Delhi District Court
Ms. Anita Gupta vs Union Of India on 16 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No.13/11
New No. LAC -122/16
Area: Mundka
Award No.: 02/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 01.01.2009
Ms. Anita Gupta
W/o Sh. Suresh Gupta
R/o 12, Rail Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi ....Petitioner/Claimant
versus
1. Union of India,
To be served through
Land Acquisition Collector (West)
Delhi.
2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Through General Manager (Legal)
Metro Bhawan Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,
New Delhi. .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 03.06.2011
Date of reserving of judgment : 08.02.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.02.2017
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 143 Bigha and 02 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/3291 dated 07.06.2007 also under Section 6 vide LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 1/15 notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/10635 dated 23.10.2003. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/10636 dated 23.10.2007. The land was acquired for the purpose of Construction of Depot, Staff Quarters and TSS of Inderlok- Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II near Senior Secondary School, Mundka and North of NH-10 (Mundka Depot).
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)') passed award no. 2/DC(W)/2008-09 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the extended Lal Dora land under acquisition @ Rs.1210/- per sq. mtrs.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector petitioners were shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
Sl. Entry Name of Filed Total Share Kind Details of
No. No. petitioners No. Area of Trees/
Bigha- soil Buildings/
Biswa Crops
1 Ms. Anita 1007 0-7 Full
Gupta w/o min
Sh. Suresh
Gupta
Date of Possession 18.01.2008
4. The petitioner filed the 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 court.
LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 2/15
5. In brief the facts stated are that the claimant is recorded owner and bhumidhar of total 0-7 bigha land in Khasra no. 1007 min of village Mundka, Delhi, which was acquired vide award in question. The claimant is recorded owner and bhumidhar of the aforesaid land. The claimant referred to raise her claim for enhancement of compensation on the following grounds:
6. It is stated that the acquisition of the land of the claimant will affect her right of residence on the land in question. The claimant may be given reasonable compensation to enable her to change her residence.
7. It is stated that the Collector in an arbitrary, malafide and unreasonable manner fixed the compensation for acquisition of extended Lal Dora land of village Mundka @ Rs.1210/- per sq. mtrs. While assessing this compensation amount for extended Lal Dora land of village Mundka, the Land Acquisition authorities failed to appreciate that the actual market value of the land is approximately Rs.40,000/- per sq. mtrs. The Collector failed to consider various sale deeds wherein the similar land was transacted in the year 2005 for consideration of Rs.12454/-, Rs.12649/-, Rs.11860/- and Rs.14,233/- per sq. mtrs. It is stated that most of the Lal Dora land/properties acquired are main road facing properties having high commercial values.
8. It is stated that the Collector failed to appreciate that the circle rate of the adjoining land subject matter of acquisition, which fall in category G of colonies was fixed @ Rs.13,700/- per sq. mtrs. While dealing with this circle rate in LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 3/15 the present award, the Land Acquisition authorities opined that since notification under Section 4 of the Act was issue on 07.06.2007 and this circle rate was notified subsequently i.e. on 18.07.2007 and therefore the circle rate is not applicable and not relevant in deciding the market value of land. It is stated that while arriving at this conclusion the Collector failed to appreciate that these circle rate were already under process on the day of notification U/S 4 of the Act and in fact, this was finalized by the cabinet committee on 18.05.2007 but was notified only on 18.07.2007. Thus on the relevant day of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act the circle rates were already approved by the cabinet. The market value of the land can be higher than this circle rate but in no event it can be less than the prescribed circle rate. Thus while making award the Collector was duty bound to consider the circle rate.
9. It is stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments had held that there is no bar in taking into consideration subsequent sale deeds in fixing the compensation of the land, therefore on the same analogy there can be no bar to take into consideration the subsequent notified circle rates which were notified just after 41 days of the Section 4 notification by taking the base of year 2005.
