Delhi District Court
Sh. Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs Union Of India on 20 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 12/12
New No. LAC - 192/16
Area: Mundka
Award No.: 03/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 23.05.2009
Sh. Jagdev Singh @ Jagde
S/o Sh. Abhay Ram
R/o V.P.O. Mundka, Delhi-41. ....Petitioner
versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
Distt. West Rampura, Delhi-35.
2. D.M.R.C.
Through its Director
H.O. : Metro Bhawan Fire Brigade
Canaught Place, Delhi-110001 .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 14.05.2012
Date of reserving of judgment : 07.07.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.07.2017
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 23 Bigha and 05 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7 (21)/05/L&B/LA/MRTS(W)/16141 dated 31.01.2007 also under Section 6 vide notification no. F.7 (21)/05/L&B/LA/MRTS(W)/2541 dated 24.05.2007. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.7 LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 1/12 (21)/05/L&B/LA/MRTS(W)/10339 dated 19.10.2007. The land was acquired for the purpose of Construction of Entry/exit and traffic integration of Inderlok-Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Ph-II near Bus Stand, Mundka and East of Rani Khera Road (Mundka Station).
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)') passed award no. 3/DC(W)/2008-09 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the Lal Dora land @ Rs.1183/- per sq. meter.
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.
Item Name of Khasra Total Details of
No. of recorded owner No. Area in trees/
NM & share Bigha- Buildings/
Biswa Crops
12. Jagde S/o Abhe Ram 453 1-0 As per Award
(Full share) Possession
Date 26.11.07
42. Jagde S/o Abhe 225 min 0-03 As per Award
(4/101 share) Possession
date 24.04.08
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. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 2/12
5. In brief the facts stated are that the land of the petitioner comprise Lal-Dora Abadi land/ Khasra No. 453 (1-0) having full share and Khasra No. 244 area measuring 0-5 Biswa having ½ share in the land total measuring area 1 Bigha 2.5 Biswas situated at revenue estate of village Mundka was acquired vide award in question. The notice under Section 9 & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued to the petitioner by the Collector. Except the petitioner no other person has any right, title or interest in the aforesaid land. The petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of Award and the petitioner has not received any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act and the present petition is within limitation as per law.
6. It is stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector does not represent true and correct market value of the land as well as Lal Dora land (village abadi) as on date of notification under Section 4 of the Act on dated 31.01.2007 and the compensation assessed by the Collector is much below to the actual market value of the acquired land and same is assailed, interalia, on the following grounds:
7. It is stated that the market value of the land is not less than Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. The Collector failed to appreciate or apply his mind to determine the proper market value of the acquired land. The Collector failed to consider that the acquired land is adjacent to industrial area situated between main Rohtak Road, National Highway No.10 and Railway Line at Revenue Estate of village Mundka.
LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 3/12
8. It is stated that the Collector also failed to consider that the land situated within the Lal Dora is not having value less than Rs.6900/- per sq. meter. The circle rate as fixed by government does not imply correct and actual market value of the acquired land. It is stated that petitioner's land has great potential and higher value which is supported the fact that on 30.06.2007, DDA had invited the bid in Rohini Vicinity which is situated in vicinity of the acquired land and reserve price was fixed at Rs.85,000/- per sq. meter, whereas the Government has fixed the circle rate in vicinity of the land acquired @ Rs.18,000/- per sq. meter.
The Collector failed to appreciate and does not consider the fact that only 34 days prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, government announced the policy of fixing the minimum rate of the land acquired and method adopted for assessing the award No. 2/DCW/1999-2000 has not been adopted in the present award. Further, the Collector has misinterpreted the notification no. RNZ/173 of MCD Delhi dated 24.08.1963, which was published in Gazette on 12.09.1963. According to which factories, warehouses are permissible at the Lal Dora land but Building Bye-laws are applicable. The Collector wrongly interpreted that the boundary wall and structure existing at the Lal Dora (Residential area) land are unauthorized but infact all the structures are legal and boundaries are entitled to structure as well as awarded by the Collector while passing the award no. 2/DCW/1999-2000.
