Delhi District Court
Shri Pramod Mehra vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI V.K. YADAV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (NORTH)02 : DELHI
LAC NO : 20/1/06 AWARD NO : 7/DCN/20012002
VILLAGE : Mall Road,
Civil Station.
In the matter of :
Shri Pramod Mehra
S/o Shri Hira Lal Mehra
Bungalow No.1, Old No.3,
Cavalery Lane, Mall Road,
Delhi110054. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
through Land Acquisition Collector,
Civil Lines, Delhi
2. Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd. (DMRC)
NBCC Building, Lodhi Estate
New Delhi110003 ...Respondents
Reference received on : 27.11.2001
Award reserved on : 06.06.2011
Award announced on : 14.07.2011
A W A R D
REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
Vide notification No.F.7(26)/2001/L&B/LA/13537 dated 15.12. 2000 U/s 4 of the LA Act (hereinafter referred to as the ACT) and declaration vide notification No.F.7(26)/2000/L&B/LA/MRTS/16126 dated 14.2.2001 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act, the land including the land of the petitioner situated at Cavalary Lane, Delhi as per statement U/sec. 19 of the LA Act was acquired by LAC-20/1/06 1 the Govt. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act assessed the market value of the land and awarded the compensation @ Rs.9,900/ per sq. meter.
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 of the acquired land which was sent to this court, which is hereby disposed off through this judgment.
Even slight disturbance or variation in routine unsettles a person and that too depends upon the degree of impact and vulnerability of the individual, the actual impact, thus, may even be devastating. In these circumstances, unsettling someone alongwith the entire family with habitat and hearth lock, stock and barrel can very well be imagined especially when establishment is stable and running for quite sometime. The proximity not only breeds contempt but also develops into fascination, bondings and different types of relations between the individual, and at times encompasses in itself, the relationship between the humans animals and even the stones and structures. One may, more often than not, feel the pain of leaving particular abode, locality, city or country.
Against this backdrop, unsettling someone from his abode is, without doubt, disturbing if not devastating but then it has to be coped up depending upon the circumstance especially when it is supported by the Legislation (may be through a more than hundred years old 'colonial' LAC-20/1/06 2 legislation, not much amended, retaining its basic features) and when there is no escape or no way out and has limited rather no option to exercise but to toe the line or so to say that no option whatsoever except the one thrusted upon by the circumstances.
The introduction of MRTS in the City of Delhi, armed and empowered with the Will of Government to remove all possible obstacles with all the might of the state in order to have Mass Rapid Transport System in place at the earliest in the City of Delhi resulted into acquisition of land even in thickly populated urban landscape under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and persons whose land/ houses were the subject matter of the notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act for this purpose were not even given an option to file any objections as contemplated under Section 17A of Land Acquisition Act thereby leaving them practically with no option but to concede to the Directives of Government. In such scenario those who were displaced could have only consoled themselves that they got suitable compensation, which may compensate them to the extent possible though at times there cannot be a compensation for such situations.
In one such exercise the govt. acquired the land at Mall Road and Shyam Nath Marg for the purpose of MRTS and in the process, some individuals were forced to surrender their houses and land which ofcourse was not to their liking or pleasure.
It was a compulsory acquisition so much so that land was required on urgent basis and therefore the formalities with regard to the LAC-20/1/06 3 provisions of Land Acquisition Act which under normal circumstances, are routinely followed were dispensed with resorting to Section 17 of LA Act. After processing the matter, the compensation was fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of Rs.9,900/ which was not acceptable to the claimants and therefore, the reference was made under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act whereby the claimants have sought enhancement in the amount of compensation based upon various facts that it was an area located in heart of city, located very close to the prestigious Delhi University, Interstate Bus Terminal, Railway Station, Popular and big markets, on the legendary Grant Trunk Road. Since the land was in possession of its owner for long and they had raised structure over the same according to their own requirement, choice and taste and in the process invested handsome amount of money, were deprived of not only the convenience of living in a house more or less tailor made according to their choice and requirement, but they were also deprived off with the benefits which were available to the claimants on account of its situational advantages and the potential of the property from both residential and commercial angles.
