Delhi District Court
Mp Gupta & Sons Through Shri M.P.Gupta vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2008
-:1:- LAC No. 107/2005
IN THE COURT OF S.S.HANDA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI
LAC No. 107/2005 Award No.: 6/2004-05
Village : Ghevra
IN THE MATTER OF:
MP Gupta & Sons through Shri M.P.Gupta, S/o Shri Deep
Chand R/o 55, Inder Enclave, Main Rohtak Road, Delhi
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Department of Slum & JJ,
IP Estate New Delhi-2.
Respondents
Date of Institution : 21.05.2005
Date of Arguments : 27.08.2008
Date of Decision : 27.08.2008
Appearances : Shri Ravinder Dabas, Ld.counsel for petitioners.
Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for UOI.
Shri R.S.Chouhan, Ld. counsel for MCD,
Slum & J.J.Department.
AWARD
Vide notification no. F-11(81)/2000/ L&B/LA
-:2:- LAC No. 107/2005
18032 dated 6.2.2003 under Section 4 and
F.11(81)/2000/L&B/LA/1317 dated 30.4.2003 under Section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the
Act), land measuring 943 bighas and 18 biswas (including the
land of the petitioner as detailed in the statement under Section
19 of the Act), situated in the revenue estate of village Ghevra,
Delhi, was acquired by the Government for public purposes
namely for rehabilitation of J.J.Clusters. The Land Acquisition
Collector after completing all the requisite formalities as
provided under the Act, announced the Award bearing No. 6
of 2004-05 of village Ghevra and awarded compensation at
the uniform rate of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for the entire
acquired land, in addition to proportionate solatium, etc.
2. The above mentioned petitioner was dissatisfied
with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition collector, and filed a petition under the provisions
of Section 18 of the Act for proper determination of the
market value which was sent to this court for adjudication. In
the reference petition, the petitioner sought enhancement of
compensation stating that petitioner was owners/bhumidar in
possession having one half share in the land bearing Khasra
nos. 32/3min(3-07), 8min.(3-11), 9min.(1-18), 12 min.(1-18),
13min.(3-11), 18min.(3-07), 19min.(1-17), 23/1(0-12) situated
in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, New Delhi, here in after
-:3:- LAC No. 107/2005
referred to as the land in dispute. It was stated that awarded
compensation was too low, unreasonable, inadequate, arbitrary
and without considering the relevant evidence available with
the Ld. LAC. It was further stated that LAC did not take into
consideration all the documents filed by petitioner and ignored
the potentiality of the land and the fact that the land could be
used for Industrial, commercial and residential purposes and
the rate of the land was at Rs. 2000/- per square yard if sold in
the open market. He also adopted the incorrect formula in
assessing the market value of the land. It was also stated that all
facilities, like transportation, electricity, water, hospital,
railway line, school, colleges, and restaurants were available
there. It was in proximity of PVC market and National
Highways. The land of petitioner was leveled and required
only little development. It was near the Abhor-Fazilka via
Rohtak Road. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Depot and Tikri
border were near to it. He was deprived of right of his property
as envisaged under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the market
value of the land and compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-
per sq. yard for the land; Rs.25,000/- per acre for loss and
damages sustained by the petitioner for standing crops; besides
solatium and interest with cost of petition and other benefits as
per Act.
-:4:- LAC No. 107/2005
3. In the statement under Section 19 of the Act dated
12.05.2005, it was recorded that MP Gupta & Sons through MP
Gupta was recorded owners to the extent of half share in the
land comprised in Khasra No.32/3min(3-07), 8min.(3-11),
9min.(1-18), 12 min.(1-18), 13min.(3-11), 18min.(3-07),
19min.(1-17), 23/1(0-12) situated in revenue estate of Village
Ghevra, New Delhi. This statement was admitted as correct.
4. The Union of India contested this case on the grounds
that the Delhi Land Reforms Act was applicable to the land in
dispute. The UOI further pleaded that compensation was
correctly assessed and prayed for dismissal of the claim.
5. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Slum & J.J. Department
denied the material averments made in the petition and pleaded
that fair and reasonable compensation was assessed by the land
acquisition collector after considering all the relevant factors
for determination of market value at the time of acquisition of
land in dispute. It admitted that land of petitioner was acquired.