9. It is stated that the Collector has failed to consider that the amenities and facilities of daily life are available on and near the acquired land such a banks, LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 4/12 namely, State Bank of India, Corporation Bank, Delhi Cooperative Bank, Punjab National Bank are situated at main Rohtak Road. Therefore, are in and around the acquired land is much developed and has good potential value and petitioner is entitled to market value of the acquired land not less than Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. Not only this, under notification, the part of the area under notification is also for the purpose of industrial area in Mundka Udyog Nagar, South of Rohtak Road, Mundka. Same is notified by government vide notification no. F1/C1/Policy/Institu/Firni Road Mundka and Mundka Udyog Nagar/ 2007/20 in Delhi Gazette Notification dated 17.09.2007.
10. The petitioner also referred to the sale deeds i.e.
(i) Gaurav Dua in favour of Relaxo Footwear Limited for the sum of Rs.60,00,000/- dated 12.12.2000 for the area of 10 Biswas only situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi, which is duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sub Distt. IX Janakpuri, Delhi as documents No. 7016 in additional Book No. 1 Volume No.246 on pages No. 31 to 50 dated 12.12.2005; (ii) sale deed of Rs.2 Crore for land measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas situated in Khasra No. 815 in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna, in favour of MEK Developers Pvt. Ltd. by Smt. Gupta W/o Sushil Kumar Gupta executed on 24.11.2006 which is duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division West Distt. Delhi as document No. 6108 in additional Book No. 1, Volume no. 519 at page No. 42 to 105 on dated 24.11.2006; (iii) Sale deed of Rs.5 Crore and 35 lacs for land measuring 16 bighas 11 biswas situated in Khasra no. 663, 667, 773, 813, 780/1 in the village of Hiran Kudna in favour of Mek Developers Pvt.
LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 5/12 Ltd. By Sh. Jai lal S/o Chattar Singh executed on 14.11.2006 duly registered with Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh Sub-Division West Distt. Delhi as document no. 6113 in additional Book no.1 volume no. 521 at page Nos. 1-198 dated 14.11.2006;
(iv) sale deed for Rs.5 Crore for land measuring 11 bighas 9 biswas situated in Khasra no. 576 min, 586, 597, 602, 616, 617, 624, 625, 765 min, 766, 769, 770, 772 and 771 in the revenue estate of village of Hiran Kudna in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jagphool Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh executed on 31.05.2007; (v) sale deed of Rs.3 crores for land measuring 7 bighas 1-1/3 biswas situated in the village Hiran Kudna, in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Gordhan executed on 22.07.2007 duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division West Distt. Delhi as documents No. 2746 in additional Book No.1, Volume no. 691 at page no. 1-80 dated 22.07.2007; (vi) sale deed for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 12.12.2005 for the area of 10 Biswas only situated in Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi executed by Nikhil Dua in favour of M/s. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Which is registered as document no. 7017 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 246 on pages 51 to 66 dated 12.12.2005 for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 12.12.2005; (vii) sale deed for Rs.43,75,000/- for land measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna in favour of Mek Developers Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jagphool S/o Sh. Ram Singh executed on 31.05.2007 registered as document No. 2938 in additional Book No.1 volume No. 699 at page no. 36 to 74 on dated 31.05.2007 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division, West Distt. Delhi.
LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 6/12
11. It is stated that it has been a constant policy of the Government not to acquire built up lands. The Government has allowed various notifications to lapse in the case of constructed/built up lands. The Government vide its letter dated 1/13th January 1968, bearing No. F-4 (2)/L&H had framed a policy not to acquire built up properties. The declaration was subsequently reiterated vide D.O. Letter No. 1130/77-L&B (LA/53) dated 02.11.1980 of the Deputy Secretary (L&B) and was further reiterated on 19.08.1980 and 19.08.1986 vide D.O. No. F-9(1)-L&B/LA/6482 and subsequently on 02.12.98 vide D.O. No. F.7(18)/97/L&B/LA/12092-12106.
