Delhi District Court
Shyam Sunder Ors vs Uoi (Khamour Raya) on 28 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
DISTT. JUDGE-02
WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
LAC No. 72/16
CNR No. DLWT01-001184-2015
DLWT010011842015
1. Sh. Shyam Sunder S/o Sh.Chandgi
Dead & Represented Through LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Premwati
Wd/o Late Sh.Shyam Sunder Verma
(Name of Smt.Premwati has been deleted vide
Order dated 26.09.2024)
(b). Sh.Vinod Kumar Verma
S/o Late Sh.Shyam Sunder Verma
Permanent resident of H.No.WZ-109,
Khampur village, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
Presently residing at H.No.2236/1,
Khampur Village, Opposite West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 1 of 73
(c). Smt.Rekha Tanwar
D/o Late Sh.Shyam Sunder Verma
W/o Sh.Rajender
R/o WZ-1222, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046
(d). Smt.Surekha Tanwar
D/o Late Sh.Shyam Sunder Verma
W/o Sh.Parmod Kumar
R/o WZ-1581, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046
(e). Smt.Suman
D/o Late Sh.Shyam Sunder Verma
W/o Sh.Sushil Kumar
R/o RZ-60, Hans Park, West Sagarpur,
New Delhi-110046
2. Smt.Usha Wd/o Sh.Raj Kumar
3. Sh.Neeraj S/o Sh.Raj Kumar
4. Sh.Munish S/o Sh.Raj Kumar
5. Smt.Parul W/o Sh.Rahul
D/o Sh.Raj Kumar,
R/o WZ-472, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028.
6. Sh.Rakesh Verma S/o Sh.Bhagwan Dass
R/o WZ-114, Village Khampur Raya
Opposite West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 2 of 73
7. Sh.Rajesh Kumar Verma S/o Sh.Bhagwan Dass
R/o WZ-114, Village Khampur Raya
Opposite West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
8. Smt.Usha W/o Sh.Suresh Kumar
D/o sh.Bhagwan Dass
R/o WZ-76, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028
9. Smt.Kamlesh W/o Sh.Mohandeep
D/o Sh.Bhagwan Dass
R/o CB-101, Naraina, Ring Road,
New Delhi-110028
10. Sh.Jai Pal S/o Sh.Harkesh
R/o WZ-108, Village Khampur
Opposite West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
11. Sh.Sunil S/o Sh.Harkesh
R/o WZ-108, Village Khampur
Opposite West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
12. Smt.Laxmi Wd/o Sh.Surat Singh
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Sh.Bhopal Singh,
S/o Late Sh.Surat Singh & Smt.Laxmi Devi
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(i). Sh.Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Late Sh.Bhopal Singh
R/o 2236, Mandir Wali Gali,
Opposite Bhagwan Dass Park,
Shadi Khampur West Patel Nagar,
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 3 of 73
New Delhi-110008
(ii). Smt.Santosh Devi
Wd/o Sh.Bhopal Singh
R/o 2236, Mandir Wali Gali,
Opposite Bhagwan Dass Park,
Shadi Khampur West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
(iii). Smt.Ashu Devi
W/o Sh.Bhushan
D/o Late Sh.Bhopal Singh
R/o Village Tyodhi, Distt. Baghpat
(UP)-250611
(iv). Smt.Alka Verma
W/o Sh.Harish Kumar Verma
D/o Late Sh.Bhopal Singh
R/o Flat No.146C, JG-III,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
(v). Smt.Anjali
W/o Sh.Rajneesh Kumar
D/o Late Sh.Bhopal Singh
R/o H.No.12A, MS Block,
Ranaji Enclave, Nangli Sakrawati
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043
(b). Sh.Mahipal Singh,
S/o Late Sh.Surat Singh & Smt.Laxmi Devi
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(i). Smt.Santosh Devi
Wd/o Sh.Mahipal Singh
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 4 of 73
R/o H.No.2236, Shadi Khampur
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(ii). Sh.Rajeev Kumar
S/o Sh.Mahipal Singh
R/o H.No.2236, Shadi Khampur
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(iii). Sh.Robin Kumar
S/o Sh.Mahipal Singh
R/o H.No.2236/A1, Shadi Khampur
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(iv). Smt.Archana
D/o Sh.Mahipal Singh
W/o Sh.Dinesh Kumar
R/o WZ-167, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028.
(v). Smt.Preeti
D/o Sh.Mahipal Singh
W/o Sh.Shiv Kumar
R/o A-8, Block-A, Anoop Nagar,
Bindapur, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
(c). Sh.Aman Singh,
S/o Late Sh.Surat Singh & Smt.Laxmi Devi
(d). Smt.Kamlesh,
Wd/o Late Sh.Amarpal Singh
Predeceased son of Late Sh.Surat Singh &
Laxmi Devi
(e). Sh.Aditiya,
S/o Late Sh.Amarpal Singh
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 5 of 73
Predeceased son of Late Sh.Surat Singh &
Laxmi Devi
(f). Sh.Himanshu,
S/o Late Sh.Amarpal Singh,
Predeceased son of Late Sh.Surat Singh &
Laxmi Devi
(g). Ms.Madhuri,
D/o Late Sh.Amarpal Singh
Predeceased son of Late Sh.Surat Singh &
Laxmi Devi
(h). Ms.Vishaka,
D/o Late Sh.Amarpal Singh,
Predeceased son of Late Sh.Surat Singh &
Laxmi Devi
All residents of H.No.2236, Shadi Khampur, Near
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(i). Smt.Kismati Devi
D/o Late Sh.Surat Singh & Laxmi Devi
W/o Sh.Mahender Singh
R/o Village & P.O. Dahar, Distt. Meerut (UP)
(j). Smt.Veermati,
D/o Late Sh.Surat Singh & Laxmi Devi
W/o Sh.Rajender Singh
R/o Village & P.O.Dahar, Distt.Meerut (UP).
13. Sh.Bhopal Singh S/o Sh.Surat Singh
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 6 of 73
(i). Sh.Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Late Sh.Bhopal Singh
R/o 2236, Mandir Wali Gali,
Opposite Bhagwan Dass Park,
Shadi Khampur West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
(ii). Smt.Santosh Devi
Wd/o Sh.Bhopal Singh
R/o 2236, Mandir Wali Gali,
Opposite Bhagwan Dass Park,
Shadi Khampur West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
(iii). Smt.Ashu Devi
W/o Sh.Bhushan
D/o Late Sh.Bhopal Singh
R/o Village Tyodhi, Distt. Baghpat
(UP)-250611
(iv). Smt.Alka Verma
W/o Sh.Harish Kumar Verma
D/o Late Sh.Bhopal Singh
R/o Flat No.146C, JG-III,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
(v). Smt.Anjali
W/o Sh.Rajneesh Kumar
D/o Late Sh.Bhopal Singh
R/o H.No.12A, MS Block,
Ranaji Enclave, Nangli Sakrawati
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 7 of 73
14. Sh.Amar Pal Singh S/o Sh.Surat Singh
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Kamlesh,
Wd/o Late Sh.Amarpal Singh
(b). Sh.Aditiya,
S/o Late Sh.Amarpal Singh
(c). Sh.Himanshu,
S/o Late Sh.Amarpal Singh,
(d). Ms.Madhuri,
D/o Late Sh.Amarpal Singh
(e). Ms.Vishaka,
D/o Late Sh.Amarpal Singh,
All residents of H.No.2236, Shadi Khampur, Near
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
15. Sh.Mahipal Singh S/o Sh.Surat Singh
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(i). Smt.Santosh Devi
Wd/o Sh.Mahipal Singh
R/o H.No.2236, Shadi Khampur
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(ii). Sh.Rajeev Kumar
S/o Sh.Mahipal Singh
R/o H.No.2236, Shadi Khampur
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 8 of 73
(iii). Sh.Robin Kumar
S/o Sh.Mahipal Singh
R/o H.No.2236/A1, Shadi Khampur
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(iv). Smt.Archana
D/o Sh.Mahipal Singh
W/o Sh.Dinesh Kumar
R/o WZ-167, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028.