It was further contended that there was no grounds for
enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated
18.10.2006 following issues were framed:
-:5:- LAC No. 107/2005
(1) Whether the Delhi Land Reforms Act is
applicable to the land in dispute, if so to
what effect? OPD
(2) To what enhanced compensation the petitioner
is entitled to? OPP
(3) Relief.
7. In support of the case of the petitioner, only Shri MP
Gupta was examined as PW-1. Ld counsel for the petitioner
further relied on the evidence led in case LAC No.228/2005
titled Shri MP Gupta Vs UOI & Anr. and the judgment passed
therein.
In support of its case, counsel for the
respondent/UOI tendered in evidence copy of Award No.
6/2004-05 of village Ghevra as Ex. R 1. Counsel for MCD,
Slum & J.J. Department did not lead any evidence and relied
on the evidence led on behalf of UOI.
8. After closing of evidence by the parties, I heard ar-
guments of counsels for the respondents and perused file.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has further placed reli-
ance upon (i) Jasrath Vs. Union of India 130 (2006) DLT 700;
(ii) Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs.
Narasaiah 2001 II AD(S.C.) 502; (iii) Lakhimpur V. Bhuban
Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 SC 2015; (iv) K. S. Shivadevamma
and others, v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition
-:6:- LAC No. 107/2005
Officer and another AIR 1996 SC 2886; and (v) Shri Mahinder
Singh Vs UOI & Ors., LAA No.866/2005 etc.
Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for the UOI has placed
reliance upon Section 23, 24 and 25 of the LA Act. He also
relied on Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Union on India, 77 (1999) DLT
1 etc.
9. After going through the pleadings of the parties;
examination of evidence on record; and considering the
arguments of the counsels for the respondents, my findings on
the issues are follows:
10. FINDINGS OF ISSUE NO.1
The burden to prove this issue was on the
respondents and they had to prove as to how applicability of the
Act affected the market value of the land in dispute.
But both the respondents have failed to adduce
any evidence on this issue.
However, as per statement under Section 19 of the
Act which is admitted by the petitioner; it is evident that the
land in question was agricultural land and subject to Delhi Land
Reforms Act. Irrespective of that it is not shown as to how it
basically affected the market value of the compensation to be
awarded.
-:7:- LAC No. 107/2005
The issue, thus is, answered to the effect that the
land was subject to Delhi Land Reforms Act but without
prejudice to the reasons to be taken up under issue no.2; it no
way affects the market value of the awarded land for the
purposes of compensation under the Land Acquisition act,
1894.
FINDINGS OF ISSUE NO. 2
11. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for respondent/UOI,
Shri S.K.Puri that as the award was assailed by the petitioner;
the burden to prove that they be awarded compensation at the
enhanced rate lay upon him.
12. To discharge the burden as recorded above, the Shri
MP Gupta was examined as PW-1 and Ld. counsel for
petitioner placed reliance on the evidence led in case LAC
No.228/2005 titled MP Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr. In that case,
petitioner examined Shri S.K.Mudgil, Reader to SR Office,
Punjabi Bagh as PW-1, Shri Pradeep Suri, LDC, Sub Registrar,
Janak Puri as PW-2, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari,
Village Ghevra as PW-3, Shri S.C.Munjal, Office Kanungo,
record room incharge, Kanjhawala as PW-4.
Shri MP Gupta, petitioner in his evidence led by
-:8:- LAC No. 107/2005
way of affidavit and deposed that he was owner in possession
land bearing khasra Nos. 32/3min(3-07), 8min.(3-11), 9min.(1-
18), 12 min.(1-18), 13min.(3-11), 18min.(3-07), 19min.(1-17),
23/1(0-12) situated in the revenue estate of village Ghevra
Delhi and the same has been acquired vide award No.6/2004-
05 dated 26/06/2004 for public purpose namely rehabilitation
of J.J.Clusters. The impugned award is not acceptable to the
him and he received compensation under protest. Hence, the
petition u/s 18 of the Act. They further deposed that LAC has
not appreciated the evidence regarding market value of the land
in question. Land of the petitioner can fetch more value than
awarded by the LAC.