All the amenities of good life were available to the claimant at a stones throw and that too of a very high standard and better quality. To elaborate, the claimants have asserted that the land/ houses surrounded by popular residential and commercial areas like Kamla Nagar, Roop Nagar, Shakti Nagar, Malka Ganj, Barf Khana and reputed Delhi University in its toe besides having important commercial civic, educational hospitality and LAC-20/1/06 4 medical establishment such as Oberai Meiden's Hotel, Tirath Ram Shah Hospital, St. Stephen Hospital, District Courts and Railway Claims Tribunals etc., surrounded by lush green area located adjacent to the Northern Ridge which has become so important in the city life as it is a sort of big source of fresh air oxygen which is scarce if not elusive and missing in this metropolis choking with various kinds of pollutions. The importance of such a place can very well be imagined. Whereas while awarding the compensation, it is asserted that the Land Acquisition Collector has not taken into account all these factors and has awarded the compensation which is not suitable to the kind of properties which have been acquired by the Govt.
All the above facts and circumstance coupled with the documents the claimants have also placed reliance upon indicating the value of the properties in the vicinity qua which the transactions took place in or around the same time when the notification was published in order to drive home their case that value of the property should have been far more than what has been awarded to the claimants and demanded/ sought that the compensation may be given at the rate of Rs.One lac per sq. meter and a sum of Rs.38,51,00,000/ be awarded on account of structure which was standing on the land coupled with the sum of Rs.45,20,000/ to the petitioner on account of hiring an alternate space for business at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/ per sq. meter for the next 20 years and Rs.2,50,000/ for trees. Accordingly, solatium, additional amount coupled with the interest etc. so far as the property at Mall Road, belonging to Sushil Kumar Malik is concerned. Similar LAC-20/1/06 5 demands came from other claimants where built up properties were acquired and as has been elaborated in the claim of the different parties to the references under consideration.
The DMRC which is the beneficiary of the land acquired in the instant reference chipped in with its reply asserting that the amount claimed as compensation by the claimants is exorbitant and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, after taking into account all the relevant factors together with transaction in respect of the properties in the vicinity at the relevant time is appropriate and there is no flaw in the amount of compensation awarded nor there is any defect or anomaly in apportionment of the amount between the claimants and the original lessor that is Ministry of Defence. Therefore, the claimants did not deserve any enhancement in the amount of compensation. So was the stand taken by the other contestant.
On the basis of stand taken by the parties, the followings issues were framed on 1.10.2002:
1. Whether the petitioners have any right, title or interest in the acquired property? If so, to what extent.?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation? If so to what amount.
3. Relief.
To substantiate their claim the petitioners have examined as many as seventeen witnesses in the connected bunch of references and have relied upon the same evidence. PW1 is Shri Sunil Kumar LDC L&DO Nirman LAC-20/1/06 6 Bhawan, New Delhi. No witness was examined as PW2. PW3 is Laxmi Dutt, Asstt. Old Scheme Branch, DDA. PW4 is Shri Jai Narain, UDC, Officer of Sub RegistrarI, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, PW5 is Shri Anil Sareen. PW6 is Shri Kunj Bihari, Halka Patwari, Civil Station, PW7 is Ms. Leetha John, General Assistant Legal, Deptt. Of Property Development, DMRC, PW8 is Sh.Yashpal, Licencing clerk, PW9 is Shri Anil Tomar, LDC Income Tax Deptt., PW10 is Shri V.K. Singla, Planning Asstt. Vikas Minar, DDA, PW11 is Shri Rohtash Singh, PW12 (wrongly numbred as PW11) is Sh. S.K. Garg, PW13 is Shri Anil Kapur, Jt. General Manager, Finance DMRC, PW14 is Anil Kumar, Tax Asstt. Income tax department, PW15 is Shri Roop Singh, UDC, Nirman Bhawan, Delhi, PW16 is Shri J.D. Malik, PW17 is Sh. Anil Kumar, Tax Assistant Appropriate Authority, Indian Oil Building, On the other hand, the respondents have examined Shri Roop Singh, UDC L&DO Nirman Bhawan as RW1 and closed their evidence.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well. My issuewise findings are as follows:
Issue No.1:
So far as the rights of the parties is concerned, the same has already been decided in the proceedings under Section 31 & 32 of LA Act wherein the court had taken into account the claim of the Defence Ministry also and decided the ratio in which the compensation has to be shared between the lessor, Defence Ministry and the Lessee i.e. IPs in the instant LAC-20/1/06 7 case, amongst the IPs. There appears no dispute on record in respect of their respective shares. Accordingly, the issue no.1 is answered in terms of the award for the share of the parties in the proceedings in the reference titled as Union of India Versus Defence Department & others numbered as LAC No. 3/2002.
