Delhi District Court
Om Shani Enterprises vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 24/10/06
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0606182006
Area: Tilak Nagar Industrial Area,
Minakshi Garden, New Delhi
Date of Notification u/s 4 : 09.10.2003
Date of Notification u/s 6 : 03.12.2003
Award No.: 12/DC (W)/2004-2005 dated 15.07.2004
OM SHANI ENTERPRISES,
Through its Proprietor
Sh. Sanjeev Jain
R/o WZ-179, G. Gloor,
Meenakshi Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18 ....Petitioner
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
District West, at Rampura, Delhi.
2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Through its Chairman,
NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar,
Bhishma Pitamah Marg,
New Delhi - 110053. .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 15.07.2006
Date of reserving of judgment : 06.02.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.02.2016
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 2686.56 Sq. meter (1515.66 + 1170.90) LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 1/21 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7(26)/2003/LA/L&B/MRTS (W)/11473 dated 09.10.2003 also under Section 6 vide notification no.
F.7(26)/2003/LA/L&B/MRTS (W)/20698 dated 03.12.2003. The land was notified under Section 17 (i) vide notification no. F7(26)/2003/LA/L&B/MRTS(W)/20699 dated 03.12.2003. The land was acquired for the purpose of Mass Rapid Transit System Project.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 12/2004-2005 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition 1515.66 sqm @ Rs.17,870/- per sqm. And 1170.90 sqm. @ Rs.10,569/- per sqm.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector petitioners were shown as recorded owner of the acquired land.
Sl. Entry Name of Field Total Share Kind Details of
No. No. petitioners No. area of Trees/
Bigha - soil Buildings
Biswa / Crops
1. Om Sahni Enterprises Property NIL
no. WZ-
101
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 (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)' has been referred to the reference court.
LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 2/21
5. In brief, the facts are that the petitioner firm M/s. Om Shani Enterprises is a sole proprietor firm owned by Sh.Sanjeev Jain and deals in export of garments and pharmaceuticals and was having its office and running business activities from ground floor of property no. WZ-101, Minakshi Garden, Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018. Total office area was 210 sq. ft. under the occupation of the petitioner. The petitioner filed claim before the Land Acquisition Collector, West [hereinafter referred to as the 'Collector, (West)'] on 23.12.2003. The possession was taken by the Collector (West) from the petitioner by demolishing the above said property bearing no. WZ-101 without giving any notice. The award was announced by the Collector (West) on 15.07.2004 in the absence of petitioner and compensation was received under protest.
6. The petitioner challenged the award, interalia, on the following grounds:
7. The notification under Section 4 of the Act came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 27.12.2003. The Collector (West) had taken illegally and arbitrarily the possession by demolishing the property no. WZ-101 on 23.12.2003 without notice to petitioner and other concerned. At the time of demolishing, the garments, pharmaceuticals etc. were in store along with other usual equipments and stationary, such as Denim Jeans, Male Contraceptives, Electronic Mosquito Repellent, T-Shirts having total value of Rs.44,99,43,000/- and also the items mentioned in Annexure
- 'A' annexed with the petition. It is stated that the petitioner LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 3/21 has suffered a total loss of Rs.46,03,68,460/- (Rupees fourty six crores three lacs sixty eight thousand four hundred sixty only) on account of demolition of the office.
8. It is further stated that the Collector (West) erred in not awarding the true value of the structure/office under the evocation and possession of the petitioner. The award is silent about the procedure of calculations and highly insufficient and unjustified. Cost of structure was granted to the tune of Rs.89,880/-. On the other hand, petitioner has spent huge amount in constructing, fixtures, fittings, teakwood, windows, doors, office furniture and its maintenance to the tune of more than Rs.6,80,800/-.
9. It is stated that the petitioner has been carrying on business since 2000 and developed extensive clientèle and goodwill in the business world. Due to acquisition and demolition of the property, the business of petitioner comes to stand still. The petitioner has taken steps under long terms agreement in its claim at much cheaper rate then the prevailing one and now taking up a new commercial property would increase financial burden. The petitioner has been paying salary to its staffs and business has come to stand still, therefore, suffered loss of Rs.2,25,00,000/- and Collector (West) failed to compensate. Further petitioner has suffered a loss of Rs.48,35,49,260/-. The petitioner has also suffered loss on account of non completion of advance transaction to the tune of Rs.4.5 Crores.
10. The Collector (West) grossly erred in not appreciating the principle to provide lawful and just LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 4/21 compensation for the acquisition as enumerated under Section 23 of the Act. The petitioner prayed for compensation of Rs.6,80,000/- on account of demolition of structure as per Annexure - 'B' and Rs.44,99,43,000/- on account of loss of items and compensation of Rs.1,04,25,460/- as per Annexure
- 'A'. Further compensation of Rs.2,25,00,000/- is claimed on account of loss of business as per ground 'C'. Petitioner further claimed interest @ 18% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act without any tax deductions and also be awarded the just and legal solatium. Further prayed that the petitioner be provided alternate plots and cost of the petition.
11. Written Statement filed by Union of India, in which preliminary objections taken that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The land was occupied at the instance of DDA, which has also to make the payment for acquisition. The petitioner is not a recorded owner in the revenue record. The compensation has been assessed in the name of recorded owner as per revenue record. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can only be used for agriculture. There was no structure, treewell or tubewell on the land in question at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. On merits, all the averments in reference petition are denied. It is stated that the compensation has been legally and correctly assessed by the Collector (West) and the same is adequate and just. Therefore, reference petition may be dismissed. The petitioner is also not entitled to compensation for loss of earnings severance charges.
LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 5/21
12. Respondent no.2/DMRC also filed written statement and stated that M/s. Om Shani Enterprises has not been recorded owner/tenant of property in question. Property No. WZ-101, Minakshi Garden, New Delhi comprised of 222.83 sq. mtr. of land owned by various persons. The petitioner has not placed any document on record to prove its title to the property in question. Respondent no.2 denied regarding the commercial activity or land in question. All the contents of the written statement and grounds are denied. It is stated that the petition may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
13. No rejoinder filed by petitioner to the written statement of both the respondents.
14. On the basis of pleadings, my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 28.03.2007 framed the following issues:
1. What is the right, title and interest of the petitioner in the acquired land?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for structure, if any existing on the acquired land or damages on any other account? OPP
3. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act?
LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 6/21
4. To what enhancement in compensation, if any is the petitioner entitled?
5. Relief.
15. Petitioners in support of his case examined PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Om Shani Enterprises; PW2 Sh. Sripat Singh, Foreign Trade Development Officer; PW3 Sh. Hari Dutt Kaushik, Kanoongo, LAC (West) office, Rampura; PW4 Sh. Rameshwar Dayal, Registered Architect; PW5 Sh. G.C. Sardana, Head Clerk, L & B Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi; PW6 Sh. Vinod Kumar Dahiya, Executive, HDFC Bank. As per statement of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner evidence was closed vide order dated 19.08.2015.
16. Respondent no.1 - Union of India, as per statement of Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate tendered award no. 12/DC(W)/2004-2005 as Ex. R-1. Statement of Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer of respondent no.2/ DMRC tendered certified copies of judgments dated 15.07.2008 in LAC No. 40/05 in case titled 'Khush Bakt Rai vs. UOI' decided by Sh. O.P. Gupta, Ld. ADJ as Ex. R2 - 1; judgment dated 15.07.2008 in LAC No. 50/05, titled 'M/s. Suri Brothers Vs. UOI' decided by Sh. O.P. Gupta, Ld. ADJ as Ex. R2 - 2; judgment dated 04.05.2009 in LAC No. 145/09 titled 'Harbans Singh vs. UOI' decided by Sh. Ashwani Sarpal, Ld. ADJ as Ex. R2 - 3 and judgment dated 19.04.2010 in LAC no. 80/09 titled 'Madan Lal Khurana vs. UOI' decided by Sh. Ashwani Sarpal, Ld. ADJ as Ex. R2 - 4. Thereafter, evidence was closed on behalf of respondent no.2/ DMRC.
LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 7/21
17. I have heard Sh. I.S. Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Vijay Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Union of India and Sh. A. S. Rao, Law Officer of respondent no. 2/DMRC and also gone through the written submissions. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO. 118. The petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW1 and filed affidavit Ex. P1. He deposed that he had been running its business from the premises bearing no. WZ-101, Minakshi Garden, Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the last more than five years from its acquisition. Petitioner was in possession of rented area of 210 sq. ft. on the ground floor. Rent was Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of 10 years and now he has taken the rented accommodation of similar nature in the same locality @ Rs.20,000/- per month and paying Rs.15,000/- per month up to December, 2007. He proved rent agreement Ex. PW1/2. In the cross-examination on this aspect, he stated that no agreement was executed between his family members and his mother since 1980 to 1986. Petitioner admitted that the firm was under the tenancy of his mother. He denied that the agreement Ex. PW1/2 is false and has been prepared in order to create the evidence.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was legal tenant in respect of the acquired property. The agreement Ex. PW1/2 proved by the petitioner. The owner of the property is Smt. Sarla Devi Jain. Therefore, the petitioner has every right and interest in the acquired property. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 8/21 submitted that Ex. PW1/2 is a sham agreement and prepared only to get the compensation. It is an agreement between mother and son for 10 years and same is not registered. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that it is not a legal piece of evidence and not proved as per law. Therefore, it cannot be read as evidence in favour of the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioner has no interest or tenancy rights in respect of acquired land.
19. I have considered submissions of both the Counsels and perused the record. The right, title or interest arises legally on the basis of a relation of a party with the property in question. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of owner Smt. Sarla Devi Jain, who happens to be the mother of the petitioner Sh. Sanjeev Jain, sole proprietor of M/s. Om Shani Enterprises. I have gone through the contents of Ex. PW1/2, it is notarized. As per the body of the agreement, it must have been of 01.08.1993 and then again extended on 29.08.1998 for 10 years. As per law, the agreement is mandatory to be registered and appropriate stamp duty has to be paid by the parties. However, the agreement suffers from this deficiency and lacuna. Therefore, it is not proved as per law. Hence, it cannot be read as rent agreement in order to establish any interest or tenancy rights between the parties. Further more, the most important is that the best evidence would be the rent receipt of the paid rent by the petitioner to the landlady. However, no rent receipt filed on record to establish that petitioner firm used to pay rent as per their agreement. It is pertinent to mention her that in the absence of these documents, the best evident available to the petitioner is the oral deposition of the landlady Smt. Sarla LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 9/21 Devi jain. The petitioner has not examined the landlady to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner miserably failed to establish any tenancy relation with the acquired property in question. Hence, on the basis of above observations and discussion, issue no.1 is decided against the petitioner and in favour respondents.
ISSUE NO. 3 & 420. In view of finding on issue no.1 that petitioner has no right, title or interest in respect of acquired land and the fact that present reference petition filed by the petitioner firm is to claim compensation under Section 23 of the Act and there is no averment in the petition regarding the determination of market value of the acquired land. Further more, no evidence led by the petitioner on these issues. Therefore, there is no occasion to determine the market value of the acquired land in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Further more, when petitioner is not the owner of the acquired land and has not claimed fair market value or determination of market value of the acquired land, then there is no question of enhancement of compensation as per Section 23 of the Act as per averment in the petition would be dealt while deciding issue no.2. Hence, on the basis of above observation and discussion, issue no.3 and 4 also decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 221. The onus of the issue is on the petitioner, who examined in total 6 witnesses as mentioned herein above. The vital witness is PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Jain, proprietor of LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 10/21 petitioner firm. In the petition, the petitioner stated that he has been running M/s. Om Shani Enterprises at the acquired premises since 2000, in ground 'C' and carrying out business of garments, pharmaceuticals etc. In ground 'A' he mentioned certain items such as Denim Jeans, Male Contraceptives, Electronic Mosquito Repellent, T-Shirts. In the affidavit Ex. P1, he deposed that he has been carrying out business for the last more than five years. Further, he relied on rent agreement which shows that he was alleged to be tenant since 1993, then renewed the alleged rent agreement on 29.08.1998. Although it has already been observed that the rent agreement is not a legal evidence but for arguments sake, these three stands are contrary to each other. Further more, the witness examined by petitioner PW2 Sh. Sripat Singh, who proved Ex. PW2/A, a document issued by Foreign Trade Development Office and same has already been filed and exhibited as Ex. PW1/4 by the petitioner. According to this documents, petitioner firm registered with this Department for carrying out import and export on 08.01.2002. As per law, it is essential to get registration for carrying out any import export business. It is pertinent to mention her that as per testimony of PW2, even this document is not proved as per law because original record has not been produced. PW1 and PW2, both filed photocopy of the said document. In the absence of original record, it is not proved as per Evidence Act. Therefore, it cannot be read and relied. However, the pleas of the petitioner are different on different occasions. They are contrary to each other. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove the business has been carried out by the petitioner at the acquired premises on the basis of inconsistent stand as discussed herein above.
LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 11/21
22. The petitioner in para 5 of affidavit in evidence stated that petitioner firm had actual turn over of Rs.12,31,28,311/- and proved Ex. PW1/3. I have gone through Ex. PW1/3, it is a balance sheet prepared, typed and signed by petitioner himself. When a firm, who is dealing in crores of income is subject to proper accounting as per law of the land. The balance sheet has to be certified by a proper Chartered Accountant. The petitioner has not examined his Chartered Accountant to prove this balance sheet. Further more, he has not filed duly certified copies of books of accounts and also not produced original books of accounts to prove his actual turn over to the tune of Rs.12,31,28,311/-. The balance sheet Ex. PW1/3 is not admissible as legal evidence. Therefore, petitioner failed to establish that his actual income is Rs.12,31,28,311/-.
23. The petitioner further deposed that he was issued authorized import export code number Ex. PW4/1. As discussed herein above, PW2 appeared in witness box but he has not proved Ex. PW1/4 as per law as no original file and documents in this regard produced from the concerned department. No original record shown by the petitioner, therefore, petitioner has not established that he was duly registered with Import Export Department. The petitioner further deposed that he had received Rs.7.61 Crores since 21.12.2001 to 22.03.2003 from abroad for running export orders of Rs.13,93,00,000/- but loss the business due to acquisition to the worth of Rs.9,99,00,000/- and proved the statement of orders Ex. PW1/5 and a letter from the bank Ex. PW1/6. It is pertinent to mention here that this fact is not LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 12/21 specifically pleaded in the petition. I have gone through the Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6. The Ex. PW1/5 is again prepared, typed and signed by the petitioner. There is no original order placed on record and proved, issued by the buyers of the petitioner. Neither any buyer has been examined regarding giving advance orders nor any document pertaining to any order proved on record. Therefore, petitioner failed to establish that he suffered loss of Rs.9,99,24,000/- The letter of bank Ex. PW1/6 is pertaining to year 2002. However, it is a photocopy and not proved by the author of the document, which ought to be proved through the corresponding original bank accounts by the bank official. However, no such witness examined by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner failed to establish the loss of Rs.9,99,24,000/-.
24. The petitioner claimed as per Ex. PW1/7 amount of Rs.14,51,466/- on account of retrenchment compensation paid to the employees. The petitioner relied on Ex. PW1/7. Again, it is prepared, typed and signed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced the original books of account or any other original documents regarding the employment register or registration with any Government Department dealing with the employees or ESI record, salary register or extract of bank account showing the payment of salary for 5 years as claimed by the petitioner of business life at the premises prior to acquisition. Further more, under Section 23 of the Act, retrenchment compensation does not fall because as per assertion of the petitioner that he has shifted to another premises in the same locality at a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. It means he must have employed most of the employees leaving aside those, the petitioner ought to have LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 13/21 produced, as mentioned herein above, the relevant original record or witnesses to prove that around 50 employees were employed by him. However, the petitioner failed to establish on the basis of Ex. PW1/7, the loss of retrenchment compensation to the tune of Rs.14,51,466/-.
25. The petitioner further claimed compensation of Rs.2 Crores due to loss of goodwill, prestige, clientele; Rs.4,23,100/- towards damage to furniture, fittings/fixtures; Rs.2,41,66,930/- on account of office equipments, computers, computer dates, EPABX, Air conditioners, account books and other accounts related to exports, office stationary and literature; Rs.5,00,000/- towards relocation expenses, connectivity and other ancillary and incidental expenses; Rs.8,80,00,000/- as profit and Rs.10,00,00,000/- as profit from the growth of business for the next ten years towards earnings as gross profits on the basis of Ex. PW1/8. I have gone through Ex. PW1/8. It is typed and signed on behalf of the petitioner. It contains address of foreign buyer of Moscow. It cannot be believed and relied. The petitioner must have at least proved the letterhead or any correspondence with this buyer or any order or any correspondence or any transaction as per alleged 5 years business but nothing proved. It is a simple typed paper, which cannot be relied and it also not proved as per law. Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish above mentioned losses.
26. The petitioner further claimed that a complaint was registered with the police Ex. PW1/10 regarding the demolition and damages of the goods. However, no witness from the police station examined by the petitioner. Even the LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 14/21 contents are that one Ms. Renuka Jain lodged a report regarding theft and she stated regarding theft of household goods etc. It does not mention regarding petitioner's firm. The compliant is also not registered by petitioner firm. Therefore, it has no relevance. Although it is not proved as per law and Ex. PW1/10 is not admissible as legal evidence.
27. The petitioner further deposed that valuables like Laptop, computers, CDS, computer software, data and other records were lost and destroyed. He proved Ex. PW1/11. He further deposed that high quality fixtures and fittings were installed and same were destroyed in demolition and proved as Ex. PW1/12. I have gone through Ex. PW1/11, it is typed, prepared and signed by the petitioner. Similarly, Ex. PW1/12, the petitioner has not produced any original record to support his deposition with respect loss of valuables and goods as mentioned in these documents. There is no bill or photographs or any correspondence or any witness of the firm from where these goods must have been purchased, produced in the court. If the plea of petitioner is that during demolition everything got destroyed, then he must be having business relations with the vendors for a long time, then he could have examined those vendors to prove purchasing of these articles on the basis of typed document Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW1/12, which is not admissible as per law. The petitioner failed to prove loss as mentioned in Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW1/12.
28. The petitioner further claimed compensation of export goods/ articles during demolition on the basis of Ex. PW1/13 to the tune of Rs.4,58,76,000/-. I have gone through LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 15/21 Ex.PW1/13. It is again typed paper signed by petitioner. In the petition, it is stated that firm was dealing in Denim Jeans, Male Contraceptives, Electronic Mosquito Repellent and T- Shirts but this document only mention Denim Jeans and T- Shirts only. However, no supporting document filed or witness examined in this regard. The orders which must have been received, the petitioner ought to have again taken from the vendors to show that this much of stock was lying on the day of alleged demolition. However, nothing has been proved. Therefore, Ex. PW1/13 cannot be believed and relied. Therefore, petitioner failed to establish loss of Rs.4,58,76,000/-.
29. The petitioner further deposed that he claimed Rs.2 Crores towards goodwill, prestige and clientele; Rs.20,00,000/- towards damages to fittings and fixtures and damage for shifting the business; Rs.5,00,000/- towards relocation of office, connectivity and other ancillary and incidental expenses; Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards earning as gross profits and Rs.1,00,00,000/- for additional damages suffered for non publication of notification. As per petition, in total petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.46,03,68,460/-. However, in affidavit, the claims are not in consonance with the claims of the petition and this deposition is also totally inconsistent with the compensation claimed in the petition. It clearly shows that petitioner himself is not sure about what amount of loss and damage he suffered and claimed by him. Further, petitioner proved the site plan Ex. PW1/14 showing the area in his possession. However, as already held that he has not established and proved to be the tenant in the premises. Therefore, it has no value in the eyes of law.
LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 16/21
30. The petitioner further proved the valuation report Ex. PW1/15 by Valuer. In addition to it, petitioner examined PW4 Sh. Rameshwar Dayal, the Valuer. He also proved this valuation report Ex. PW1/15. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he had visited the property on 26 th / 27th November, 2003 i.e. one month prior to the day of acquisition of the property i.e. 23.12.2003. He admitted that he did not measure the premises personally. He further admitted that initially area was residential but later on converted into commercial. The year of construction informed by the petitioner was 2002. He further admitted that the petitioner approached him for assessing the value of disputed property. However, he denied the suggestion that the report is false. It is pertinent to mention here that in mid November, the petitioner himself approached the PW4 Sh.Rameshwar Dayal for assessing the valuation. It suggests that he has already the knowledge of acquisition, therefore, prepared himself from all corners. Therefore, it suggests that he must have taken all the steps to secure all his belongings and prepared himself for acquisition, which has to be followed on 23.12.2003. I have gone through the report Ex. PW1/15. PW4 admitted that the report is prepared on the instructions of the petitioner. The report has not mentioned what are the approved standards taken by valuer for determining the valuation of land, rent, cost of construction and other technical details on 06.12.2003. The notification of acquisition was in force since October, 2003 and for Metro Project. But the Valuer has not joined any official of land department for preparation of his report. He has not annexed the Government approved rates or any other authenticated government document which are the basis of his valuation LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 17/21 report. He has also not conducted joint inspection. The report is also not certified by any governed concerned official. It is prepared on the instructions of the petitioner, therefore, does not inspire confidence and it cannot be relied in the present circumstances being ex-parte report. The valuation report without associating the representative of LAC is liable to be rejected. It is supported by the judgment of 'Kalawati Devi vs. Haryana State' 1996 (2) PLR 471.