This witness was subject to cross examination in
substance with the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
Shri S.K.Mudgil, Reader to SR Office, Punjabi
Bagh, PW-1 examined in LAC No.228/2005 has deposed to
the following effect that :
"I have brought the summoned record dated 22.5.2007
executed by Shri Suresh Kumar in favour of Shri Shiv
Mahima Township Ovt. Ltd. In respect of the land
measuring 7 bigha and 1-1/3 situated at Zafarpur,
Hirankudna for a consideration of Rs.3 crore and the same
is entered at 2746 additional Book No.1 Volume no. 691
and the same is mark K already on record. The another
sale deed dated 31.05.2007 executed by Shri Jagphool
Singh in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. in
respect of land measuring about 1 bigha and 9.5 biswas of
village Hirankudana for consideration of Rs.5 crore and
same is entered at 2940 in additional book no.1, Volume
-:9:- LAC No. 107/2005
NO.700 and the copy of the same is Ex.PW2/B. The
photocopies of the above mentioned documents have been
seen and are same as per record brought by me."
PW-2, Shri Pradeep Suri, LDC, Sub Registrar,
Janak puri examined in LAC No.228/2005 has deposed to the
following effect that :
"I have brought the following summoned record i.e (i) sale
deed executed by Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri
D.D.Sharma in favour of L&T Ltd. registered at NO.2732
in additional book no.1, volume 7335 on pages 67-83 on
dated 23.4.1993 (ii) sale deed executed by Shr Sandeep
Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri D.D.Sharma in favour of L&T Ltd.
registered at No.2733 in additional book no.1, volume 7335
on pages 84-101 on dated 23.4.1993 (iii) sale deed executed
by Ms. Bimla Kumari, W/o Shri Rama Avtar in favour of
L&T Ltd. registered at No.2734 in additional book no.1,
volume 7335 on pages 102-112 on dated 23.4.1993 (iv) sale
deed executed by Shri Iqbal Singh S/o Chanan Das in favour
of L&T Ltd. registered at NO.2735 in additional book no.1
volume 7335 on pages 113-123 on dated 23.4.1993 (v) sale
deed executed by Shri Mool Chand S/o Shri Ratan Singh
and Mir Singh S/o Shri Yad Ram in favour of Ganga Bishan
Gupta, S/o Shri Kale Ram registered at No.9466 in
additional book no.1, volume 9686 on pages 131-153 on
dated 21.9.2000. The photocopies of the above mentioned
five documents have been seen and mark A to Mark E
already on record respectively and are same as per record
brought by me."
PW-3, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari, Village
Ghevra, Tehsil Saraswati Vihar, Delhi examined in LAC
No.228/2005 has deposed to the following effect that :
"I am posting as patwari of village Ghevra for
-:10:- LAC No. 107/2005
last one and half years. The land bearing khasra no.82/4
and 68/24 of village Ghevra is situated at the distance of 18
acres away from the acquired land. We maintain and
prepare the record of rights pertaining to Khasra no.82/4
and 68/24 as khatoni prior to acquisition. Khasra no.82/4
and 68/24 are vacant land. I can not tell the distance of
National Highway from the acquired land. The FCI
godowns are located at a distance of 12 acre from the
acquired land whereas SPG Gas Plan is located at a
distance of 14 acres approximately. It is the correct that
there is railway station falling in the Revenue Esate of
village Ghevra. It is correct that land of village Ghevra is
by the side of Kanjhawala road and Rohtak Road National
Highway No.10 as well as Kanjhawala to Bawana road and
Sawda to Rasurpur road. I can not tell the PVC market.
Though it is correct that in the land of village Mundka
Metro station is being constructed. It is correct that
agricultural land get electricity supply and water supply
from concerned authorities. It is correct that to the village
Ghevra, hospital, school, bank facilities are situated. It is
correct that nearby to the village Ghevra i.e. approximately
seven are away Industrial units are running. However, it is
not in my knowledge as to whether the same has been
approved by the NCT Delhi or not. The original exsizra of
village Ghevra and Sawda is Ex.PW3/1 and PW3/2."
PW-4, Shri S.C.Munjal, Office Kanungo, Record
Room Incharge, Kanjhawala examined in LAC No.228/2005
has deposed to the following effect that :
"I have brought the Khasra Girdawari of three
years of village Ghevra from the year 2000-2001, 2001-
2002, 2002-2003 Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/3."