Issue No.2:
The IPs having been aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the LAC sought enhancement through the reference made and have put forth a number of grounds on which they claim to be entitled to the enhanced compensation. In this regard, it will be appropriate to refer the broad parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Chaman Lal Hargovind Dass Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 3 SCC 751 wherein it was observed that the case of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land are required to be considered on the following parameters: "4.The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court.
(2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land LAC-20/1/06 8 Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceedings before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the material produced in the court. Of course, the material placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Section 6 & 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land).
(9) Even postnotification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle.
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors visavis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balancesheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the LAC-20/1/06 9 instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors.
(14) The exercise indicated in clause (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus Factors Minus factors
1. Smallness of size 1.Largeness of areas
2. proximity to a road 2.situation in the interior
at a distance from the road
3. frontage on a road 3.narrow strip of land with
very small frontage compared
to depth
4. nearness to developed area 4.lower level requiring the
depressed portion to be filled
up
5. regular shape 5. remoteness from developed
locality
6. level visavis land under 6.some special disadvantageous
acquisition factor which would deter it
purchaser
7. special value for an owner of an
adjoining property to whom it may
have some very special advantage
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on
the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide.
For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or when urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.
LAC-20/1/06 10 (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the judge must place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense"
In P. Rama Reddi & others Vs. Land Acquit ion Officer, HUDA Hyderabad (1995) 2 SCC 305, parameters was enumerated as follows :
"(i) the situation of the acquired land visavis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population:
(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;
(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;
(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes;
(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;
(vi) benefits or advantageous or educational institution, health care centers, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; (vii) and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few."
In the instant case, the acquisition was of compulsory nature as enumerated in Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act where the IPs were not given opportunity to question the acquisition of the property which was scheduled to be acquired, which incidentally in the instant reference was not only the lands rather houses of IPs, where they were residing for quite sometime facilitated by all necessary perquisites and amenities of a good standard of living. Besides, a handsome amount was spent in constructing LAC-20/1/06 11 and furnishing the house which was surrounded by an open area added with trees/ greenery which some way fortunate ones in this city are enjoying . All the civic amenities, essentials for good life were within a stone's throw. The property acquired was located on the National Highway which has its roots in the History even prior to the Mughal period, the foundation of which was laid down by Afghan Ruler Sher Shah Suri and which is now known as Grand Trunk Road. The extended ranges of Aravali Mountains are in the vicinity known as Northern Ridge, University of Delhi is almost adjacent to the properties, facilities like good markets, ISBT, Asia's biggest Court Tis Hazari, Vidhansabha, Lt. Governor's House, being in the periphery of the properties. It is apparent that all the amenities which one may aspire for were available to the IPs at practically no or a very short distance and they were comfortably living a settled life. The emergent acquisition not only affected the perpetuity, peace, settled life etc. but even created a void in their lives which only a displaced person can feel.
The humans by nature are very emotional and tend to get involved with the living objects which is pretty common but it is also not unheard to a kind of fascination/ attachment even to the nonliving things. In case, if nonliving thing happens to be the abode of family full of memories right from the infancy, adolescence, teens, adulthood and old age, practically all stages of life coupled with happiness, events, anguish, sorrow, jubilation etc. thrown in by fair amount, then it is very difficult to disassociate oneself even from the nonliving objects.