31. Now coming to Ex. PW1/16, which is a paper book, which was submitted by petitioner before the Collector (West). It is not averred in the petition and it is not mentioned when and how the Ex. PW1/16 was submitted before the Collector (West). Even in the affidavit, no date has been mentioned. It is also not pleaded and deposed the relevance of Ex. PW1/16. Therefore, Ex. PW1/16 is not at all relevant for deciding the issue in question. Further, the petitioner also proved one document Ex. PW1/A, which is the letter addressed to Smt. Sarla Devi Jain by MCD authorities. No original has been produced through the concerned department. No documents, which shows the relevance of this reply by MCD to Smt. Sarla Devi Jain filed on record. It is not clear in what context the MCD has written this letter. Photocopy cannot be proved by the petitioner, therefore, Ex. PW1/A is not a legal evidence and cannot be read and relied on behalf of the petitioner.
32. Another document proved by PW6 is Ex. PW6/A, which is statement of account. However, it is mandatory as per law that statement of bank account shall be proved as per Bankers Books of Evidence Act. However, Ex. PW6/A does LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 18/21 not bear any certification by the bank official as per Bankers Books of Evidence Act. Therefore, Ex. PW6/A is also not read and relied on behalf of the petitioner. More so, this account is very recent to the acquisition about one year prior to it. Although the petitioner claimed that he has been running the business for the last more than four years from the date of acquisition in the petition from 1998 and as per Import Export Department registered in 2002. In these inconsistent, incoherent pleas, Ex. PW6/A is also not a reliable piece of document.
33. The fundamental basis of claim of all the compensation is the loss and profit of the business activities of the petitioner. However, he has not examined any witness or produced any document of his business profit after shifting to the alternative premises as alleged by him. He has not filed any statement of account, statement of Income Tax Returns or any correspondence that any document of sale purchase or statement of bank account showing the transaction or payment of salary to the employed staff. He deposed that he has taken alternative premises at the monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- in the affidavit Ex. P1 but he has not averred in the petition. Therefore, it is an improvement. No agreement or rent receipt filed on record. There is no document filed on record showing that after acquisition, he has been carrying on business from the alleged alternative premises. Be that as it may, in the cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot tell the number of the premises taken on record and also admitted that he has not filed any rent receipt but he can produce. However, during whole trial, he failed to produce any rent receipt. Therefore, this plea is unbelievable and not established by the petitioner.
LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 19/21
34. The petitioner has not produced any documents for filing of Annual Returns with the Income Tax Department, which is mandatory, may be petitioner is exempted from Income Tax being Importer or Exporter.
35. Hence, on the basis of above observation and discussion, the petitioner miserably failed to prove and establish entitlement for compensation of Rs.6,80,000/- on account of demolition of structure as per Annexure - 'B'; Rs.44,99,43,000/- on account of loss of items and compensation of Rs.1,04,25,460/- as per Annexure - 'A'. Further failed to prove compensation of Rs.2,25,00,000/- as claimed on account of loss of business as per ground 'C' and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act without any tax deductions as well as just and legal solatium. Petitioner further failed to prove the prayer that he be provided alternate plots and cost of the petition.
36. Therefore, there is not ground for enhancement of any compensation. Issue no.2 is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.
ISSUE NO.5 (RELIEF)
37. In view of my discussion on issue nos. 1 to 4, the petitioner is not entitled for enhancement of any compensation as prayed in the petition. The reference is answered accordingly.
LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 20/21
38. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
39. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
40. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 24th February, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 24.02.2016 LAC No. 24/10/06 Om Shani Enterprises vs. UOI & Anr. 21/21