PW-5 Shri Ved Prakash, Naib Tehsildar, L &
Building Department, Nirman Bhawan examined in LAC
No.228/2005 has deposed to the following effect that :
-:11:- LAC No. 107/2005
"I have brought the attested copy of the govt.
policy fixing the minimum price of agricultural land in
Delhi from the year 1990 to 30.8.2005 and the same are
Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/7 only."
(i) The cross examination of PW-1 to 4 and
PW-5 examined in LAC No.228/2005
above mentioned; was of no substance
as they deposed from the record.
(ii) No question was put on policy matter of
enhancement of compensation.
13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner summarised his
contentions in two propositions. It is submitted that either of
his propositions be accepted.
(1) The first proposition propounded by him was
that relying upon the sale deeds Ex.PW1/F to
Ex.PW1/O (In LAC No.228/2005) the
petitioner be given enhancement.
(ii) Secondly, his proposition is that petitioner be
awarded the higher compensation i.e. @ 12% flat or
11.5% compounded.
14. On the other hand, Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for
the Union of India has argued that no reliance can be placed on
sale deeds Ex.PW1/F to O (in LAC No.228/2005) because
these are either much prior to date of acquisition or much later
-:12:- LAC No. 107/2005
from the date of acquisition Secondly, these are for small
pieces of land and thirdly, these lands were purchased for
commercial purposes.
15. Shri S.K.Puri, Ld. counsel for the UOI has placed
referred to Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act and submitted that
propositions for enhancement raised by Ld. counsel for
petitioner do not hold good. Section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act being relevant is reproduced as under :
"Matters to be considered in 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 time of 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 or 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 severing 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 earning;
-:13:- LAC No. 107/2005
fifthly, if, 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."
Shri S.K.Puri emphasised that the compensation
awarded by LAC vide Ex.R-1 was legal and justified being
based upon legal provisions and as per settled principles. He
did not dispute the ratio and applicability of Mahinder Singh Vs
UOI & Ors (Supra) herein.
16. In the award Ld. LAC while ascertaining the market
value of the land has held that :
"In a policy announcement which came into
effect from the financial year 2001-2002, Government of
National Capital Territory of Delhi fixed the indicative prices
of agricultural land @ Rs.15,70,000.00 per acre for the
acquisition of agricultural land vide their order
No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 dated 9.8.2001 which are
applicable with effect from 1.4.2001.
In view of the absence of any documentary
evidences produced by the interested persons, the copy of sale
deed in possession of this office as referred to above, and in
the light of the above discussion, I find Rs.15,70,000.00 per
acre to be the most reasonable price for the agricultural land
as on 6.2.2003. The notification under Section 4 was issued
-:14:- LAC No. 107/2005
on 6.2.2003 and the price of the land is to be determined as
on the date of notification under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act itself. Hence, in view of the above facts I find
Rs. 15,70,000.00 per acre to be the most reasonable price for
the land as on 6.2.2003. I, accordingly, determine the market
value of the land @ Rs.15,70,00.00 per acre.
17. The market value admittedly has to be fixed on the
date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In
this case notification under Section 4 was issued on 6.2.2003.
And as per Sec.25 of the Act it can not be less than the amount
awarded by the LAC under Section 11 of the Act.
18. Counsel for respondent has relied upon case
Rameshwar Dayal, Supra; wherein it was held in that case
that fixing compensation on basis of instances available within
same village were always preferable. But the sale deeds (in
LAC No.228/2005) Ex.PW1/H & 1/I belongs to village Tikri
Kalan; Ex.PW1/J to 1/N belong to village Hiran Kudna and
Ex.PW1/O belongs to village Savda. Hence, these sale deeds
can not be taken into consideration for the purposes of
determining the market value of the land of the petitioner.
Although certified copies of sale deeds are
admissible in evidence as held in cases Land Acquisition
Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Narasaiah and State
of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, Supra, yet these will not provide
any benefit to petitioner for the reasons firstly, that Ex. PW1/F
-:15:- LAC No. 107/2005
to 1/O (in LAC No.228/2005) are not for the relevant period.
Second reason for discarding these sale deeds are
that market value of large track of land comprising of 943
bighas 18 biswas of land in the present case can not be decided
on the basis of sale deeds only for a small pieces of land i.e., for
one to two and half bighas of land.