LAC-20/1/06 12
Against the back drop of the above scenario, the acquisition for the purpose of mass rapid transport system, which undoubtedly is good for larger part of the public, by the Govt cannot be faulted or questioned but in these circumstance and even otherwise, the IPs were entitled to suitable compensation which according to the Govt. has already been given to them, but being not satisfied, the present references under Section 18 of the LA Act came into being. However, there cannot be a compensation for the settled life, memories of good times, inextricably attached not only with individuals but place(s) also. There can only be a consolation. Given a choice, no amount of compensation may persuade or compel someone for parting one's house and hearth. In the instant matter where the acquisition was of compulsory nature, one did not have even the opportunity to question it but to resign to one's fate and accept the monetary compensation. And if even that is not suitable than it would be nothing but adding salt to the injury. In any case, there are certain things which cannot be compensated, Thus, the compensation (consolation) in the form of money should be potent enough atleast to console if not compensate. It should not appear to be a kind of mockery to the compulsorily uprooted person under the authority and might of the state, gagged by a century old legislation enacted by British (Colonial) Government. The recent hue and cry and the assurance extended by the Govt. to review the LA Act which is being acted upon with an alarming speed speaks unto itself about the whole issue concerning the land acquisitions in this country.
Besides, the above grounds, it is contended on behalf of the IPs LAC-20/1/06 13 that they are entitled to have compensation at the rate of Rs.One lac per sq. meter on account of the fact that the property in the vicinity which were similarly located fetched a price more than the amount given to the IPs as compensation and to elaborate further IPs have been given instances of sale and purchase of the properties which is reflected herein below which was relied upon by IPs to show that they are entitled to the amount of enhanced compensation as claimed by them.
Exhibit Date Plot Size Rate Per sq. yds.(Rs)
PW3/B 17.8.2001 Plot No.2N, 138.78 sq. mts.Rs.22,000/ per sq. mts
Mukherjee Nagar
Delhi.
PW4/A 6.5.1995 9, Attur Rehman 416 sq. mts. Rs.20,928/ per sq. mts.
Lane, Delhi.
PW4/B 15.12.95 49/3, Rajpur 899.7 sq. mts. Rs.12,124/ per sq. mts.
Road, Delhi
PW4/C 25.2.1999 1, Flag Staff ½ share in Rs.28,351.22 per sq mts
Road, Civil Lines 309.32 sq. mts.
Delhi +154.66 sq. mts.
PW4/D 25.2.1999 1, Flag Staff ½ share in Rs.28,196/ per sq. mts
Road, Civil Lines 314.03 sq. mts.
Delhi +157.04 sq. mts.
PW5/A 19.7.1996 28, Shri Ram 585.285 sq.mts.Rs.41,025/ per sq. mts.
PW5/B Road, Delhi
The respondents, on the other hand, have come up with the plea that the method adopted by the LAC in assessing the compensation was appropriate which took into consideration all the factors which were relevant and material, and therefore, the IPs are not entitled to any enhanced compensation. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners have been LAC-20/1/06 14 further sought to be negated on the plea that market price as given & fixed by the concerned Govt. Agency that is Ministry of Urban Development has been given which disentitles the IPs to have any enhancement and in this context the schedule of circle/ market rates have been relied upon by the respondent.
The petitioners/IPs have tried to establish their claim for enhanced compensation on the basis of documentary evidence by relying upon the document Ex.PW1/A which is schedule of market rate existing as on 16.4.1999, Ex.PW3A is an advertisement by the DDA putting forth the residential flats for auction in Mukherjee Nagar with reserved price, Ex.PW3/B is an entry in the auction register in respect of the aforesaid flats auctioned at Mukherjee Nagar with reserved price of Rs.22,000/ per sq. meter, Ex.PW1/A has been relied upon to show that a property admeasuring 418 sq. meter fetched Rs.81 Lacs as on August, 1995 though the agreement to sell was executed in September 1994. The sale deed dated 15.12.1995 is of property No. 49/3, Rajpur Road admeasuring 899.70 sq. meters, Ex.PW4/B has been relied upon to show that price fixed was Rs.12,124/ per sq. meter. In this way, the petitioners have relied upon the sale deeds Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D and two other documents Ex.RW5/A and Ex.RW5/B through which the efforts has been consistently to show that the compensation awarded to the IPs was far below then the prevailing market price and thus unjustified establishing their claim to have the compensation at the rate of Rs.One lac per sq. meter.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as compared to the evidence led on behalf of IPs, the evidence brought on record on behalf of LAC-20/1/06 15 the respondent does not reflect the correct picture inasmuch as Ex.RW1/1 is schedule of market rate as on 16.4.1999, which has been referred by the respondent, and Ex.RW2/1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 6.1.1997 in respect of the half share of property No.8 Under Hill Lane, Civil Line measuring 545 sq. meter. According to the petitioners if the property at Mukherjee Nagar, which is a low lying flood prone area and saved from regular floods as long as the embankment being there, atleast is 3 k.m. away from the site in acquisition can fetch Rs.22,000/ per sq. meter that too as the reserved price, then it can be very well imagined as to what price the land in question would be fetching in the estimation of prospective and willing buyers or for that matter how it should be valued. Reference can be made to Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta & others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, wherein it is held that :
"24.While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the market value therefor indisputably has to be ascertained. There exists different modes therefor.
