on the above issues, the market value of the land in question is fixed @ Rs.11,800/- per bigha as on 13.11.1959 i.e. the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The LR of the deceased petitioner/Sh.Raghunath Prasad is entitled to enhancement in compensation of the acquired land 12 bearing khasra nos.697/442 min (2-0), 698/442 min (2-15) & 699/442 min (2-00) total measuring 6 bighas 15 biswas for jheel and the land comprised in khasra nos.697/442 min (0-8), 698/442 min (0-14) & 699/442 min (0-6) for Rasta total measuring 8 bighas 3 biswas of village Oldenpur, Delhi according to the statement U/s 19 of the LA Act forwarded by the LAC and also the award/ judgment dt. 31.05.2007 passed by this reference court in LAC No.10/2/07 titled UOI Vs Raghunath Prasad & Ors. in reference u/sec. 30-31 of the LA Act pertaining to the award no.6-A/1974-75 Suppl. The LR of the deceased petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the stay period. Besides it, the LR of the deceased petitioner shall also be entitled to get solatium U/s 23 (2) of the LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest U/s 28 of the LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. Since, there is difference of more than three years between the notification U/sec. 4 dated 13.11.1959 and declaration U/sec. 6 of the Act dated 09.08.1966, the LR of the deceased petitioner is further entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a, on the market value w.e.f 13.11.1962 in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 provided there is no 13 overlapping in the payment of interest U/sec. 4(3) and Section 28 of the Act. The LR of the deceased petitioner is further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Sunder Vs UOI reported in 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 compensation to the LR of the deceased 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 25.01.2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
14
LAC No. 157/1/07
25.01.2008
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 compensation to the LR of the deceased 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/25.01.2008