Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sharda Ram vs . Uoi on 27 August, 2007

                               -: 1:-                   LAC NO. 116/05
                                                        Sharda Ram Vs. UOI




 IN THE COURT OF SH A.K.MENDIRATTA : ADDITIONAL
             DISTRICT JUDGE : DELHI


LAC No: 116/05

Sh.Sharda Ram
S/o.Lt.Sh.Bed Ram
R/o Village Aali, New Delhi.                     ---------Petitioner

                                versus


1. Union of India
   Through Land Acquisition Collector
   M.B.Road, Saket, New Delhi.

2. Delhi Development Authority
   Through its Vice Chairman,
   Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi.                  .............Respondents


                   Village                       : Molarband
                   Date of Notification u/s 4   : 06.4.64
                   Award No.                    : 1934-D/81-82
                   Date of Award                 : 19.10.81
                   Date of Institution                    : 22.10.05
                   Date of which Judgment is reserved for : 27.08.07
                   Date of which Judgment is Announced : 27.08.07




JUDGMENT

Award no. 1934-D/81-82 pertains to supplementary proceedings for determination of compensation u/s 11 of the LA Act with respect to land notified u/s 4 of the LA Act on 6.4.64. Vide the present award an area of 230 Bigha 11 Biswa has been acquired. LAC observed that no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of respondents in support of their claim and the land could Contd......

Sharda Ram Vs. UOI only be used for agricultural and connected purpose. LAC further referred to 5 sale transactions which took place in preceeding two years of the date of notification u/s 4. He relied upon the sale deed dated 12.12.62 whereby land was sold @ Rs. 677.08 per bigha . He further noted that originally award no. 1934 was made in which rate was assessed at Rs. 1000/- for Abi, Rosli and fertile land, Rs. 800/- for Rosli land not so fertile and Rs. 600/- for G.M.Pahar, Banjar Kadir and Johar land. He further referred to judgment passed in LAC No. 88/77 entitled Hari Ram Vs. UOI wherein the rate of land was enhanced to Rs. 2,250/- per bigha from Rs. 1000/- per bigha and accordingly assessed the land at aforesaid rates.

2. Dis-satisfied by the fixation of the market value of the land as fixed by the LAC, petitioner preferred a reference petition under section 18 of the LA Act seeking enhancement in compensation. LAC in turn referred the same to this reference court for fixing the just and fair market value of the acquired land.

The case of the petitioner is that LAC erred in assessing the fair market value of land as village Molarband had been urbanized even prior to date of notification u/s 4. The village is also stated to have been provided with essential amenities of life such as Contd......

Sharda Ram Vs. UOI electricity, water transport etc. The land is further stated to be surrounded by posh and developed colonies of Mohan Co.operative Society, Sarita Vihar etc. It was also averred that the land could be used for residential and commercial purposes and the market value of the land was not less than Rs. 25,000/- per sq. yards. The market value of land was accordingly claimed at the aforesaid rates alongwith other benefits. It was also submitted that no notice u/s 12(2) of the LA Act was served upon the petitioner and the reference had been filed within 6 months from the date of knowledge of the award. The knowledge of the award was claimed from 1.2.05, when the petitioner received the compensation awarded by LAC.

3. The stand of respondent Union of India in the written statement is that the land is governed by provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and was not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colonies. It was further averred that the land could be used only for agricultural purposes and assessment was correctly made by LAC after considering all the relevant factors.

4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :-

ISSUES

1. What was the market value of acquired land at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act?

2. To what enhancement in Contd......

Sharda Ram Vs. UOI compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled ?

3. Whether the reference is within limitation? OPP

4. Relief.

5. Petitioner in support of the case tendered in evidence copies of judgment pertaining to village Jasola, Tehkhand, Tuglakabad, Bahapur and Molarband. The same were exhibited / marked with the consent of the parties.

Ex.P1 is judgment passed in RFA NO. 149/90 entitled Smt. Laxmi Bai Vs. UOI reported in 94 (2001) DLT 881 (DB) whereby the rate of land acquired in village Tehkhand involving date of notification u/s 4 on 23.1.65 was assessed by Hon'ble High Court @ Rs. 40,000/- per bigha.

Ex.P2 is judgment passed in RFA NO. 240/90 entitled Chandan & Ors. Vs. UOI reported in 48 (1992) DLT 202 (DB) whereby the rate of land acquired in village Tuglakabad involving date of notification u/s 4 on 23.1.65 was assessed by the Hon'ble High Court @ Rs. 40,000/- per bigha.

Ex.P3 is copy of judgment reported in 62 (1996) Contd......

Sharda Ram Vs. UOI DLT 302 (DB) entitled Ram Mohan Wahee Vs. UOI whereby the rate of land acquired in village Bahapur involving date of notification u/s 4 on 30.11.59 was assessed by the Hon'ble High Court @ Rs. 19,000/- per bigha.

Ex.P4 is copy of judgment reported in 59 (1995) DLT 623 (DB) entitled UOI vs. DLF United Ltd. whereby the rate of land acquired in village Bahapur involving date of notification u/s 4 on 13.11.72 was assessed by the Hon'ble High Court @ Rs. 60,000/- per bigha.

Mark A is photocopy of judgment passed in LAC NO. 13/00 entitled Giasi vs. UOI whereby the rate of land acquired in village Jasola involving date of notification u/s 4 on 6.4.64 was assessed by Sh.A.K.Pathak, ADJ @ Rs. 28,000/- per bigha.

Mark B is copy of judgment passed in RFA NO.

299/84 entitled Virender Singh Vs. UOI whereby the rate of land acquired in village Tuglakabad involving date of notification u/s 4 5.7.73 was assessed by the Hon'ble High Court @ Rs. 68,000/- per bigha.

Mark C is copy of judgment passed in RFA NO.

Contd......

Sharda Ram Vs. UOI 254/78 entitled UOI Vs. Bharat Singh whereby the rate of land acquired in village Molarband involving date of notification u/s 4 6.4.64 was assessed by the Hon'ble High Court @ Rs. 12,000/- per bigha.

Petitioners also examined PW-1 Sh.A.K.Ojha, Accounts Clerk, from office of LAC on point of limitation.

PW-1 Sh.A.K.Ojha, deposed that petitioner received the payment from office of LAC on 1.2.05 and proved the copy of CC form dated 1.2.05 as Ex.PW1/1. No notice us/ 12(2) of the LA Act is stated to have been served upon the petitioner. He also stated that petitioner moved an application for payment of compensation vide diary no. 922 dated 6.8.04 and diary no. 1486 ADM(S) dated 18.10.04. Copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW1/2. The order for payment is stated to have been passed by the LAC on 28.01.05 as the present reference was stated to have been filed vide diary no. 446/ADM(S) dated 07.02.05. (Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that said date may be read as 04.02.05 instead of 07.02.05 as the signatures under the reference appear to also bear date as 04.02.05. However, it may also be pointed out that the said contradiction if any was not pointed out to the witness who had deposed on the basis of record).

Contd......

Sharda Ram Vs. UOI

6. Respondents in support of their case relied upon the award which was exhibited as Ex.R1.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. My issue wise findings are as follows:-

8. ISSUES NO. 1 & 2 : Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the rate of land notified u/s 4 on 6.4.64 in village Molarband already stands assessed by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No. 254/78 (Mark C) and the same rate be awarded in present reference. Counsel for the respondents admit the assessment of rate of land as per Mark C. They have failed to produce any evidence to the contrary as to why the rate of land assessed as per Mark C involving the same date of notification be not adopted in the present case. No evidence has been brought on record to show in case the nature of land involved is different in any manner. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the market value of respondent's land be assessed @ Rs. 12,000/- per bigha.

9. ISSUE NO.3:- The award in the present case was announced on 19.10.81. The possession of the land was taken on 10.4.97. The reference appears to have been filed before the LAC on 8.6.05 and has thereafter been forwarded to the reference Contd......

Sharda Ram Vs. UOI court for assessment of the value of the land in accordance with law. The petitioner has claimed that no notice u/s 12(2) of the LA Act was served upon the petitioner and the date of knowledge is claimed from the date of receipt of payment i.e on 01.02.05. The reference as such is claimed to be within limitation i.e within 6 months from 01.02.05 ( date of knowledge).

Petitioner has further relied upon 2005 VII AD (SC) 665, AIR 1985 Gujrat 170, AIR 1989 Gujrat 56, AIR 1989 P & H 261, 1988 RLR 224, AIR 1963 SC 1604 in support of the contentions on point of limitation.

The contention has been vehementally opposed on behalf of the respondent and it is submitted that the reference is barred by limitation.

The principle of law has been clearly enunciated in the cases referred by the counsel for the petitioners. However, the question for consideration is the date on which the petitioner can be presumed to have actual or constructive notice of the passing of the award. The abovesaid principles may now be applied in the present case to determine the date of knowledge of the petitioner (actual or constructive) of the passing of the award which may be Contd......

Sharda Ram Vs. UOI considered as starting point for calculating the period of limitation.

Reference in this regard may be made to testimony of PW-1 Sh.A.K.Ojha, Accounts Clerk from the office of LAC who deposed that award was announced on 19.10.81 and no notice u/s 12 (2) of the LA act was served upon the petitioner. Payment is stated to have been further released to the petitioner on 01.02.05.

During examination PW-1 placed on record copy of noting sheets where from it is revealed that the possession of the land had been taken on 10.4.97. Further the application regarding payment of compensation appears to have been filed by the petitioner on 6.8.04 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the applicant was the cultivator and under possession of the land bearing the relevant khasra nos. It is further stated in the application that the land had been acquired by the government vide award no. 1934-D dated 10.4.97. It is further recorded beneath the enclosures that first application was given on 29.1.04.

In my opinion it would be too remote to assume that the petitioner had no knowledge regarding the taking over of possession of land on 10.4.97 though it is claimed that he was the cultivator of the same and is resident of village in vicinity. The Contd......

Sharda Ram Vs. UOI possession does not appear to have been taken though the award was pronounced on 19.10.81 on account of stay passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Further the application clearly reveals that the petitioner had constructive knowledge of the award on 6.8.04 as earlier application was given on 29/01/04 as revealed from the contents of the application. To my mind even if date of earlier application i.e. 29/01/04 is assumed as date of knowledge from which the period of limitation may at the best be computed, the period of 6 months for filing of reference would expire on 29.07.04. However the present reference has only been filed on 7.6.05 which is clearly beyond six months from the date of knowledge. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner has not even bothered to step into the witness box. For the foregoing reasons, the reference is clearly barred by limitation.

RELIEF : In view of my findings on issue no. 3 the reference is barred by limitation and the petitioner is not entitled to any further compensation. The reference is accordingly disposed off. A copy of this reference be sent to Land Acquisition collector for information. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open court                       (A.K.MENDIRATTA)
Dated : 27.08.07                            ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
                                                     DELHI



                                                                      Contd......
                                - : 11 : -              LAC NO. 116/05
                                                     Sharda Ram Vs. UOI




27.08.07


Present :   Counsel for the petitioner.

            Sh.S.K.Puri, Adv. for UOI.

Arguments heard. Vide separate judgment the reference is disposed off. File be consigned to record room.

(A.K.MENDIRATTA) ADJ/DELHI/27.08.07 Contd......