25.The best method, as is well known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land." Reference can be made to the judgment in (Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789).
Similarly if the property which was there under the tenancy measuring 309 sq. meter fetched Rs.40,60,000/ which was not in possession of the Vendor rather Vendee was occupying and enjoying it since long, therefore, it can be very well inferred that under what circumstance the sale of the said property took place and even if it was able to fetch handsome amount LAC-20/1/06 16 which can if worked out at the sale consideration of Rs.40,60,000/, the per sq. meter rates comes to Rs.13,139/ which again is more than the compensation given to IPs. Whereas the circumstances under which the transaction took place speaks unto itself as to what kind of bargaining must have taken place between the Vendor and the Vendee where the Vendee is occupying the property as a tenant for long.
It has been held in various pronouncements by different Fora that comparable sale value method is most relevant and appropriate method to determine the value of the land acquired so as to award compensation to the affected persons. Reference can be made to Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta (supra) wherein it has been held that :
"The reference court, it is trite, has to apply the comparable sales method as also the situation of the land which is to be appreciated keeping in view the fact as to whether acquired land is similar to any land sold in the vicinity.
It is no doubt true that courts adopt, comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act." Reference can be made to the judgment in (V. Hanumanthua Reddy Vs. Land Officer & Mandal & ors (2003) 12 SCC 642).
The example brought on record by the petitioners indicate that transaction took place within the reasonable time from the acquisitions and of the instances of sales relied upon, were bonafide transactions and not only the LAC-20/1/06 17 properties were located in the adjacent area/ vicinity but had more or less some advantages that were there with the land acquired.
The counsel for the petitioner has with the aid of several judgments contended that claimants are entitled to the highest value of the land and relied upon the sale deeds in this context and asserted that the sale deed having highest value should be given consideration to award the compensation. In this context petitioners have relied upon the judgment in (1969) 1 MLJ (SC) 45, (1968) 2 SCJ 869, (1984) 86 Punj. RL 540. The evidence brought on record by the petitioners vizaviz land rates ranging from Rs.
12,124/ per sq. meter to Rs.41,025/ per sq. meters. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the land which is the subject matter of the instant reference was a much better land than the examples given, therefore, it should get over higher price than what has been fetched by other properties and certainly more than what has been awarded by the LAC. It is further contended that the market value has to be reached by 12% escalation increase per annum to award compensation of the land. According to the petitioners, the value of the land or the rate per sq. meter should be taken at Rs.41,025/ which ultimately goes to Rs.68,619/ per sq. meter after adding 12% increase per annum for about five years and whereas the land acquired by the LAC was far more than the value in terms of the location, value, potential of the area having residential cum commercial use and other attending facilities and circumstances, therefore, the claim of the petitioners at the rate of Rs.One lac per sq. meter deserves to be awarded.
LAC-20/1/06 18
As regard, the evidence brought on record by the respondents in terms of Ex.RW1/1 and Ex.RW1/2, it is submitted that schedule of market rate issued by the Govt. is invariably and normally impractical and far way from realities, therefore, this has not to be considered. The contention seems correct for the document giving the schedule of market rate can be looked into to find how ridiculous, impractical and far from reality it is by looking at two entries only in the schedule, which provides the same rate for Connaught Place and Motia Khan. Anybody who is even remotely aware of these two places would without a doubt come to the conclusion about the farceness of the market rates provided in the document Ex.RW1/1. How such a document could be given effect? Whereas the document Ex.RW1/2 again is not reliable for the simple reason that the property was under the tenancy of Vendor that too at the rate of Rs.1600/ per month which makes him a protected tenant, therefore, it cannot be considered a proper sale rather a kind of compromise. Therefore, this too cannot be relied upon.