My decision finds support by a decision of Apex
Court in case of Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra
Dutta wherein it was held that:
"In determining compensation, the value fetched for
small plot of land cannot be applied to lands covering a
very large extent. The large area of land cannot possibly
fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are
sold."
This principle was again reiterated by the Supreme
Court in cases of Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector,
Gadwal, Supra wherein it set aside the order of High Court that
had relied on sale deed relating to small piece of land and
determined compensation per sq. yard and K. S. Shivadevamma
and others, Supra, wherein it was held that a Sale deed of
small piece of land relied on by petitioner cannot form basis for
determining compensation for large extent of land.
Third reason for discarding valuation on the basis
of Ex. PW/F to 1/O (in LAC No.228/2005) is that situation of
particular land plays an important role in fetching the value of
-:16:- LAC No. 107/2005
it. For example, if the land is situated just near the metal led
road on a developed place it may fetch more value than the
land which is situated far away from the metal led road and
near the less developed area. In the present case no evidence
has been adduced to prove existence of favorable factors to
fetch more value of the land in dispute.
The arguments of counsel for the Union of India
is convincing that purchaser paid higher side of price of land as
lands were purchased for commercial purposes. The counsel
for the petitioner further failed to prove on record that there
was similarity of situation, position and advantages attached to
the land purchased by purchaser and land in dispute and
acquired in the present case.
19. I have examined the evidence and material
produced on record from different angles in order to find out
whether after applying the principles as discussed in cases Smt.
Tribeni Devi and others v. The Collector; Ranchi Adusumilli
Gopalkrishna, v. Spl. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition);
and Suresh Kumar, v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, etc.,
some enhancement of compensation could be made? And I
have come to the conclusion that petitioner could not establish
on record that either potentiality or market value or the
advantages attached to the land subject matter of this case
could fetch more value than the land acquisition collector
-:17:- LAC No. 107/2005
awarded for the land in dispute and referred to in the award. In
other words, it could not be established that market value as on
the date of notification for acquisition of land was more than
what the Land Acquisition Collector assessed in his award.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for
enhancement of compensation on the basis of the sale deeds
Ex.PW1/F to Ex.PW1/O (in LAC No.228/2005) .
20. From the analysis of PW1 to 4 and PW-5 examined in
LAC No.228/2005 and the documents above referred proved by
them, it emerges as below :
(i) The land falling in village Ghevra is surrounded
by Kanjawala, Hirankudna, Tikra, Mundaka,
Rasulpur, Sawda and Tikri Kalan and is
connected by road and civic amenities.
(ii) The awarded land was fertile agricultural land.
(iii) That there was considerable jump in the
minimum compensation fixed by the
Government of NCT, Delhi each time.
(iv) There has been continuous and consistent
increase in agricultural land prices in the NCT,
Delhi.
The above factors, thus, support the claim of the
petitioner for higher compensation than what was awarded by
Ld. LAC at the minimum acquisition rate as there was gap of
22 months when the minimum acquisition rate of the
-:18:- LAC No. 107/2005
agricultural and was notified. The land rates steadily increased
as emerges from the letters of Dy Secretary (LA) to the
Secretary (Revenue) Divisional Commissioner (filed in LAC
No.228/2005) which being relevant is reproduced as under:
"No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 Dated 9.8.2001
The Secretary(Revenue)/ Divisional Commissioner,
Govt of NCT of Delhi
Tis Hazari,
Delhi.
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land
situated in river bed between forward bunds.
Sir,
In supersession of this office letter
NO.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/12358 dt. 21.11.2000, the
Government has approved the following rates to be the
minimum rates in the National Capital Territory of Delhi
effective from 1.4.2001 for the purpose of acquisition of
land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:-
1. Rs.15,70,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs seventy thousand
only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands
situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
****
****"
"F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA 6720 Dated: 30.8.2005 The Secretary(Revenue)/ Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land situated in river bed between forward bunds.
Sir, -:19:- LAC No. 107/2005 In supersession of this office letter NO.F.9(20)/80/L&BLA6696 dated 9.8.2001, the Government has approved the following rates to be the minimum rates in the National Capital Territory of Delhi effective from 30.8.2005 for the purpose of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:-
1. Rs.17,58,400/- (Rupees seventeen fifty eight thousand four hundred only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
**** ****"
"No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/15065 Dated : 24.01.2008 The Secretary(Revenue)/Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land situated in river bed between forward bunds.