(v). Smt.Preeti
D/o Sh.Mahipal Singh
W/o Sh.Shiv Kumar
R/o A-8, Block-A, Anoop Nagar,
Bindapur, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
16. Sh.Aman Singh s/o Sh.Surat Singh
17. Smt. Birmati W/o Sh.Rajender Singh
D/o Sh.Surat Singh
R/o Village & P.O.Dahar,
Distt. Meerut (UP).
18. Sh.Raghuvir Singh S/o Sh.Chajju
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Sh.Surender Singh Verma,
S/o Late Sh.Raghbir Singh,
R/o RZ-87/345, Gali No.12,
Mohan Nagar, Pankha Road
New Delhi-110046
(b). Sh.Devender Kumar Verma
S/o Late Sh.Raghbir Singh,
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 9 of 73
R/o H.No.2237/2, Bhagwan Das Park
Shadi Khampur, New Delhi-110008
(c). Smt.Savitri Singh,
W/o Sh.Ranveer Singh
D/o Late Sh.Raghbir Singh
R/o Flat No.B-11, IDC Apartments,
Plot No.8c, Sector-11, Dwarka
New Delhi-110075.
(d). Smt.Veena Verma
W/o Sh.Chaman Singh Verma
D/o Late Sh.Raghbir Singh
R/o RZ-154/B, Gali No.7,
East Sagar Pur, New Delhi-110046
(e). Smt.Uma Verma
W/o Sh.Rakesh Kumar Verma
D/o Late Sh.Raghbir Singh
R/o D1-93, Gold Croft Apartments,
Plot No.4, Sector-11, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
19. Sh.Jagdish Singh S/o Sh.Chajju
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Sh.Pawan Kumar,
S/o Late Sh.Jagdish Singh,
R/o WZ-110, Village Khampur,
Opposite West Patel Nagar
New Delhi-110008
(b). Smt.Lata Rathore
D/o Late Sh.Jagdish Singh,
W/o Dr. Narender Singh Rathore
R/o 29, Bharon Dham Colony,
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 10 of 73
Sector-3m Hiram Margri,
Udaipur (Rajasthan)-301002
(c1). Smt.Lalita Verma,
W/o Sh.Arun Kumar
(Son of Deceased Sh.Jagdish Singh)
R/o 2237, Village Khampur,
Opposite West Patel Nagar
New Delhi-110008
(c2). Sh.Anurag Verma
S/o Sh.Arun Kumar
(Son of Deceased Sh.Jagdish Singh)
R/o 2237, Village Khampur,
Opposite West Patel Nagar
New Delhi-110008
20. Smt.Bimla Wd/o Sh.Kundan Lal
21. Sh.Ajay Kumar S/o Sh.Kundan Lal
22. Sh.Naveen Kumar s/o Sh.Kundan Lal
23. Sh.Sushil Kumar S/o Sh.Bhagwan Das
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Nirmala Devi,
Wd/o Late Sh.Sushil Kumar
(b). Sh.Neeraj Chauhan,
S/o Late Sh.Sushil Kumar
Dead & Represented through LRs namely:-
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 11 of 73
(i). Smt.Nirmala Devi,
Wd/o Late Sh.Sushil Kumar
Mother of Late Sh.Neeraj Chauhan
(ii). Smt.Nidhi Chauhan,
Wd/o Late Sh.Neeraj Chauhan
(iii). Baby Mahi Chauhan
Minor Daughter of Late Sh.Neeraj
Chauhan
Through her mother & natural guardian
Smt.Nidhi Chauhan
(iv). Master Shubh Chauhan
Minor Son of Late Sh.Neeraj Chauhan
Through his mother & natural guardian
Smt.Nidhi Chauhan
All residents of H.No.WZ-163, Village
Khampur, Opposite West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
(c). Sh.Sachin Chauhan,
S/o Late Sh.Sushil Kumar
All residents of H.No.2253/B-6, Guru Nanak Nagar,
New Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 12 of 73
24. Sh.Anil Kumar s/o Sh.Bhagwan Das
25. Sh.Sunil Kumar S/o Sh.Bhagwan Das
26. Sh.Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh.Bhagwan Das
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Savita Chauhan
Wd/o Late Sh.Sanjay Kumar
(b). Ms.Shubangi Chauhan
D/o Late Sh.Sanjay Kumar
27. Sh.Ashok Kumar S/o Sh.Abhey Ram
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Smt.Sushila Chauhan
Wd/o Late Sh.Ashok Kumar
(b). Sh.Deepak Chauhan
S/o Late Sh.Ashok Kumar
Both Residents of WZ-189D, Shadi Khampur,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(c). Smt.Preety Malyan
D/o Late Sh.Ashok Kumar
W/o Sh.Naveen Malyan
R/o WP-460, Village Wazirpur,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
28. Sh.Ajay Kumar S/o Sh.Abhey Ram
29. Sh.Prem Prakash S/o Sh.Abhey Ram
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 13 of 73
30. Sh.Vinod Kumar S/o Sh.Abhey Ram
31. Sh.Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh.Abhey Ram
32. Sh.Guruditta Ram S/o Sh.Abhey Ram
33. Smt.Shanti Devi Wd/o Sh.Sukhvir Singh
(The name of Smt.Shanti Devi was deleted from the
Array of Parties vide Order dated 27.01.2017).
34. Sh.Vijay Pal Singh S/o Sh.Sukhvir Singh
35. Sh.Ghanshyam Singh S/o Sh.Sukhvir Singh
36. Sh.Rajpal Singh S/o Sh.Sukhvir Singh
37. Sh.Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh.Sukhvir Singh
38. Smt.Saroj W/o Sh.Raj Kumar
D/o Sh.Sukhvir Singh
R/o WZ-1316, Nangal Raya
New Delhi-110046
39. Smt.Neeru Bala W/o Sh.Krishan
D/o Sh.Sukhvir Singh
R/o YA-1, Bhoop Singh Basti,
Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046
(The name of Petitioner No.39 was corrected
vide Order dated 27.05.2022)
40. Smt.Sashi Bala W/o Sh.Dinesh
D/o Sh.Sukhvir Singh
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 14 of 73
R/o H-142, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi.
41. Sh.Harichand S/o Sh.Munshi
Dead & Represented by LRs namely:-
(a). Sh.Vikram Singh
S/o Late Sh.Hari Chand
R/o H.No.2192/A, Chaupal Wali Gali,
Shadi Khampur, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
(b). Smt.Sunita Devi,
D/o Late Sh.Hari Chand
W/o Sh.Rajpal
R/o RZ-124A, Dwarka Vihar,
Old Kapashera road, Nangli Sakrawati
Delhi-110043
(c). Smt.Sharda Parmar
D/o Late Sh.Hari Chand
W/o Sh.Dinesh Parmar
R/o RZ-Q-74, Bhagat Enclave,
Uttam Nagar, Mohan Garden,
Delhi-110059
(d). Smt. Rita
D/o Late Sh.Hari Chand
W/o Sh.Promod
R/o RZ-158, Kyon Vishtar,
Uttam Vihar, Mohan garden
Delhi-110059
(e). Smt.Shanti Devi
Wd/o Late Sh.Hoshiar Singh
(Predeceased son of Late Sh.Hari Chand)
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 15 of 73
R/O H.No.2192A, Shadi Khampur
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
(f). Sh.Ayush
S/o Late Sh.Hoshiar Singh
(Predeceased son of Late Sh.Hari Chand)
R/O H.No.2192A, Shadi Khampur
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
(g). Ms. Shivika
D/o Late Sh.Hoshiar Singh
(Predeceased son of Late Sh.Hari Chand)
R/O H.No.2192A, Shadi Khampur
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
42. Sh.Mahipal S/o Sh.Munshi
43. Sh.Rajpal S/o Sh.Munshi
44. Smt.Aradhna W/o Sh.Satish Kumar
Granddaughter of Sh.Ballu
45. Sh.Naveen S/o Sh.Ram Sawroop
46. Sh.Parveen S/o Sh.Rohtash
All residents of Village Kampur Raya, Opposite West
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
...PETITIONERS
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 16 of 73
VERSUS
1. Union of India Through,
Land Acquisition Collector
Old Middle School Building,
Rampura, Delhi
2. Delhi Jal Board, through
its Chief Executive Officer,
Varunalaya, Jhandewalan,
New Delhi
... RESPONDENTS
( Respondent no. 3 i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi has been
deleted vide order dated 08.01.2016).