The law cannot be applied by divorcing it from the ground realities and hard facts. The Courts are not supposed to shut its eyes rather expected to be alive and responsive to the circumstances and situations prevailing at the ground, only then cause of justice and substantial justice would be addressed and the Courts would be able to justify its existence for the society. The evidence led by the petitioner is potent enough to persuade the court to conclude that the petitioners should get appropriate compensation of the acquired land and appropriateness has to be ascertained LAC-20/1/06 19 on the basis of evidence led before the court by the contesting parties. There cannot be two opinion about the situational advantages, which were available to the land acquired and various benefits emerging out of that if not of the immense potential which was there and could have been available to the owners of the land but for the acquisition. In such circumstances, where the persons were forced under compulsory acquisition to remove their house and hearth and were forced to settle somewhere else, could not possibly be compensated in terms of money but can only be consoled. Therefore, there cannot any kind of compensation on the aspects of life which are associated, attached and revolve around the place, but then in the larger interest of the society, the acquisition is being made by the Govt. and attempt is being also made to rationalize the payment of compensation. The rationalization sometime goes a haywire which results into inappropriate, impractical and disadvantageous situation incapable to eliminate, feeble to remove and insufficient to compensate the loss.
Thus, considering all aspects raised by the parties, it appears that the respondents have not come up with anything which may dent the claim of the IP's for enhancement of the compensation amount. The rates prescribed by the Land and Building Department visavis residential and commercial properties have been heavily relied upon by the respondents but then the hollowness and impracticality and those rates being highly unrealistic can be very well seen from one fact that the property located at Motia Khan and Connaught Place have been valued equally. Anybody who is aware of this LAC-20/1/06 20 location can very well say that these rates are highly impractical, unrealistic and unacceptable based upon a wild guess far from reality. The respondents have made a futile attempt to show that the compensation awarded by the LAC is the right amount but then, no cogent answers or arguments have been putforth on behalf of the respondents which may justify the compensation awarded visavis instances of sale/auction. The reserve price in respect of the property at Mukherjee Nagar was far more than the compensation awarded. How can that be reconciled?
Counsel for the respondents have heavily relied upon the judgment in Sant Parmanand Blind Relief Mission Versus Union of India and Virender Kumar Jain & others Vs. Union of India to hammer their point that the market value fixed by the Govt. is sufficient compensation. The petitioners have tried to distinguish their case by asserting that in these two cases the petitioners did not come forward to lead evidence in support of their claims for enhancement of compensation amount. More so, the case of Virender Kumar Jain (Supra) is apparently not attracted and cannot be a parameter being unrealistic inasmuch as the compensation so awarded on the basis of purchase price of the property which was Rs.188.57 per sq. meter which is far less than the market value determined by the Schedule of Rates provided by the Govt. Agency. Apparently, the said transaction was not a genuine transaction. Since no such situation is there with the case of the petitioners, therefore, Virender Kumar Jain's case (Supra) would not be attracted and it is apparently ridiculously on the lower side and appears to be nothing but a ruse LAC-20/1/06 21 to the whole transaction which was there in that case. No two case are similar, and therefore, the decision are as such not binding rather have persuade the value depending upon the closeness, similarity and Principle of Law involved. In case, the Principle of Law is applicable then of course the judgment is binding, but then the peculiarity in the facts are to be taken into consideration with each case. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of M.L. Khullar Versus UOI 109 (2004) DLT 163 in which it was observed that the decision is authority for which it is decided and not what can be legible be deduced there from. In this context, reference can be made to the other segment where it has been observed in P.S. Rao Versus State JT 2002 (2) SC 1 that "circumstantial flexibility on additional or different facts may make a word of difference between the conclusion of two cases." Thus, the case relied upon by the respondents are apparently not attracted to the instant case.