Sir, In supersession of this office letter NO.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/12358 dated 30.8.2005, the Govt. has approved the following rates to be the minimum rates in the National Capital Territory of Delhi effective from 18.12.2007 i.e. the date of decision of the cabinet, for the purpose of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:-
1. Rs.53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty three lacs only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
**** **** It is also emphasized that the above rates are the minimum rates for compensation. The actual rates for compensation will be determined by the Land Acquisition collector in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the prevalent case law"
-:20:- LAC No. 107/2005In all the above letters, it was emphasized that the rates notified as minimum rates and accordingly rates can not be lowered and rather implied to be higher in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the prevalent case law.
21. In case of Shri Mahinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors., Supra of the Hon'ble Division Bench of His lordship Hon'ble Mr Justice Swantanter Kumar and Mr. Justice S.L.Bhayana dated 11th May, 2006 held that :
"the Court while granting very limited enhancement again because of non-availability of proper and cogent evidence, it specifically granted the relief of interest on solatium and the benefit for a period of 7 to 8 months in computation of market value of the land on the basis of the Government Policy. It again may not be necessary for this Court to reiterate the entire discussion on this aspect of the case. In fact the learned counsel appearing for the respondents did fairly state that these two reliefs, the petitioners would be entitled to and more particularly in view of the judgment of this court in Gajraj Singh case.
It was for the claimants to produce on record the relevant and cogent evidence by sale instances, judicial pronouncements, which would considerably support their case for enhancement of compensation. The claimants have failed to completely discharge their onus on this issue and claim on the basis of agricultural produce having been given up, there is hardly any basis for the claimants to claim enhancement in compensation for -:21:- LAC No. 107/2005 acquisition of their land, on their own strength. The policy of the Government in relation to grant of minimum price payable for acquisition of agricultural land would continue to be relevant factor on the basis of which, the Court would have to determine the compensation payable to the claimants."
It was further held by their lordships :
"We hold that the claimants are entitled to the following rel"We hold that the claimants are entitled to the following reliefs:-
(a) The order maintaining the categorisation of the acquired land into grounds A and B is set aside.
All claimants, whose lands have been acquired vide notification dated 15th November, 1996 in the revenue estate of Village Bawana would be entitled to uniform rate of compensation.
(b) The claimants would be entitled to increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November 1996 (the date of notification under Section 4 under the Act) @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the reference Court/Collector that would roughly given them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68p. per Bigha."
(ii) This proposition was reaffirmed and followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of their lordships Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Ms. Justice Veena Birbal in the latest judgment in case RFA No.48/95 titled Shri Sher Singh & Ors. Vs UOI dated 17.9.2007. These were latest judicial -:22:- LAC No. 107/2005 pronouncements of the Hon'ble High Court and have to be followed.
(iii) Having dealt with all the plausible propositions; in the light of relevant provisions; in my considered opinion the latest case law above referred lays the best possible proposition to be applied to the case in hand for ascertaining the market value of awarded land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, enhancement on Govt. policy of minimum acquisition rate is applied herein. I am, therefore, of the view that petitioner is entitled for appreciation of 22 months over and above the value fixed by LAC. On calculation the amount of interest for 22 months @ 11.5% compounded annually on 96,875/- comes to Rs. 1,18,367.122 i.e. Rs. 1,18,367/-.
RELIEF
22. As settled in Mahender Singh's case, petitioner is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,18,367/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand three hundred sixty seven only) per bigha in the land comprised in Khasra nos. 32/3min(3-07), 8min.(3-11), 9min.(1-18), 12 min.(1-18), 13min.(3-11), 18min.(3-07), 19min.(1-17), 23/1(0-12) situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, New Delhi as mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of LA Act dated 12.05.2005.
-:23:- LAC No. 107/2005The petitioner shall also be entitled to the solatium of 30% on market value and 12% additional amount from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 till the date of Award/taking of possession under section 23(1A) whichever is earlier. The petitioner would also be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking of possession and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter till the enhanced compensation is paid.
23. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector for his information The parties are left to bear their own costs.
A copy of award be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector for his information.
Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON ( S.S.HANDA ) THIS DAY OF 27 AUGUST, 2008.
th ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI