Delhi District Court
M/S. Prabhu Land & Finance vs . Uoi & Ors. on 31 March, 2016
M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District, Sake Courts
Complex, Room No. 602, Sixth Floor, Saket New Delhi
In the matter of :
LAC No. 23/2014
Unique no. 02406C0129922014
Reference received from LAC on : 27.05.2014
Date of institution : 28.05.2014
Decision reserved on : 29.03.2016
Date of decision : 31.03.2016
M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance, through its Partner
Sh. P.D. Aggarwal, S/o Late G.D. Aggarwal
R/o G47, Preet Vihar, Delhi110092.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through Land Acquisition Collector,
South District, M B Road, Saket, New Delhi.
2. South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
through its Deputy Commissioner,
South Zone office, ZE/Division24,
Green Park, New Delhi110016.
...Respondents
LAC No. 23/2014 Page 1 of 12
M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
AWARD (by the Court under section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894) 1.1 (Introduction) - The petitioner is seeking enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of land acquired, while dissatisfied with the amount offered and awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Whereas, respondent no.1 stands by the Award that amount determined is correct and it represents fair market price visavis the petitioner's reference petition is beyond the time prescribed.
For deciding the petitioner's reference petition u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894) read with statement u/s 19 of the Act sent by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act 16.10.2000
(ii) Date of notification U/s 6 & 17 of the Act 04.05.2001
(iii) for Project Construction of New Link Road connecting Mehrauli byepass Road with S.S.N. Marg(Road no.6) (iv) Location/Name of Village Chattarpur (va)Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC 4/0304 & date of award 30.04.2003 (vb) Area under acquisitionin question Khasra no. 286 min (118) (vc) date of possession 06.07.2001 (via) Date of reference petition to LAC 28.06.2012 (vib) Petition referred to Court on 28.05.2014 (vic) Date of statement U/s 19 of the Act 26.05.2014 LAC No. 23/2014 Page 2 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
1.2 Pursuant to preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894), followed by declarations u/ss 6 and 17 of the Act, 1894, the Government acquired lands of Village Chattarpur Delhi for Planned Development of Delhi for public purposes by said Award. The lands of petitioner was also acquired as mentioned in para 1.1 above, {hereinafter referred as lands acquired} as per detail statement U/s 19 of the Act 1894. All concerned were heard, inclusive of the interested persons applied before Land Acquisition Collector and considering the location of land, the Land Acquisition Collector determined market value of land @ Rs. 13.84 per acre. Whereas the petitioner claims compensation @ of Rs. 50,000/ per square yard besides other statutory benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner filed reference petition u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 against respondents, which has been referred to court, the statement U/s 19 of the Act forwarded that petitioner's land of 286Min (118) was acquired and that on 13.02.2012 amount of compensation paid to the petitioner. Petitioner's case 2.1 Petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the said Award, he does not accept the amount offered in award, being not correct & fair market value of land acquired. He filed a reference petition u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 before LAC No. 23/2014 Page 3 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petitioner is seeking enhancement in compensation.