AWARD NO 12/DC (W)/2006-2007
Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi
dated 30.05.2007
Date of institution of the reference : 10.07.2015
Date of reserving the judgment : 16.10.2024
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 28.10.2024
REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT
AGAINST THE FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION OF
MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND ETC. ASSESSED BY THE
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR ( WEST) RAMPURA,
NEW DELHI, VIDE THE ABOVE AWARD.
JUDGMENT
1. The present reference under section 18 of the L.A. LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 17 of 73 Act has been sent to the court by LAC, West on 10.07.2015, on the application for sending reference to the court, filed by the petitioners. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired land parcel measuring 3 Bighas and 06 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ('the Act') vide notification no. F.10(87)/02/L&B/LA/3583 dated 01.06.2004 and followed it up with the relevant notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act vide notification no. F.10(87)/02/L&B/LA/2470 dated 31.05.2005. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.10(87)/02/L&B/LA/2471 dated 31.05.2005. The public purpose for which land was acquired was the construction of underground reservoir and Pump House by DJB.
2. After considering the respective claims, the Land Acquisition Collector, West (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC') passed Award no. 12/DC (W)/2006-2007 dated 30.05.2007 under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.3,500/- per sq. metre alongwith statutory benefits.
3. According to the statement under Section 19 of the L.A. Act filed by the Collector, petitioners were shown as recorded owners of the acquired land which is the subject matter of this Reference. Brief description of the land holding of the petitioners as culled out from the Award under challenge is as under:
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 18 of 73Name of recorded owner Khasra No. Total Area Detail of trees & share Bigha- Building/Crops Biswa 88,104. Naveen S/o Ram754/21/2/2/2/2/2/ Swarup 1041/95472,2/2 (old) 514/47736, 1083/1149/754/21 (New) 89, 105 Parveen S/o Rohtash 1041/95472 514/47736
109. Shyam Sunder S/o Chandgi 463/95472
110. Neeraj S/o Raj Kumar 463/381888
111. Parull D/o Raj Kumar 463/381888
112. Usha Wd/o Raj Kumar 463/381888
113. Manish S/o Raj Kumar 463/381888
114. Bhagwan Dass D/o Data Ram 463/47736
115. Harkesh S/o Nathu Ram 544/3648
126. Harkesh S/o Nathu Ram 1035/254592
116. Surat Singh S/o Nathu Ram 544/63648
127. Surat Singh S/o Nathu Ram 1035/254592
121. Ranvir Singh S/o LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 19 of 73 Chhajju 544/127296, ½ share
132. Ranvir Singh S/o Chhajju 1035/509184
122. Jagdish Singh S/o Chhajju 544/127296,
133. Jagdish Singh S/o Chhajju 1035/509184
123. Smt. Vimala Wd/o Kundan Lal 544/381888, ½ share
134. Smt. Vimala Wd/o Kundan Lal 1035/1527554
124. Ajay Kumar S/o Kundan Lal 544/381888
135. Ajay Kumar S/o Kundan Lal 1035/1527554
125. Naveen Kumar S/o Kundan Lal 544/381888
136. Naveen Kumar S/o Kundan Lal 1035/1527554
169. Sushil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Dass 1/2304
170. Anil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Dass 1/2304
171. Sunil Kumar S/o LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 20 of 73 Bhagwan Dass 1/2304
172. Sanjay Kumar S/o Bhagwan Dass 1/2304
173. Ashok Kumar S/o Abhay Ram 1/3456
174. Ajay Kumar S/o Abhay Ram 1/3456
175. Prem Prakash S/o Abhay Ram 1/3456
176. Vinod Kumar S/o Abhay Ram 1/3456
177. Rajesh Kumar S/o Abhay Ram 1/3456
178. Guru Dutta Ram S/o Abhay Ram 1/3456
242. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Sukhvir Singh 1/898
243. Vijay Pal Singh S/o Sukhvir Singh 1/898
244. Ghan Sham Singh S/o Sukhvir Singh 1/898
245. Raj Pal Singh W/o Sukhvir Singh 1/898
246. Sanjeev Kumar /o Sukhvir Singh 1/898 LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 21 of 73
247. Smt. Saroj D/o Sukhvir Singh 1/898
248. Smt. Naroj D/o Sukhvir Singh 1/898
249. Smt. Shashi Bala D/o Sukhvir Singh 1/898
255. Hari Chand S/o Munshi, 1/280
256. Mahipal Singh S/o Munshi, 1/280
257. Raj Pal Singh S/o Munshi, 1/280
258. Ballu S/o Shadi Ram, 1/280 Note: Date of possession is 01.05.2006.
4. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the concerned LAC, the petitioners filed an application before the LAC, West under Section 18 of the Act for re-determination of the fair market value of the acquired land/property and requested for a Reference to this Court, for seeking enhancement/ redetermination of the assessed market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification issued u/s 4 of the L.A. Act.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 22 of 735. Brief factual recapitulation would be relevant before proceeding to the merits of the Reference claim. The petitioners were the owners of land (to the extent of their shares) comprised in Khasra No. 754/21/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 min. (Old No.) and New No. 1083-1149/754/21 min., situated within the revenue estate of village Khampur Raya, belonging to Shamlat Deh, which was acquired by Land Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 30.05.2007, which is the Award in question.
6. The petitioners have alleged in the reference petition that the possession of the acquired land ad-measuring 3 bighas and 6 biswas had been taken by the Government illegally and unlawfully, more than 40 years ago without even acquiring the said land under the law and even without paying any compensation to the petitioners. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the land in question has been in illegal possession/occupation of the respondent no. 2/Delhi Jal Board for the last several years.
7. The petitioners further alleged that the petitioners along with other co-villagers had filed writ petition before Hon'ble Delhi High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the respondents to take proper steps for acquisition of land under the provisions of the amended Land Acquisition Act and thereafter, after taking necessary steps for acquisition, the above award was announced.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 23 of 738. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the land under award is now known as a well developed colony, Baljit Nagar and is situated on main Patel road and is abutting Shadipur Bus Depot, DMS main depot, Shadipur and very near to Police Station Patel Nagar, Ranjeet Nagar, West Patel Nagar, Shadipur etc. It is further alleged that Shadipur Bus Depot is situated in the same Khasra number in which the acquired land is situated.
9. It is further averred by the petitioners that no person other than the petitioners has got any right, title or interest whatsoever in the aforesaid land and the compensation assessed for the same to the extent of their respective shares shown in the revenue record and as such the petitioners alone are entitled to receive the entire compensation including enhanced compensation.
10. The grievance of the petitioners is that the compensation decided by the LAC does not represent the true market value of acquired land as on the date of notification u/s 4 of LA Act and the LAC has grossly erred in assessing the market value of the land in too low and inadequates rates.
11. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has assessed the market value of the land without making any inquiry on the spot as to whether the market value fixed by the LAC is the true and correct market value of the land under the conditions of demand and supply as compare to the land in vicinity as on the date of notification under section 4 of LA Act.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 24 of 7312. It is further alleged by the petitioners that even, the LAC, West has announced award no. 13/DC (W)/2004-2005 dated 02.02.2005, by way of which, compensation @ Rs. 13,280/- per square meter was awarded for the land, which was notified for acquisition under Section 4 LA Act on 10.02.2003 i.e. more than one year prior to notification under section 4 LA Act issued in the present award. It is further averred that LAC has also passed award no. 4/DC(W)/2005-06 on 5.4.2006 and acquired the land out of the same Khasra numbers and assessed market value of the land @ Rs. 3500/- per meter and against the said award, Reference petition under section 18 L.A. Act is pending for disposal.
13. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the LAC, West has ignored the market value of the land determined vide award no. 14/DC (W)/2004-2005 dated 28.01.2005. It is further alleged that the land acquired vide award no. 14 belongs to the same very revenue estate. It is further alleged that the LAC has ignored the fact that the land acquired vide award no. 13 & 14 is similarly circumstanced land belonging to the same very revenue estate and is comparable to the land acquired in the present award.
14. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the LAC has failed to consider that the land in question is fully developed land and is surrounded by commercial and residential area of West Patel Nagar. It is further alleged that all the amenities and facilities of life such as electricity, water supply, telephone LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 25 of 73 facilities, nearness to developed colonies, metaled road, road transport, rail transport, availability of water supply, transportation, banking, educational and other facilities were available in the surroundings of land under acquisition for the last more than 40 years.
15. The case of the petitioners is that the market value of the land under reference as on the date of notification under section 4 of LA Act is not less than Rs. 60,000/- per square yards under the condition of demand and supply.
16. It has further averred by the petitioners that various Govt. agencies such as DDA and MCD had auctioned residential plots in much more rates than the rates awarded by the LAC, even much prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and not considered the fact that a plot measuring 133.62 sq. mtrs was auctioned by the Govt. @ 40,000/- per sq. mtr. in West Patel Nagar on 23.09.1996, which is also situated on the land of Village Khampur Raya and hence the LAC should have considered this valuable evidence of the adjoining village as the award of the LAC is also based on the market value of the land in the vicinity of the land of village Khampur Raya, Delhi.
17. It has been further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has not considered the fact that a plot in the same very locality quite near to the land in question was auctioned on 11.10.1996 by the DDA @ 40,000/- per sq. mtr and the said plot is comparable to the land in question.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 26 of 7318. It has been further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has not considered the fact that MCD had auctioned a plot measuring 174.42 sq. mtrs situated in the revenue estate of village of Khampur Raya and this plot was auctioned at Rs.10,57,000/- and was auctioned more than 20 years prior to the date of notification of the present case.
19. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has failed to considered the fact that the SDM, Patel Nagar has confirmed vide letter dated 25.10.2005, that the value of the land in Khasra no. 1249/905/788/43/5 of Village Khampur Raya which is abutting to land in question, is about 1 crore for 600 square yards of land.
20. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC West has erred in holding that Patel Nagar cannot be said to comparable colony. It is further averred that Patel Nagar is also situated in the revenue estate of village Khampur Raya. It is further averred that Baljeet Nagar, Ranjit Nagar, West Patel Nagar and Shadipur are situated in the land of Village Khampur Raya and are very near to each other.
21. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC West has grossly erred in holding that the land at Moti Nagar, Tihar I & II can at best be considered near comparable to Baljeet Nagar ( Khampur Raya). It is further averred that the Moti Nagar, Tihar I & II are quite far away from the land under reference.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 27 of 7322. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has erred in not following/adopting the method by which the land in Delhi was being assessed by his colleagues and predecessors. It is further averred that the LAC has not followed the policy of government of NCT of Delhi for fixing the market value of the land.
23. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has failed to take into consideration the land rates fixed by the various government agencies for the land situated in the vicinity of the land in question.
24. It is further averred by the petitioners that the LAC has failed to appreciate the fact that in the past 10 to 15 years, a rapid development has taken placed in Delhi and in surrounding areas as a result of which price of the land in the vicinity of the land in question has increased many folds and the land was being sold @ Rs. 60,000/- per sq. yards at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act.
25. It is further alleged that the LAC has failed to award the interest to the petitioners from the date of taking over the possession of the land till the date of payment of compensation. It is further alleged that the land in reference has been in illegal and unauthorized possession of the Government/MCD/DJB for the last more than 40 years.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 28 of 7326. The petitioners have prayed for compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per sq. yard besides solatium, statutory interest and other benefits under the provisions of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, including interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of taking over possession of the land till the date of payment of compensation.
27. Respondent no. 1/Union of India has filed its WS taking a ground that the petitioners are not admitted to be the owners of the land in question and the market value of the land in question has been assessed by taking into consideration the prevailing market rates of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of LA Act. It is further contended by respondent no. 1 that the shares of the petitioners are correctly mentioned in statement filed under section 19 of LA Act. The respondent no. 1 has denied other contents of the petition of the petitioners.
28. Respondent no. 2/Delhi Jal Board also filed written statements by admitting that the land in question was already utilized by the respondent no. 2 for underground reservoir and pump house. The respondent no. 2 has replied on merits that the contents of para no. 1 to 7 of the petition are matter of record. Respondent no. 2 has denied that the respondent no. 2 is in illegal possession of the land in question.
It has thus jointly prayed by the respondents that the present Reference be dismissed with costs.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 29 of 7329. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 21.10.2016 :-
ISSUES
1. Whether Section 19 Statement filed by the Collector ( West) is true and correct?OPR1
2.What was the fair market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act?OPP
3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate?OPP
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONERS.
30. Shri Naresh Kumar Jain, UDC from the office of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, appeared as PW-1. He had brought and proved the summoned record pertaining to auction of plot no. 4, 5 & 6 West Delhi District Centre, Shivaji Palace, Raja Garden, New Delhi, as Ex. PW-1/1 and copies of Perpetual Lease pertaining to the above said plots as Ex. PW-1/2. He also proved the summoned record pertaining to auction and Perpetual lease Deed pertaining to plot no. 10 & 23 West Delhi District Centre, Shivaji Palace, Raja Garden, New Delhi, as Ex. PW-1/3 & Ex. PW1/4 ( Colly).
31. Shri Rakesh Chand, from the office of DDA had appeared as PW-2. He had brought and proved the Conveyance LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 30 of 73 Deed and Perpetual Lease pertaining to plots bearing no. 3 & 4, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He further deposed that he cannot tell the date of auction of the above said plots. The copies of the Conveyance Deed and Perpetual Lease Deeds are Ex. PW- 2/1 (Colly) and Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) (OSR) respectively. The copies of challans are Ex. PW-2/3 (Colly) (running into four pages) (OSR) and copy of demand notices are Ex. PW-2/4 (Colly) (running into two pages) ( OSR).
32. Sh. M.P. Aggarwal, Assistant Engineer, from Delhi Jal Board had appeared as PW-3. He had brought and proved the record pertaining to construction of under ground reservoir & Pump House by DJB vide work order dated 04.02.2000. He further deposed that after starting the work of the said reservoir, the contractor left the work and accordingly the work was re- awarded and completed on 28.08.2008. The copy of work order dated 04.02.2000 is exhibited as Ex. PW-3/1 and completion report as Ex. PW-3/2.
33. Shri Naveen, Record Keeper from the office of Department of Delhi Archives had appeared as PW-4. He had brought and proved the summoned record pertaining to Sale Deed dated 15.11.1996 executed by Kanishka Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in favour of TATA McGraw Hill Publishing Company Ltd. which was registered vide registration no. 719, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 9373 on pages 1 to 176 dated 3.2.1997. The certified copy of the sale deed is exhibited as Ex. PW-4/1.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 31 of 7334. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Patwari from the office of LAC, West appeared as PW-5. He had brought the summoned record i.e. Original Award No. 13/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 02.02.2005 of East Patel Nagar and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-5/1 (OSR), original Award No. 14/DC(W)/2004- 05 dated 28.01.2005 of Main Patel Road, Patel Nagar and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-5/2 (OSR), original Award No. 1/DC(W)/2001-02 of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-5/3 (OSR), original Award No. 4/DC(W)/2005-06 of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-5/4 (OSR) and Award No. 2/2000-01 of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex-5/5 (OSR) respectively.