This bring us to the position where the appropriate compensation comes into picture. The petitioners have sought that they are entitled to have the compensation at the rate of Rs.One lac per sq. meter and in support of the same, sale instances have been brought on record to show the market price as has been discussed earlier. The petitioners have also contended that rates could be worked out by additional increase of 12% in the value of the sale consideration from the instance which has been brought and referred by the petitioners through the documents Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B in order to arrive at an appropriate valuation of the property on the date of notification. According to the petitioners, the value of the land has to be LAC-20/1/06 22 worked out by taking Rs.41,025/ per sq. meter as base price as on 19.9.1996 and to reach to the date of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 12% increase per year brings the value to Rs.68,619/per sq. meter. That being the value of the land on the date of Section 3 notification, thus, the increase sought by the petitioners at the rate of Rs.One lac per sq. meter apparently it was contended stands justified as the land of the petitioners is better on all counts be it residential or commercial angles as almost all the important and necessary requirements of decent life are available at a stone's throw. Therefore, the compensation is required to be enhanced at the said rate.
There cannot be any hard and fast straight jacket formula to work out the appropriate compensation. There is some amount to guess work which indisputably is involved in the whole exercise which possibly cannot be denied. However, one thing is clear that rate of compensation awarded by the LAC is less than what ought to have. The LAC has made basis of Schedule of Rates given by the Govt. Agency as the basis to award the compensation. The Schedule of Rates is again based on a kind of conservative assessment, not in tune with the time and wholly impractical, evident from the fact that rates of two properties, one located at Motia Khan and other at Connaught Place has been given the same value in the Schedule of the market rates. Even a blind man having some idea can come to the conclusion that two places cannot fetch the same price by any estimation. Similarly if reserve price of a property at Mukherjee Nagar could be Rs.22,000/ per sq. meter then the property which is the subject matter of acquisition must undoubtedly fetch more than LAC-20/1/06 23 that. Thus, the reliance placed by the LAC in determining the compensation is flawed and impractical, in contrast to, what has been brought by the petitioners on record. Even the DDA has fixed the reserved price of the property in Mukherjee Nagar, which is low lying flood prone area located at a distance from the main Highway and away from so many other requisites of life on a comparative scales, which are easily accessible and available to the property in question. If that is the case, then the properties which are subject matter of acquisition are definitely far better located, then the properties at Mukherjee Nagar and for that matter the other properties, the sale instances of which have been brought on record by the petitioners through the documents Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B & Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstance, it appears that base amount of rate taken in the vicinity is Rs.25,000/ per sq. meter inasmuch as sale instances except one brought on record by the petitioners revolve around Rs.20,000/ to Rs.23,000/ or so.
It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition, Vishakhapatnam Vs. Mangala Gauri AIR 1992 SC 666, that the 'market value' will postulate the price of the land prevailing on the date of the notification u/s 4 of LA Act.
And market price/value is nothing but what the property can fetch through a transaction between a willing purchaser and a willing buyer without any impediment of any sort such as no obligation or compulsion to sell and no necessity to buy, reference can be made to M.M Mullick Vs. LAC-20/1/06 24 Secretary of State, AIR 1924 Cal 574.
As regards fixing or ascertaining the price the best evidence was the authentic transaction of sale in respect of the every land that was acquired, as was held in Barganu Narasimha Rao Naidu Vs. RDC Vijaynagaram 1980 (1) SCC 75.
The authenticity of the transaction about which evidence has been brought on record cannot be questioned, nor anything of that sort has been argued, thus, the documents Ex. PW3/B, PW4/A, PW4/B, PW4/C, PW4/D, PW5/A and PW5/B can very well be and have been considered in order to derive a fair market price qua the property in question at the time of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act visavis Section 23 of the LA Act.
If the average of all the six sale instances is taken into consideration it comes to Rs. 25,437/ approximately. The property acquired is certainly on a better footing for the reasons given herein before, thus, the same could have fetched more price than the instances referred going to the extent of Rs. 41,025/ per sq. meter, which incidentally pertains to a property which is not located on a broad or main road, which further diminishes the price or can be said to be a negative aspect and that the price was derived on account of a kind of settlement. As such, if a property in the inner lane can fetch Rs. 41,025/ then one on the main road would certainly fetch the same price if not more than it. However, other sale instances are also there which are in the vicinity and fetched Rs. 22,000/ per sq. meter to Rs. 28,000/ per sq. meter and the exception below Rs. 20,000/ is one that is Rs. 12,124/ per sq. LAC-20/1/06 25 meter and at the upper end one instance of Rs. 41,025/ per sq. meter and if the both extreme ends are taken out of consideration, the average price again comes to Rs. 24,000/ and odd rupees and for that matter, the lowest and highest, both instances of sale are included even then the average price comes to Rs. 25,000/ per sq. meter.