2.2 The petitioner claims that the market value of the lands has not been correctly assessed & awarded in the impugned Award by LAC. The paragraph 3 of the application contains ground for dissatisfaction with the award that LAC failed to consider them for determining fair market value and the value determined is too low to represent market value of land, it is against the law, facts and equity. the land is situated in the heart of City and surrounded by posh and developed colonies such Chhattapur, Mehrauli, famous Chhattarpur Temple, Andheria Morh, Vasant Kunj, Metro Station Chhattarpur, and several farm houses. The Collector failed to consider that there are all civic amenities and facilities of water, electricity, telephone lines, schools, hospitals, institute. The entire Revenue estate of Village Chhattarpur was declared urbanized long back from the date of issue of notification. There is not a single plot where the price of land is less than Rs. 50,000/ per square yards on the date of preliminary notification. The petitioner's land has great potential value, but it was not considered by the Collector. The purpose of acquisition was not agricultural but for planned development of Delhi. The entire acquired land of petitioner is being used for commercial purpose. Moreover as per article 300A of LAC No. 23/2014 Page 4 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
Constitution of India, when a person is deprived of his right to the property, then he should be compensated reasonably and if possible deprived person should be given an opportunity of being heard in deciding the price of land. There has sprung up colonization around the land of petitioner and various colonies have come up in existence during the last more than ten years prior to preliminary notification. Neither the petitioner nor his representative was present before the Collector at the time of announce of award nor any notice U/s 12(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner, the petitioner came to know about award a forthnight back. That is why the present petition. 2.3 In the reference petition the petitioner named DDA as respondent no.2, however, by order dated 23.9.2014, the name of SDMC was impleaded considering statement U/s 19 of Act and also it being an interested person. The name of DDA was deleted from the array of parties. UOI / Respondent No. 1's case 3.1 The respondent no. 1 had filed its written statement and opposed the reference petition that it is barred by time, being governed U/s 18(2) of the Act, the findings given by Collector in his Award is based on market value of the land, the compensation was fair, adequate and reasonable. The petitioner failed to bring on record any specific and cogent evidence to claim higher compensation. The fair and reasonable market value is always a LAC No. 23/2014 Page 5 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
question of fact depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case and onus of claiming higher compensation is always on the claimant, There is no scope for enhancement of compensation, hence petition deserves dismissal. SDMC / Respondent No. 2 's case 3.2 The respondent no.2 failed to appear and file written statement despite service of process.
Petitioner's replication 3.3 The petitioner denies the averment of the written statement vis a vis it is not as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner also denies allegations of the written statement, while confirming the contents of reference petition, besides it is within the prescribed limitation period.
Issues 4.1 On 31.03.2015, issues were framed by this reference court for determination :
1. Whether Reference Petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is within prescribed period of limitation? Onus on Parties
2. Whether the Reference is without cause of action, as the Award LAC No. 23/2014 Page 6 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
No. 4/200304 dated 30.04.2003 reflects the actual and assessed market value of the land acquired? OPR1
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed? OPP
4. Relief.
Evidence 4.2 In order to establish the issues the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence and to prove their cases. Petitioner through its partner PW1 Sh. P.D. Aggarwal entered into witness box as an exclusive witness, he relied upon judgment ( Ex. PW1/1 ) in LAC No. 41/11 titled as Balwant Singh vs. UOI & Anr. pertaining to same village, and notification (that compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,926/ per sq. metre by Ld. Predecessor), on judgment (Ex. PW1/2) in LA APP. No. 62/13 titled as Balwant Singh vs. UOI & Anr. (to prove that in appeal the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 9,237.80 per sq. metre by the appellant court). Then evidence was closed.
4.3 The respondent no. 1 through counsel Sh. S. K. Puri, Advocate tendered Award (now Ex. R1) in evidence. Then evidence was closed by the respondent no.1. There is no evidence by respondent no.2 for want of its appearance.
LAC No. 23/2014 Page 7 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
Final Hearing
5. At the juncture of final hearing, Sh. Inder Singh, counsel for petitioner, Sh. S. K. Puri, counsel for UOI / respondent no.1 advanced their respective submissions. None was there for respondent to forward final submissions.
Findings 6.1 The rival contentions are analyzed, assessed and considered in the light of material on record and evidence, precedent besides findings given in case law presented in evidence. Now the issues are taken. 6.2 Issue no.1 Whether Reference Petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is within prescribed period of limitation? Onus on Parties The onus to prove this issue no.1 is on the parties, but they maintain rival stand, as petitioner claims it is within time from the date of receipt of compensation vis a vis there was no notice to the petitioner. The date of actual knowledge of award is to be considered for the purposes of computation of such period. The petitioner relies upon on Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs UOI, 1988(4) DRJ 221 and Parsottambhal Maganbhai Patel and others Vs State of Gujarat through Dy Collector, 2005 SCCR 801. From the date of payment of 13.2.2012, the petition is within six months. LAC No. 23/2014 Page 8 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
Whereas, respondent no. 1 calculates the period from date of award and date of filing of petition, on the ground the petitioner was served with notice U/s 9 and 12(2) of 1894 Act.