He has also brought the Diary register showing the details of the application dated 01.08.2007 for correction of shares and names of the Co-sharers which was filed against Diary No. 4423/LAC/West for making necessary correction in Award No. 12/DC(W)/2006-07 of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi and the same is Ex. PW-5/6 (OSR).
35. Sh Rakesh Kumar, Patwari, appeared as PW-6. He deposed that he had been examined as witness IP1/W1 in case titled UOI vs Mam Chand & Ors bearing LAC No. 15A/10/08 on 19.03.2011 and which case was decided on 03.08.2016. He further deposed that in his previously recorded statement (as above), he had proved Jamabandi running into nine pages which was exhibited as IP1-W1/1. The certified copy of his statement LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 32 of 73 dt. 19.3.2011 was proved as Ex. PW-6/1 and copy of Jamabandi which was exhibited as IP1-W1/1 is now exhibited as Ex. PW- 6/2 (Colly) (OSR).
36. Sh. Bipin Chander, UDC from the office of Land & Building Department appeared as PW-7. He had brought and proved the standing instructions dated 28.07.2005, issued by Land & Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Vikas Bhawan as Ex. PW-7/1 (18 pages) (OSR). He deposed that copy of the same were sent to all LACs in Delhi as well as to Divisional Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Commissioner ( IM-DDA), Vikas Sadan.
37. Shri Vijay Kumar, Junior Secretariat Assistant from the office of Land & Development Office, had appeared as PW-
8. He had brought and proved the record i.e. L& DO Scheduled Rates w.e.f. 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000. He further deposed that after the year 2000 the rates were not revised till date. Attested copy of Scheduled rates is Ex. PW-8/1 (17 pages).
38. Shri Kunj Bihari, Kanoongo from the office of SDM, appeared as PW-9. He has brought the Aks Sajara of Village Khampur Raya showing that the boundaries of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi touches the boundary of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi towards western side. A copy of the relevant extract of the Aks Sajara is exhibited as Ex. PW-9/1 (OSR).
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 33 of 7339. Sh. Rakesh Kumar petitioner no. 6 appeared as PW- 10 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-10/A. He relied upon and proved the following documents:
1. Ex.PW-10/1: is application dated 01.08.2007
2. Ex.PW-10/2: Certified copy of judgment dated 01.08.2016 in case titled Union of India Vs Mamchand & Ors.
3. Ex. PW-10/3:. Copy of order dated 03.12.2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court.
4. Ex. PW-10/4: Copy of writ petition.
5. Ex.PW-10/5: copy of judgment passed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then ld. ADJ in case titled Virender Sood Vs Union of India
6. Ex.PW-10/6: copy of judgment in case titled Rai Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors in LAC No. 37/10/01.
7. Ex. PW-10/7: copy of judgment in case titled Rai Singh & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. in LAC No. 39/10/01.
He further relied upon the documents already exhibited by the petitioner's witnesses.
40. In his cross-examination, PW-10 denied the suggestion that he had not moved the proper and timely application for making corrections in the Award. PW-10 could not tell the exact year since when DJB had been in possession of the acquired land. However, he voluntarily deposed that DJB was in unauthorized possession of the land much prior to the issuance of notification under section 4 of L.A. Act.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 34 of 7341. PW-10 admitted the suggestion that in his petition, in para no. 2, he had mentioned that DJB was in possession of the acquired land for more than 40 years prior to filing of the present reference but he had not demanded any rent or damages for use and occupation of the land in question from the DJB nor had the DJB paid any such charges to him at any point of time. PW-10 denied the suggestion that DJB had become the owner by way of adverse possession. PW-10 denied the suggestion that petitioners are not entitled for any interest on the compensation awarded, u/s 34 of the L.A. Act. In response to a specific question, PW-10 replied that he had filed a sale deed dated 15.11.1996 already exhibited Ex. PW-4/1 vide which the land in the vicinity of the acquired land was sold at about Rs. 49,000/- per sq. yards, to substantiate the averment contained in para no. 15 of his Affidavit.
42. PW-10 denied the suggestion that the land in question cannot be compared with the land detailed in Ex. PW- 4/1 for the reasons that vendors and vendees were limited companies and the subject land was commercial land. However, he voluntarily deposed that the land involved in Ex. PW-4/1 was not a commercial land. He further denied the suggestion that the prices of auctioned plot/land cannot be compared with the rates of land in question.
43. Evidence of the petitioners stand closed vide separate statement of ld. Counsel for the petitioners on 07.06.2017.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 35 of 73EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENTS
44. Sh. S.S. Mittal, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 tendered in evidence and relied upon copy of Award No. 12/DC(W) of 2006-2007 pertaining to Village Kampur Raya as Ex. R-1 and three copies of Sale Deeds dated 03.01.2004, 03.01.2004 and 19.12.2003 respectively as Ex. R-2 to R-4
45. On 10.11.2017, the evidence of respondent no. 1 was closed by recording statement of ld. counsel for respondent no. 1.
46. On 10.11.2017, Ld proxy counsel Sh Desh Pal for Ms Sakshi Popli, ld. counsel for respondent no. 2/DJB, vide separate statement, adopted the evidence led on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI. On 10.11.2017, the evidence of respondent no. 2 was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
47. I have heard arguments from by ld. Counsel for the petitioners and respondent no. 1 and have gone through the record of the case and the written submission filed on behalf of the petitioners.
Issue Wise Findings ISSUE NO-1
1. Whether Section 19 Statement filed by the Collector (West) is true and correct? OPR1 LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 36 of 73
48. The onus to prove this issue is upon respondent no.
1. In order to prove this issue, the respondent no. 1 has not led any evidence except tendering three sale deeds Ex. R-2 to R-4 and award under reference Ex. R-1.
49. PW-10 has deposed in his examination in chief by way of affidavit that the petitioners were co-owner/co-sharer in respect of land bearing Kh. No. 754/21/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 min (old Khasra number) and New Khasra number is 1083-1149/754/21 min and the respective shares of the petitioners are mentioned in the revenue record including Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 Ex. PW-6/2. PW-10 further deposed that the correct shares of the petitioners are also shown in Award no. 04/DC(W)/2005-06 vide which the part of the land comprised in the same Khasra number had already been acquired and the copy of said Award is Ex. PW-5/4. PW-10 has deposed that the correct shares of all the petitioners in land in question is as per Jamabandi Ex. PW6/2 & as per Award Ex. PW-5/4.
50. Petitioner/PW-10 further deposed that the LAC has mentioned incorrect shares of petitioner no. 10, 11, 18, 23 to 44 in the statement filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act as well as in the Award of present reference. PW-10 further deposed that the petitioners immediately after the passing of the award applied for correction of shares to the LAC, West by application dated 01.08.2007 which is Ex. PW-10/1 and the diary register vide which the said application was filed is Ex. PW-5/6.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 37 of 7351. PW-10 further deposed that in a reference petition under section 30-31 of L.A Act titled as UOI Vs Mamchand & Ors. decided on 01.08.2016, the then ld. ADJ, West, Sh. Sanjay Kumar, has held that the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation in respect of the acquired land.
52. PW-10 was cross-examined by ld. Counsels for respondents. During his cross-examination, ld. Counsel for the respondents have not disputed the correctness of Jamabandi Ex. PW-6/2 and the findings of Award No. 4 Ex. PW-5/4. During cross-examination of PW-10, no question regarding the shares of petitioners no. 10, 11, 18, 23 to 44, in the acquired land has been asked by ld. counsel for respondents and even no suggestion has been given to PW- 10 to the fact that correct shares of petitioners no. 10, 11, 18, 23 to 44 qua their shares in the acquired land have been mentioned in the Award as well as in the statement filed under section 19 of the L.A Act. The respondents have not disputed the testimony of PW-10 regarding their shares mentioned in the Jamabandi Ex. PW-6/2.