10. It is stated that the land of the claimant under acquisition is situated on the Delhi Rohtak NH-10 on the northern side and the claimant's land surrounded by many colonies/godowns, industrial areas, village abadi etc. The land has got potential value and the same has been surrounded by village Nangloi, Rani Khera, Kirani Gheura, Hiran Kudna, LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 4/15 Bakkarwara, Ranholla village boundaries. The land is also surrounded by Nangloi Extension, Rajindra Park, Amar Colony, Swarn Park, Gulshan Park, Rajdhani Park, Friends Enclave etc. and residential colonies which are going to confirm in near future Timber Market (Commercial) Area is also situated next to it which is also going to confirm. It is stated that across the railway line the land is already acquired by MTRS and in Rohini Project. Therefore, no other land is available in village Mundka and because of these reasons the market value in the above said area is not less than Rs.40,000/- per sq. mter.
11. It is stated that as per draft plan, bypass road of 46 k.m. from Narela to Najafgarh is proposed from the Revenue Estate of Mundka. There are thousand of godown in the surrounding area and there are hundred of farm houses upon the land of village of Mundka, Jharoda, Ghevra, Sawda, Nizampur, Neelwal, Hiran Kudna. It is stated that while assessing the compensation to be paid to the present claimant against her holdings in the extended Lal Dora land of village Mundka, the Collector adopted the same yardstick for determining the compensation for the entire land falling in this extended Lal Dora area. While fixing the compensation against the holding of the claimant, the Collector failed to appreciate that this land is located on the main Delhi-Rohtak Highway and having wide opening therefrom and therefore, carrying more commercial value than the land located inside the locality.
12. It is stated that on 09.01.2007, the claimant entered into agreement to sell with M/s. Byte Leasing and Invest Ltd having its office at 12, Rail Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 5/15 for sale of the aforesaid land for total sale consideration of Rs.2,80,000/-, which means the claimant already entered into agreement to sell with respect to aforesaid land with the third party much before the publication of Section 4 notification. After entering into agreement to sell, the claimant on same very day accepted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque No. 824762 dated 09.01.2007 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Sector
-9, Rohini, Delhi as earnest money, which was duly cahsed by the claimant. After entering into agreement for sale claimant applied for No Objection Certificate on 11.01.2007 with the revenue authorities.
13. It is stated that the sale transaction executed earlier in the Lal Dora of village Mundka indicative of the fact that the market value in the village Mundka is very high. The claimant has mentioned some sale deeds wherein sale prices are Rs.11861/- per sq. mtr., Rs.14233/- per sq. mtr. And Rs.12650/- per sq. mtr., which show that the market value in village Mundka is very high. It is stated that there are certain unauthorized and unapproved colonies like Amar Colony, Friends Enclave, Swarn Park, Rajdhani Park close to village Mundka, which are colonized illegally and unsystematically situated on the land of village Mundka and even in these colonies the circle rate has been fixed by the Govt. @ Rs.13,700/- per sq. mtr.
14. It is stated that just 300 meter away from the land in question, scheme of Mundka Udhyog Nagar (North), Swarn Park, Manufacture Association, Mundka Udhyog nagar (South) is about to approve by the Govt. due to which the prices of the land in question have gone score high. It is LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 6/15 stated that the claimant is not retaining the land for any commercial purposes but the land was meant for her residential needs and if the residential needs of the claimants will not be adjusted by allotting him some alternative land in the same very area or in Rohini Scheme, the life of claimant and her family will be shuttered and she will not be able to mange her life and the life of her family.
15. It is stated that in an open auction conducted by DDA on 23.08.2006 with respect to the residential plots of Rohini Scheme, fixed the reserve price @ Rs.48,500/- per sq. mtr. However, in auction these plots fetch them prices @ Rs.1,10,000/- per sq. mtr. and also in an auction for plots in Sectors, 11, 16, 24 in Rohini reserve price was Rs.1, 01,750/- per sq. mtr. It is stated that the DDA has already acquired the land after crossing railway line 500 mtr. In north of the plot in question for its Rohini Project, which includes the land of village Mundka also and this land will be sold by DDA at per the price prevailing in Rohini Scheme. The claimant claims that he may also be given benefit of that and may be given alternative residential pot in the similar location in Rohini Scheme so that the claimant's residential need can be satisfied.
