Delhi District Court
Smt. Raj Rani Kaushik vs Union Of India on 1 September, 2020
DLNT010003472013
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ GUPTA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (NORTH01): ROHINI
COURTS : DELHI
LAC No. 256/16
Smt. Raj Rani Kaushik
w/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Kaushik,
r/o E4/23A, Model Town,
Delhi.
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India
2. Delhi Development Authority
through its ViceChairman
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
..... Respondents
Award No. 1/199899
Village Shahbad Daulatpur
Notification U/S 4 F.11(17)/91/L&B/LA
dt. 28041995
Notification U/s 6 F.11 (17)/91/L&B/LA
dt. 26041996
Date of Announcement of LAC Award 24041998 LAC no. 256/16 Page 1 of 9 Date of Receipt of Reference : 10092013 Date of Arguments : 01092020 Date of Decision: 01092020 REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 AWARD:
(BY THE COURT U/S 26 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 ON REFERENCE PETITION U/S 18 OF THE ACT):
1. This is a reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC') under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act'). The reference was initiated on a petition made by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the LAC vide abovereferred award.
2. As per the reference, a large tract of land measuring 1852 bighas and 06 biswas of village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi, was acquired by the Government for a public purpose namely Rohini Residential Scheme, Phase IV. The notification under Section 4 of The LA Act as mentioned on the index page was issued. The Declaration LAC no. 256/16 Page 2 of 9 under Section 6 was made as mentioned on the index page. Thereafter, abovereferred award was announced by the LAC. The LAC determined the market price of the acquired land as Rs.1,67,000 per bigha of A block land and Rs.1,42,000/ per bigha of B land.
3. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the market value determined by the LAC, filed the present petition u/s 18 of the LA Act, seeking reference to this court. The LAC forwarded the same to this Court for adjudication.
4. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner submitted that compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector is too low, inadequate and is the owner of the land bearing in khasra numbers as mentioned in the admitted Statement u/s 19 of L. A. Act, situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi (the said land). The said land was acquired vide notification dated 28041995.
5. The petitioner has challenged the said award interalia on the ground of inadequacy of compensation LAC no. 256/16 Page 3 of 9 and incorrect assessment of market value of land interalia due to nonconsideration of relevant factors like potentiality and fertility of the suit land, the surrounding colonies and developed areas, the market value of the adjoining areas/villages, the sale deeds of other lands of the contemporary period, nearness to the National Highway and industrial areas, the amenities available in the suit land etc.
6. The petitioner has prayed compensation at enhanced rate besides interest thereon and solatium in addition to the compensation.
7. The respondent no.1/the Union of India (UOI)/Land Acquisition Collector and respondent no.2/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) contested the reference petition by filing their respective Written Statements.
8. The petition has been contested mainly on the ground that the LAC awarded adequate compensation to the petitioner after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and therefore, LAC has correctly assessed LAC no. 256/16 Page 4 of 9 the market value of the land after taking into account the market rates prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
9. During admissiondenial of documents, the counsel for petitioner admitted the statement given u/s 19 of the Act. The following issues were framed :
(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount?
(ii) Relief.
10. In evidence, the petitioner relied upon the evidences led on behalf of petitioner in case titled Hem Chander Malik Vs. UOI & Ors.
11. The respondent no.1/Union of India in its evidence, tendered the award as Ex.R1. The respondent no.2/Delhi Development Authority, adopted the evidence led on behalf of the respondent no.1/ Union of India.
12. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have also carefully considered the record. My issue wise findings are given hereinafter.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1 : LAC no. 256/16 Page 5 of 9
13. Petitioner has contended that valuation of land determined by LAC is not reasonable as LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation. However, he has not led any evidence to support his contention as to how the LAC was wrong in fixing market value of land. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has only relied upon the judgment titled as Hem Chander Malik Vs. UOI, LA Appeal no. 358/07 decided on 26092011 (Delhi High Court) and conceded that award be passed in terms of the said judgment and the same enhancement which was granted in the said judgment be also granted to him.
14. In Hem Chander Malik Vs. UOI case (supra), an elaborate and detailed discussion was made before determining the amount of compensation. With respect to the land of the village Shahbad Daulatpur (involved herein), acquired through the same notification (as made herein), the Hon'ble High Court determined the market value of the land as Rs.12,96,455.89/ per acre. Since no different evidence has been led by the petitioner in the present case, I have no reason to give a different treatment LAC no. 256/16 Page 6 of 9 to the land of the petitioner and to give a determination, different from that determined in the Hem Chander Malik's case (Supra) case. The fair market value of the acquired land is adjudicated as Rs.12,96,455.89/per acre as determined in Hem Chander Malik's case (Supra). Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner would be entitled to market value @ Rs.12,96,455.89/ per acre.
15. Petitioner has also claimed compensation for crops, tree, tubewell etc. However, the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim or to establish that he was not awarded sufficient compensation for same. Accordingly, I hold that petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement in compensation on this count.
16. Besides above, petitioner shall be entitled to other statutory benefits under the LA Act viz. 12% additional amount [as per section 23 (1A)] and 30% solatium [u/s 23 (2)] and will be entitled to interest under Section 28 of L.A Act on the fair market value @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% for subsequent year till the making of payment of enhanced compensation LAC no. 256/16 Page 7 of 9 by LAC as per provision of Section 28 of the Act. Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
17. Findings on Issue No.2 - RELIEF In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioner/s are granted the following reliefs:
i) fair market value @ Rs.12,96,455.89/ per acre for the acquired land as per statement u/s 19 of the LA Act;
ii) additional amount @ 12% per annum on the fair market value u/s 23 (1A) of the LA Act , from the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
iii) solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of market value;
iv) interest under Section 28 of L.A Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till its payment ;
18. The share(s) of the petitioner(s) would be determinable as per the statement u/s 19 of the L.A. Act LAC no. 256/16 Page 8 of 9 proved on record and the said statement shall constitute a part of this award.
19. Reference petition stands answered. Parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this award be sent to the LAC for necessary information, action and expeditious compliance for remittance of the amount. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
Announced in the
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ GUPTA
Open Court on 01092020 GUPTA Date:
2020.09.01
14:52:07
+0530
(PANKAJ GUPTA)
ADJ01/North District,
Rohini Courts/Delhi
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS LAC no. 256/16 Page 9 of 9