53. PW-6 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Patwari has appeared in witness box and deposed that he had been examined as a witness in a case titled UOI Vs Mam Chand & Ors, decided on 1.08.2016 and he proved the certified copy of his statement given in the above reference as Ex. PW-6/1 and he also proved the copy of Jamabandi of year 2004-05 of Village Khampur Rai as Ex. PW- 6/2. During his cross-examination, ld. Counsel for the respondents have not disputed the said Jamabandi.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 38 of 7354. That during trial ld. counsel for the petitioners has filed objections to the statement filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act. Thereafter revised statement under section 19 of the L.A Act was filed by the LAC, West and thereafter also petitioners raised objections on the said revised statement being not correctly mentioned the shares of the petitioners. Thereafter on 24.08.2016 the ld. Predecessor of this court directed the LAC, West to file corrected statement u/s 19 of the L. A. Act. On 06.07.2018, at the stage of final arguments, revised statement dated 04.07.2018 under Section 19 of L.A. Act, was filed on behalf of LAC, West and the names and shares of petitioner no. 10, 11, 18, 23 to 44 are mentioned as follows as per revised statement filed under Section 19 of L.A. Act, dated 04.07.2018, previous statement filed under Section 19 of L.A. Act, dated 17.10.2012 and names of the above-mentioned petitioner shown in the amended memo of parties as follows:
Name of recorded owners as Petitioner no. as per amended Khasra Total per revised statement dated memo of parties and their shares No. Area 04.07.2018 filed u/s 19 of the as per previous statement filed Bigh- L.A. Act & their shares u/s 19 of L.A. Act. Biswa
139. Harkesh S/o Nathu 10. Sh. Jai Pal S/o Sh. Harkesh 754/21/2 03-06 Ram, 544/63648 11. Sh. Sunil S/o Harkesh ( both /2/2/2/2/
156. Harkesh S/o Nathu having ½ share each in the share 2/2(old) Ram, 1035/254592 of deceased late Sh. Harkesh) 1083/11 The share of late Sh. Harkesh is 49/754/2 mentioned as 544/3648 & 1 ( New) 1035/254592
151. Sh. Raghuvir Singh S/o 18. Sh. Ranvir Singh S/o Sh. Chajju, 544/127296, & Chajju and his share mentioned
168. Sh. Raghuvir Singh S/o as 544/127296 and 1035/509184 Chajju 1035/509184 and he is represented through Lrs, namely, LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 39 of 73
(a) Sh. Surender Singh Verma, S/o Late Sh. Raghbir Singh, R/o RZ-87/345, Gali no. 12, Mohan Nagar, Pankha Road, New Delhi-110046.
(b) Sh. Devender Kumar Verma S/o Late Sh. Raghbir Singh R/o H. NO. 2237/2, Bhagwan Das Park Shadi Khampur, New Delhi-110008.
(c) Smt Savitri Singh, W/o Sh. Ranveer Singh D/o Late Sh. Raghbir Singh R/o Flat no. B-11, IDC Apartments, Plot no. 8C, Sector-
11, Dwarka New Delhi-110075.
(d) Smt Veena Verma W/o Sh. Chaman Singh Verma D/o Late Sh. Raghbir Singh R/o RZ-154/B, Gali no. 7, East Sagar pur, New Delhi-110046.
(e) Smt Uma Verma W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Verma D/o Late Sh. Raghbir Singh R/o D1-93, Gold Croft Apartments, Plot no. 4, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
205. Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o 23. Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Sh. Bhagwan Dass, 1/1152 Bhagwan Das, Dead & Reprsented through L.Rs namely
(a) Smt. Nirmala Devi, Wd/o late Sh. Sushil Kumar
(b) Sh. Neeraj Chauhan, S/o Late Sh. Sushil Kumar, dead & represented through legal heirs, namely,
(i) Smt Nirmala Devi, wd/o Late Sh. Sushil Kumar, Mother of Late Sh. Neeraj Chauhan.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 40 of 73(ii) Smt Nidhi Chauhan Wd/o Late Sh. Neeraj Chauhan.
(iii) Baby Mahi Chauhan, Minor Daughter of Late Sh. Neeraj Chauhan Through her mother & Natural Guardian Smt Nidhi Chauhan.
(iv) Master Shubh Chauhan, Minor Son of Late Sh. Neeraj Chauhan Through his mother & natural guardian Smt Nidhi Chaudhan.
All residents of H.NO. WZ-163, Village Khampur, Opposite West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(c) Sh. Sachin Chauhan, S/o late Sh. Sushil Kumar Share of late Sh. Sunil Kumar is mentioned as 1/2304
206. Anil Kumar S/o 24. Anil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Bhagwan Dass 1/1152 Dass, 1/2304
207. Sunil Kumar S/o 25. Sunil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Bhagwan Dass 1/1152 Dass, 1/2304
208. Sanjay Kumar S/o 26. Sanjay Kumar S/o Bhagwan Bhagwan Dass 1/1152 Dass 1/2304 is represented through legal heirs, namely,
(a) Savita Chauhan Wd/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar.
(b) Ms. Shubangi Chauhan D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar.
209. Ashok Kumar S/o 27. Ashok Kumar S/o Abhay Abhay Ram 1/1728 Ram 1/3456 is represented through legal heirs, namely,
(a) Smt Sushila Chauhan Wd/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar R/o WZ-
189D, Shadi Khampur, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 41 of 73(b) Sh. Deepak Chauhan S/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar R/o WZ-
189D, Shadi Khampur, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
(c) Smt Preety Malyan D/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar W/o Sh.
Naveen Malyan R/o WP-460, Village Wazirpur, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
210. Ajay Kumar S/o Abhay 28. Ajay Kumar S/o Abhay Ram Ram 1/1728 1/3456
211. Prem Prakash S/o 29. Prem Prakash S/o Abhay Abhay Ram 1/1728 Ram 1/3456
212. Vinod Kumar S/o 30. Vinod Kumar S/o Abhay Abhay Ram 1/1728 Ram 1/3456
213. Rajesh Kumar S/o 31. Rajesh Kumar S/o Abhay Abhay Ram 1/1728 Ram 1/3456
214. Guru Dutta Ram S/o 32. Guru Dutta Ram S/o Abhay Abhay Ram 1/1728 Ram 1/3456
278. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o 33. Smt. Shanti Devi S/o Sukhvir Singh 1/1728 Sukhvir Singh 1/898. (name of Late Smt Shanti Devi has been deleted vide order dated 27.01.2017 and petitioner no. 34 to 40 are entitled to inherit her share equally).
279. Vijay Pal Singh S/o 34. Vijay Pal Singh S/o Sukhvir Sukhvir Singh 1/768 Singh 1/898
280. Ghansham Singh S/o 35. Ghansham Singh /o Sukhvir Sukhvir Singh 1/768 Singh 1/898
281. Rajpal Singh W/o 36. Rajpal Singh W/o Sukhvir Sukhvir Singh 1/768 Singh 1/898
282. Sanjeev Kumar /o 37. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sukhvir Sukhvir Singh 1/768 Singh 1/898 LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 42 of 73
283. Smt. Saroj D/o Sukhvir 38. Smt. Saroj D/o Sukhvir Singh 1/768 Singh 1/898
284. Smt. Naroj D/o Sukhvir 39. Smt. Neeru Bala D/o Singh 1/768 Sukhvir Singh 1/898 (vide order dated 27.05.2022, the name of Smt Naroj was corrected).
288. Smt. Shashi Bala D/o 40. Smt. Shashi Bala D/o Sukhvir Singh 1/768 Sukhvir Singh 1/898
291. Hari Chand S/o Munshi, 41. Hari Chand S/o Munshi, 1/360 1/280, he is represented through legal heirs, namely,
(a) Sh. Vikram Singh S/o Late Sh. Hari Chand R/o H.No. 2192/A, Chaupal Wali Gali, Shadi Khampur, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(b) Smt Sunita Devi D/o Late Sh.
Hari Chand W/o Sh. RajPal R/o RZ-124A, Dwarka Vihar, Old Kapashera road, Nangli Sakrawati Delhi-110043.
(c) Smt Sharda Parmar D/o Late Sh. Hari Chand W/o Sh. Dinesh Parmar R/o RZ-Q-74, Bhagat Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Mohan Garden, Delhi-110059.
(d) Smt Rita D/o Late Sh. Hari Chand W/o Sh. Promod R/o RZ-
158, Kyon Vishtar, Uttam Vihar, Mohan Garden Delhi-110059.
(e) Smt Shanti Devi Wd/o Late Sh. Hoshiar Singh (Predeceased son of Late Sh. Hari Chand) R/o H.No. 2192A, Shadi Khampur, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-
110008.
(f) Sh. Ayush S/o LateSh.
Hoshiar Singh (Predeceased son of Late Sh. Hari Chand) R/o LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 43 of 73 H.No. 2192A, Shadi Khampur, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-
110008.
(g) Ms. Shivika D/o Late Sh.
Hoshiar Singh (Predeceased son of Late Sh. Hari Chand) R/o H.No. 2192A, Shadi Khampur, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-
110008.
292. Mahipal Singh S/o 42. Mahipal Singh S/o Munshi, Munshi, 1/360 1/280
293. Raj Pal Singh S/o 43. Raj Pal Singh S/o Munshi, 1 Munshi, 1/360 1/280
294. Ballu S/o Shadi Ram, 44. Aradhna W/o Sh. Satish 1/360 Kumar Grand daughter of Sh.
Ballu 1/28055. During arguments, ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that the shares of only petitioners no.10, 11, 18, 23 to 44 were mentioned incorrect by the LAC, in the award as well as in the earlier statements filed under section 19 of the L.A. Act. He further submits that the shares of other petitioners have been mentioned correctly in the award and in earlier statement filed under section 19 of the L.A Act.
56. I have perused the Jamabandi of year 2004-05 Ex. PW-6/2 . As per the above Jamabandi the total land in the above said Khasra numbers was 332 bighas & 7 biswas and out of this total land, land of 3 bighas and 7 biswas has been acquired in the present award. The shares of the petitioners 10, 11, 18, 23 to 44 are mentioned in the Jamabandi Ex. PW-6/2. The Jamabandi Ex. PW-6/2 has already been relied upon by the court while deciding LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 44 of 73 reference under section 30-31 of L.A. Act in a case titled UOI Vs Mamchand & Ors on 01.08.2016.
57. In the statement under Section 19 of L.A Act, filed by LAC West on 10.07.2015, the shares of petitioner no.10, 11, 18, 23 to 44 have been mentioned incorrectly. However, thereafter during trial revised statement has been filed by LAC/West, on 06.07.2018. In the revised statement dated 04.07.2018, as per submission of ld. counsel for the petitioners, the shares of all the abovesaid petitioners have been mentioned correctly. The revised Statement filed by LAC, West on 06.07.2018 has been given mark CWX today for the purpose of identifying the said document. In view of the above said facts and observations, it is held that petitioners are co-owners in the acquired land and having share in the acquired land as per revised statement filed by the LAC, West under section 19 of the L.A Act on 06.07.2018 and as per Jamabandi for the year 2004- 2005 Ex. PW-6/2. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
58. Findings on Issue no. 2.
Issue no 2: What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
59. The burden to prove the issue no. 2 is upon the petitioners and in order to prove issue no. 2, the petitioners have examined total 10 witnesses.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 45 of 7360. PW-1 Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain has proved the record of auction and lease deed pertaining to the plots no. 4, 5, 6, 10 & 23, West Delhi, District Centre, Shivji Palace, Raja Garden, New Delhi as Ex. PW-1/1(OSR), Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) Ex. PW-1/3 and Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly)(OSR) respectively.
61. PW-2 Sh. Rakesh Chand, has proved the copy of Conveyance Deed and Perpetual Lease deed pertaining to plots no 3 & 4 as Ex. PW-2/1 (Colly) & Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) respectively ( OSR).
62. PW-4 Sh. Naveen has proved the sale deed dated 15.11.1996 exhibited by Kanishka Builders & Promoters Private Limited in favour of Tata Mac Graw Hills Publishing Co. Ltd. Ex. PW-4/1.
63. PW-8 Sh. Vijay Kumar, has proved the attested copy of Schedule rates issued by L & DO department as Ex. PW-8/1. The respondents have not disputed the genuineness of the above said details of rates brought by the witness.
64. PW-5 Shri Rakesh Kumar, Patwari from the office of LAC, West had brought the certified copy of award No. 2/2000-01 and original Award No. 4/DC(W)/2005-06 of Village Khampur Raya, New Delhi and proved the copy of the same as Ex-5/5 & Ex. PW-5/4 respectively. He has also brought the certified copy of Award No. 1/DC(W)/2001-02 of Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi and proved the copy of the same as Ex-5/3 LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 46 of 73 (OSR) and also brought the original Award No. 13/DC(W)/2004- 05 dated 02.02.2005 of East Patel Nagar, original Award No. 14/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 28.01.2005 of Main Patel Road, Patel Nagar and proved the copy of the same as Ex-5/1 and Ex-5/2 (OSR).
65. PW-10 has exhibited the copy of Judgment passed in a reference case u/s 30-31 L.A. Act, titled UOI Vs Mamchand and Ors. as Ex. PW-10/2, Certified copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 3.12.2001, passed in a writ petition titled as Phool Singh and Ors. Vs UOI & Ors. as Ex. PW-10/3 and certified copy of the Writ Petition Ex. PW-10/4. PW-10 further exhibited the copy of Judgment passed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, ld. ADJ, in the reference case titled Sh. Virender Sood Vs UOI & Anr. Ex. PW-10/5.
66. The petitioners have primarily placed reliance on sale deeds, lease deeds, auction proceedings, previous LAC Awards of Village Khampur Raya and of adjoining areas and also placed reliance upon previous Reference Court Awards of the same village as in the present case i.e. Khampur Raya and also of adjoining village Basai Darapur. Additionally, they have also placed reliance on the notification issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment dated. 16.04.1999 wherein indicative rates for residential and commercial properties (in sq. meters) in Delhi were notified and which were in force on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 Land Acquisition Act of the acquired land. The petitioners are also mainly putting LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 47 of 73 reliance upon the sale deed executed between Kanishka Builders P. Ltd. (vendor) and Tata McGraw Publishing Company (vendee) in respect of property situated on main road, West Patel Nagar Ex PW-4/1.
67. All the exhibited sale deed/Conveyance Deed/Perpetual lease deeds on behalf of petitioners except Ex. PW-2/1 (Colly) & Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) relate to the transaction of commercial in nature. The factors that go in towards purchase of a commercial property in a developed area cannot be considered to be a good indicator of the prevailing market price at the relevant time for the land situated in the vicinity unless there is clear evidence to prove that the land in question was having the same use, potential and location as the one on which reliance is being placed.
68. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that the acquired land is fully developed and has proper road and other amenities. The petitioners have also failed to prove that there are commercial properties near to the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and has, thus, failed to prove its commercial use and potentiality. The sale deed Ex PW-4/1 is a sale deed dated 15.11.1996 executed between two corporates and subject matter of the sale deed has already been constructed up to three floors i.e. basement, ground floor, first floor, ad-measuring 800 sq. yards. This property is a commercial property being purchased by two corporators and it is purchased by Tata Mac Graw Hills LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 48 of 73 Publishing Co. Ltd for its special needs and this sale deed cannot be equated as transaction between an average buyer and an average seller. Therefore, the sale deed Ex PW-4/1 cannot be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land of present reference.