However, the fair market price in terms of the sale deed which could be said nearest and most appropriate seems to be the sale instances as reflected in Ex. PW4/C and PW4/D, thus, the one which is more favourable to the claimant Ex. PW4/C having the sale price of Rs. 28,531/ per sq. meter seems appropriate market price in the instant case.
As regards, the property which is the subject matter of acquisition, the same would have certainly fetched more price because of the situational and other advantages attached with it. Thus, even by a conservative estimate the acquired property would have certainly fetched an amount of at least Rs. 28,531/ per sq. meter, which can be treated in the market price on the date of acquisition.
The petitioners are entitled to escalation @ 12% p.a only on the given rate of sale deed proved by the petitioner, reference in this context can be made to the judgment reported as Land Acquisition Officer Vs. B. Vijender Reddy & Ors (2001) 10 SCC 669 and in Rameshwar Solanki Vs. Union of India AIR 1995 Delhi 358. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the pronouncements of various Fora on the subject, the fair market value of the property in question acquired by the government should not be less than LAC-20/1/06 26 Rs. 28,351/ per sq. meter. Accordingly, it is held that a sum of Rs. 28351/ per sq. meter is the fair market value of a price of the land acquired on the date of notification and that the petitioners are also entitled to the statutory benefits in terms of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e Solatiun and escalation @ 30% and 12% respectively.
The petitioners have claimed compensation in respect of the built up property and according to the valuers report, the valuation given is Rs. 45,00,000/ There is no evidence to the contrary and as such the valuation report given by the expert has to be accepted but for the fact that the LAC also had got the structures valued from an approval valuer which again was vetted by the Public Works Department. Additionally the structure some of them were unauthorized, which according to the award, are of no value. However, keeping in view the fact that structure was there and must have come up on some expense, thus, some reasonable compensation is required to be paid. The aspect of being unauthorized could have taken care by the concerned authority, which did not. Then again the provision of regularization on some penalty is there. In view of the facts compensations is required and the amount worked out by the valuer in terms of the award i.e 1672,693 seems to be the appropriate. As such, the petitioners are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 16,72,693/in lieu of construced portion/part of the property.
As regards the claim of the petitioners for Rs.1,50,000/ per month towards hiring alternative place and Rs.2,50,000/ for the trees, no evidence has been brought on record and as per the award in question no LAC-20/1/06 27 trees were there on the land belonging to the present claimants, therefore, no compensation is admissible to the petitioners on this count.
The valuation with regard to the trees standing on the properties neither of the party has taken up the issue therefore, the valuation/compensation awarded by the LAC is taken as correct as no challenge to the same was there. As such, the issue no. 2 is answered accordingly.
Relief :
In view of the findings qua the issues herein above, the market value of the land of the petitioners in respect of the property bearing Khasra No.810/205/2 (Min), 1, Cavalary Lane, Delhi, which was acquired through the notification No.No.F.7(26)/2001/L&B/LA/13537 15.12.2000 U/s 4 of the LA Act, is fixed at Rs.28,351/ per sq. meter, which the petitioners shall be entitled to claim compensation as per their respective shares holding as mentioned in the Statement under Section 19 of LA Act on which 30% Solatium shall be admissible to the petitioners in terms of Section 23 of L.A. Act. As the acquisition was more or less is compulsory in nature, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% 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 is made to the petitioners. The petitioners are further entitled to the interest on the Solatium/ additional amount in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme LAC-20/1/06 28 Court of India in Sunder Versus UOI DLT (2001) SC 569. Reference is answered accordingly.
Copy of the Award be sent to the concerned LAC to make payment of enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners according to their respective shares within three months from today. The amount already paid on the basis of compensation awarded by the LAC, if any, shall be taken care off in order to avoid any over payment. No order as to cost. Decree be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (VIMAL KUMAR YADAV)
on 14.07.2011 Addl. District JudgeII (North)
Delhi
LAC-20/1/06 29