6.3 Section 18(2)(b) of 1894 Act prescribes period of six weeks from receipt of notice from Collector [when petitioner is attending the proceeding or receipt of notice U/s 12(2)] or six months from the date of Award for filing reference petition. Moreover, notice of award means constructive notice in respect of contents of award. However, by analysis of their submissions and record, there is no proof by the respondents that petitioner was served with notice U/ss 9 or 12 of the Act 1894. For the purposes of proof of issue no.1, the respondent ought to prove specific date when petitioner had knowledge of contents of the Award. The date of payment is 13.02.2012 as per statement U/s 19 of the Act and reference petition was filed on 28.6.2012 before the Collector after receipt of amount. In addition, in para 3S of the petition, it is specifically pleaded that there was no notice U/s 12(2) of the Act to the petitioner, however, there is no denial or specific denial in the reply by UOI. Thus, it is held that petition is within time, as proved by the petitioner. It is not beyond time, which respondent no.1 could not prove. Accordingly issue no. 1 stands disposed off. LAC No. 23/2014 Page 9 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
6.3 Issues no. 2 and 3
2. Whether the Reference is without cause of action, as the Award No. 4/200304 dated 30.04.2003 reflects the actual and assessed market value of the land acquired? OPR1
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed? OPP The onus to prove issue no. 2 lies on respondent no. 1 and onus to prove issue no.3 is on the petitioner, both are taken together, since they are interconnected and common discussion is needed. On the one side the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount awarded in award Ex. R1 and on the other side respondent no.1 opposed the claim that Land Acquisition Collector has awarded the amount after considering, location, potentiality to use the land as well as other relevant factors while determining the market value of land and other aspects.
Both the sides have their reservations, however, petitioner has also relied upon judgments to show value of similar situated lands, particularly of judgment (Ex. PW1/2) in LA APP. no. 62/13 titled as Balwant Singh vs. UOI & Anr. that in appeal the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 9,237.80 per sq. metre by the appellant court, which determines value of land of the same date of 16.10.2000 of notification in same Village and the same is to be considered for petitioner's land also. There is no contrary evidence by the respondents in this regard. Petitioner's land and of LAC No. 23/2014 Page 10 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
Balwant Singh were acquired under same notification. Thus, case of petitioner is to be treated on parity with Balwant Singh's case. Therefore, on 16.10.2000 the market value of land was Rs.9,237.80 per sq. metre, whereas the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was @ Rs. 13.84 lacs per bigha.
To say, petitioner has succeeded to establish issue no.3 in his favour that market value of land was Rs. 9,237.80 per sq. metre on the date of preliminary notification and petitioner has also established issue no. 2 in his favour that he is entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs. 9,237.80 per sq. metre. In view thereof, it is held that the respondents could not established issue no.2 in their favour and it is decided against them. Thus, the issue no. 2 and 3 are determined in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 4 - Relief 7.1 In view of the findings given on issue nos. 1 to 3 above, the petitioner is held entitled for compensation @ Rs. 9,237.80 per sq. metre by enhancing the compensation from amount @ Rs. 13.84 per bigha, which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of petitioner's land acquired (as detailed in the statement u/s of 19 of the Act, 1894); the compensation @ Rs. 9,237.80 per sq. metre stand enhanced; besides 30% LAC No. 23/2014 Page 11 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
solatium under section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land, interest @ 12% per annum under section 23(1A) from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC; 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC or date of taking of possession, whichever is earlier; 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court (from the date of dispossession of land to date of deposit of excess amount in the court, for one year) and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in court. The respondents no.1 and 2 will be liable to pay it jointly and severally.
8. The reference petition stand answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary compliance for remittance of amount. File is consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today (Inder Jeet Singh) on Brihspativar, 11 Chaitra, Saka 1938 Additional District Judge02 (South) Saket / New Delhi /31.03.2016 LAC No. 23/2014 Page 12 of 12 M/s. Prabhu Land & Finance vs. UOI & Ors.
LAC No. 23/2014 31.03.2016 Present : Proxy Counsel for petitioner.
Proxy counsel for UOI / respondent no. 1.
None for SDMC / respondent no. 2.
Vide separate Award announced today, the reference petition stand answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary compliance for remittance of amount.
File is consigned to record room.
(Inder Jeet Singh)
Addl. District Judge02 (South),
M Saket, New Delhi/ 31.03.2016
LAC No. 23/2014 Page 13 of 12