16. It is stated that the land in question is equipped with all the modern facilities and necessities like electricity, water connection, public school, Govt. School connected through public transport system and DTC etc. Hundreds of transporter doing business in the surrounding area and more than 1000 industries have been settled just near in the land in question and Delhi Rohtak Railways Line also goes from the LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 7/15 revenue estate of Mundka. It is further stated that the land in question is a part of extended Lal Dora. There is scarcity of land in Delhi especially in DDA colonies and the accommodation in Lal Dora area is the only option for the people who want to settle in Delhi, therefore, demand of the Lal Dora area is very high in Delhi.
17. It is further stated that the Collector failed to appreciate the provisions of clause J of Rule 6 of Delhi Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules 1959, which says that "Bhumidar whose land has been included in the extension of the village Abadi may be given agricultural land worth two times the standard value of land surrender." It is stated that the Collector has failed to appreciate that during consolidation proceedings the valuation of different portion of land under consolidation has to be done separately and on that basis of their valuation, the entitlement of the person whose land has been included in village abadi has to be considered.
18. It is stated that the Govt. Agency for whose benefit the land is sought to be acquired cannot deprive the land owner's from claiming suitable compensation for the land acquired under Land Acquisition Act. The claimant had constructed boundary wall with a height of 7 ft. around the plot in question after investing huge amount on the above said land and as such the claimant is entitled to prevalent construction cost, which is assessed at Rs. 5 lacs. It is stated that value and the cost of a plot similar to the size of the claimant at that location is more than Rs.15 Crores. The claimant herself purchased a land of 4 biswa in Khasra no.
LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 8/15 1019 in Lal Dora of Village Mundka vide registered sale deed on 09.12.2005 @ Rs.12649.70 per sq. mtr, then how cane she be given compensation even less than that for acquiring the similar land in the year 2008.
19. The plaintiff seeks market value of the acquired land @ Rs.40,000/- per sq. mtr along with 30 solatium and Addl. amount and interest as per LA Act; alternative residential plot; damages of Rs.15,00,000/-; and Rs.5,00,000/- the wall surrounding the plot.
20. Written statement filed by respondent no.1/ Union of India and taken the preliminary objection that the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The petitioner is not the recorded owner in the revenue record. In response to the notice issued by the LAC under Section 9 and 10 of the LA Act the petitioner has preferred the claim. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or underdeveloped colony and can only be used for agriculture. There was no structure, treewell or tubewell on the land in question at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act.
21. On merits, all the averments made in the reference petition are denied. The grounds taken by the petitioner are also denied. It is stated that petitioner is not entitled to any relief and reference is liable to be dismissed.
22. Respondent no.2/DMRC also filed written statement and taken preliminary objection that reference petition is liable to be rejected under Section 7 Rule 11 CPC LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 9/15 and the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question. It is stated that the petition is barred under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC.
23. 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 categorically denied that petitioner is also entitled to alternative business site from DMRC/respondent no.2. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
24. The petitioner has filed replications to the written statements of respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 respectively. In which the averments made in the written statements are denied and the averments made in the petition are reiterated.
25. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 13.12.2011, Ld. Predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. What was the market value of the land on the date of notification U/s 4 of LA Act? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any enhancement, if any, to what an extent? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation on account of any superstructure or damages, as prayed for?