12. It is stated that the acquired land is quite leveled one and was being used continuously without any break. The petitioner is also entitled to the alternative business site as provided under the Policy of DMRC which may also be given to the petitioner without imposing any cost along with all statutory benefits as provided under the Land Acquisition Act.
13. The petitioner seeks compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards along with statutory benefit as solatium @ 30%, additional amount at the rate of 12% and interest there on at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the enhanced amount is paid. Interest on the compensation amount till payment and compensation amount in respect of structures as per valuation report of DMRC.
14. Written statement filed by respondent no.1/ Union of India and taken the preliminary objections that the LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 7/12 compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is sufficient and reasonable and it reflects the true market value prevailing at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner is claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land. The Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The petitioners are not entitled for compensation in respect of any construction or structure which is raised without the sanction of law. There were no structures, tree, well on the land in question except mentioned in the Award in question at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land is not surrounded by any developed or underdeveloped colony and can be used for agricultural purposes only. The Collector rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated under Section 23 & 24 of the LA Act. The reference under reply is liable to be dismissed and the petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement over and above the value assessed by the Collector.
15. 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.
16. 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 and the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question. It is stated that the petition is time barred.
LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 8/12
17. On merits, again all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied and it is reiterated that the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
18. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to written statements filed by respondents.
19. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 01.02.2013 by Ld. Predecessor:
1. What was market value of the land in question on the date of notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate?OPP
3. Relief.
20. In support of his case, petitioner got examined PW1 Sh. M.P.S. Rawat, Naib Tehsildar (Revenue Department); PW2 Sh. Surendran Raman, Inspector, Department of Industries; PW3 Sh. Rewti Prasad Sharma, Patwari from the office of SDM/SDO, Punjabi Bagh; PW4 Sh. Purushottam Pandey, LDC from the office of Sub-Registrar - II-A (Punjabi Bagh), Nangloi; PW5 Sh. D.S. Rathi, Kanoongo from DMRC; and PW6 Sh. Jagdev Singh - petitioner. Thereafter, as per statement of the petitioner the P/E was closed on 15.10.2015.
LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 9/12
21. From the side of respondent no.1/ Union of India, Sh. R.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered copy of award No. 03/DC (W)/2008-2009 pertaining to Village Mundka as Ex. R1 and photocopies of sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.1 on 17.12.2015.
22. Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC adopted the evidence led by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 and closed the R/E on behalf of respondent no.2/ DMRC on 29.01.2016.
23. I have heard Sh. D.S. Lakra, Counsel for the petitioner; Sh. S.K. Puri, Counsel for the respondent no.2/ Union of India; and Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE Nos. 1 & 224. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fair market value of the land in question has already been determined by this Court in LAC No. 68/12 (New No. 204/16) titled as 'Surender vs. UOI & Anr.' decided on 26.04.2017. 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 LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 10/12 the same notification. Applying the same principle, the petitioners are entitled to the same fair market value @ Rs.4891/- per sq. meter after enhancement @ Rs.3708/- 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 LAC No. 68/12 (New No. 204/16) titled as 'Surender vs. UOI & Anr.' decided on 26.04.2017. Both the issues are decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
25. In view of my findings on Issue nos. 1 & 2, the fair market value of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.4891/- per sq. meter after enhancement @ Rs.3708/- per sq. meter. Besides this the petitioner is also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
26. The petitioner 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.
27. The petitioner shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 11/12
28. The petitioner is further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
29. The interest on compensation for the period of delay due to impleading of LRs or stay of High Court or any other court may also be deducted.
30. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioner be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
31. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
32. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 20th July, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 20.07.2017 LAC No. 12/12 (New No. 192/16) Jagdev Singh @ Jagde vs. UOI & Anr. 12/12