OPP LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 10/15
4. Relief.
26. To prove her case, petitioner got examined PW1 Sh. Anil Kumar, Reader from the Office of Sub-Registrar, II-A (Punjabi Bagh), Nangloi, Delhi; PW2 Sh. Ram Kumar Singh, Asstt. LA Residential, Vikas Sadan, DDA, INA, Delhi; PW3 Sh.K.S. Sodhi, Valuer (Paramid India); PW4 Sh. Krishan Beer, Patwari from the office of SDM/SDO, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi; PW5 Sh. Krishan Kant, Assistant deputed in RKD Branch, Delhi High Court; PW6 Sh. M.P.S. Rawat, Naib Tehsildar, Revenue Department; PW7 Sh. Wafa Hasan, Junior Judicial Assistant, Record Room, Delhi H igh Court; PW8 Sh. Kuldeep Singh Bisht, LDC, Revenue Department, PW9 Smt. Anita (petitioner); PW10 Sh. B.M. Gupta, Office Suptd. DMRC; and PW11 Sh. Anil Chaudhary, Tehsildar from the office of SDM Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed vide separate statement of Counsel for petitioner dated 15.03.2016.
27. From the side of respondents, Sh. Vijay Sharma, Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered in evidence copy of Award No. 02/DC(W)/2008-09 of village Mundka as Ex. R-1 and certified copies of three sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to R-4 and copy of order dated 09.12.2011 passed in SLP (Civil), CC20061/2011 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Ex. R-5. Thereafter, he closed the evidence of behalf of respondent no.1/ Union of India. Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC adopted the evidence led by respondent no. 1 and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.2/ DMRC vide statement dated 18.03.2016.
LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 11/15
28. I have heard Sh. Devender Verma, Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Vijay Sharma, Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India and Sh. A.S.Rao, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC and perused the material on record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE Nos. 1 & 229. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/ UOI Sh. Vijay Sharma and Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer on behalf of respondent no.2/DMRC submitted that the fair market value of the land in question has already been determined by this Court in LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 56/16) titled as 'M/s. Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr.' decided on 04.02.2017 and LAC No. 28/11 (New No. 112/16) titled as 'Smt. Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr.' decided on 06.02.2017. They further referred the judgment of Apex Court 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. It is further submitted that the Apex Court has laid down the principle that lands acquired under the same notification, the compensation shall be awarded to the land owners who are similarly situated under the same notification. Applying the same principle, the petitioners are entitled to the same fair market value @ Rs.5175/- per sq. meter after enhancement @ Rs.3965/- per sq. meter. I have considered the respective contentions of both the parties and gone through the judgments of Apex Court, the present case is covered by the principles laid down in Nand Ram (Supra), therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the same market value and enhancement as determined in . Both the issues are decided LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 12/15 accordingly. LAC No. 17/11 (New No. 56/16) titled as 'M/s. Relexo Footwear Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr.' decided on 04.02.2017 and LAC No. 28/11 (New No. 112/16) titled as 'Smt. Amita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr.' decided on 06.02.2017.
ISSUE NO. 330. The onus to prove this issue is on the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW9 and proved her affidavit. The petitioner in para 11 of her affidavit deposed that she has raised the construction of boundary wall of 7 feet height and affixed a gate and claimed Rs.5 lacs for construction and Rs.15 lacs as damages. However, no document proved on record when the said boundary wall constructed and fixed the gate. There is no document proved on record about the expenses incurred. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the circumstances where no document or cogent evidence proved on record, the petitioner failed to establish the claim of Rs.5 lacs for construction of boundary wall and gate and damages of Rs.15 lacs. The issue is decided against the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF)
31. In view of my findings on Issue nos. 1 & 2, the fair market value of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.5175/- per sq. meter after enhancement @ Rs.3965/- per sq. meter. Besides this the petitioners are also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 13/15
32. 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 till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners 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.
37. Petitioner is not entitled to claim of structure of Rs. 5 lacs and damages to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs.
LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 14/15
38. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
39. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 16th February, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 16.02.2017 LAC No. 13/11 (New No.122/16) Anita Gupta vs. UOI & Anr. 15/15