69. The Perpetual lease deeds pertains to plot No. 4, 5, 6, 10 & 23 Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) to Ex. PW1/4(Colly) were result of auction proceedings of commercial plots in a commercially developed area i.e. District Centre, Raja Garden and hence, cannot be equated with the potential of acquired land in any manner, as per the observations given in the above para.
70. The petitioners have relied upon Award passed in respect of land acquired in village Basai Darapur, which is adjoining the revenue limits of the village Khampur Raya, where the acquired land is situated. PW-9 proved the copy of ask Sajra Ex PW-9/1(OSR) showing the boundary of village Khampur Raya touching boundary of village Basai Darapur.
71. LAC Awards covering Village East Patel Nagar, Main Patel Road, Village Basai Darapur and Khampur Raya, New Delhi, were exhibited Award No. 13 as Ex. PW-5/1, Award No. 14 as Ex. PW-5/2, Award No. 1 as Ex. PW-5/3, Award no. 4 as Ex, PW-5/4 and Award No. 2 as Ex. PW-5/5 respectively. The dates of notifications issued under section 4 of the L.A. Act in the above said acquisition proceedings were 10.02.2003, 01.06.2004, 05.04.1999, 17.03.2004 and 14.05.1997 LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 49 of 73 respectively. In the LAC Awards Ex. PW-5/1 the compensation was assessed @ Rs.13,280/- per sq. meter, In the LAC Awards Ex. PW-5/2 the compensation was assessed @ Rs.13,280/- per sq. meter, in the LAC Awards Ex. PW-5/3 the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 5799.16 per sq. yards, In the LAC Awards Ex. PW-5/4 the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 3500/- per sq. meter.
72. The Judgment Ex PW10/5 given by Ld ADJ, Sh. O.P. Gupta in a case titled as "Virender Sood Vs Union of India relates to Award no. 16 of village Basai Darapur. But this judgment cannot be considered because the award in above said reference judgment was pertaining to the land which is commercial in nature and petitioners of above case had also filed writ petition in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for giving direction to MCD to sanction them plan for construction of commercial complex and the acquired land of the said award was situated in Kirti Nagar, which is a hub of timber market. Award no. 13 and Award no. 14 Ex. PW-5/1 & Ex. PW-5/2 are also of commercial land and pertained to the above-said acquired land and can not be considered for assessing market value of the acquired land of present award on the same analogy.
73. The two judgments in reference case of the award no. 2/2000-2001 and award no. 3/2000-2001, of the same village i.e Khampur Rai have been pronounced by Ld ADJ, Sh. Sanjay Kumar and the copy of the judgments of said answered reference are Ex PW-10/6 and Ex PW-10/7. In the above-said awards, the LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 50 of 73 LAC, West has determined the market value of the acquired land in the above-said awards as Rs. 2000/- per sq. yards and the said market value was redetermined in the above-said judgments @ Rs. 8663/- per sq. meter, after deducting the development charges. The court has relied upon scheduled rates issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment dated. 16.04.1999 Ex PW-8/1 for determining the market value of the land in above judgments. The market value of the acquired land, in the present reference, has been determined @ Rs. 3500/- per square meter by LAC, West, which is very less from the market value of the land of the same village determined by the court in the above-said both judgments.
74. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 has tendered photocopies of three sale deeds dated 3.1.2004, 3.1.2004 and 19.12.2003 respectively as Ex. R-2 to R-3. Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 has relied upon the sale deeds for assessing the market value of acquired land. It is settled law that there is no need to call vendor or vendee to prove the sale deed in order to relying upon said sale deeds for determining the market value of the acquired land. But the respondent no. 1 should have called some official with original record pertaining to the said sale deeds from the Sub-Registrar office, in order to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the above said sale deeds. Even no certified copy of the above said sale deeds has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. The above said sale deeds being photocopies are inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, the LAC West has also not determined the market value of the acquired LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 51 of 73 land on the basis of the above said sale deeds. Even the rates issued by L & DO department are more than the value of the land mentioned in the said sale deeds.
75. The comparison of sale deeds of the land of the same village and the land of adjoining villages, for determining the market value of the acquired land is an established norm, the other relevant factors being the area, nature, location, advantages, disadvantages, soil quality, demand for land, availability of land for development in the area and nature of development in surrounding area thereof. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court given in a case titled as "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs Nemi Chand Damodar Dass & Anr" 2022 livelaw (SC), 603.
76. In a judgment titled as "Bhola Nath Sharma through Lrs Vs Union of India through LAC & Anr, LA.AAP. 109/2013 decided on 23.03.2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows:
"69. It has been the practice to adopt the comparable sales method for determining the market value of the land as aforesaid method is more preferable than computing the valuation of the land on the basis of capitalization of net income method or by taking expert opinion. The reason for the same is that a willing purchaser would always put pay the same price which was fetched of other land with same geographical location and advantage."LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 52 of 73
77. In the above-said judgment, it is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the sale transaction under the registered sale deeds are to be assumed as normal sales by a willing seller to a willing purchaser. However, in the absence of such registered sale deeds, even auction sales, which stand on a different footing, can be accepted if they are the only comparable sale transactions available in terms of proximity in situation and proximity in time to the acquired land.
78. The Supreme court in a titled as " Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board Vs Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & ors", (2011) 2 SCC 246, the Supreme Cour t held as hereunder:-
"7. But where an open auction sale is the only comparable sale transaction available (on account of proximity in situation and proximity in time to the acquired land), the court may have to, with caution, rely upon the price disclosed by such auction sales, by providing an appropriate deduction or cut to off-set the competitive-hike in value. In this case, the Reference court and High Court, after referring to the evidence relating to other sale transactions, found them to be inapplicable as they related to far away properties. Therefore, we are left with only the auction sale transactions. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a deduction or cut of 20% in the auction price disclosed by the relied upon auction transaction towards the factor of 'competitive-price hike' would enable us to arrive at the fair market price."LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 53 of 73
79. In the present reference, the sale deeds, lease deeds and auction proceedings except lease deed/conveyance deed Ex PW-2/1 (Colly) and Ex PW-2/2 ( Colly) are not equitable for assessing the market value of the land in question as already held above. Hence, in the present reference, lease deed/conveyance deed Ex PW-2/1 (Colly) and Ex PW-2/2 (Colly) are remained to be examined as to their applicability in the present reference for determining the market value of the acquired land.
80. PW-11 has deposed in his examination in chief by way of affidavit that the land of the petitioners touches the land of West Patel Nagar, Main Patel Road, Shadipur Metro Station, Patel Nagar Railway Station, Shadipur Bus Depot, Delhi Milk Scheme Plant Shadipur and is surrounded by various developed colonies known as Baljeet Nagar, West Patel Nagar etc. etc. All the facilities and amenities of life such as metalled road, railway station, metro station, bus depot, sewage facility, electricity facility, telephone facility, rail road transport etc. etc. were available in the land in question much prior to date of Section 4 notification.
81. PW-10 further deposed that the land of the petitioners was fully developed land and is surrounded by education institutions, residential area, commercial area of Patel Nagar as well as industrial area of Rama Road, Kirti Nagar and Naraina. The land in the aforesaid colonies were being sold at the rate of more than Rs. 1 lac per sq. yards as on Section 4 Notification date in 2004. Ld counsel for the respondents has LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 54 of 73 only given a general suggestion that the facilities alleged in para no. 11 and 12 of the affidavit of petitioner were available to the land in question prior to the notification issued under section 4 Of land Acquisition Act. The respondents have not led any evidence to rebut the above-said contents of para no. 11 and 12 of the affidavit of PW-10.
82. PW-9 has brought Aks Shajra of village Khampur Rai which prove that the boundary of village Khampur Rai touches the boundary of village Basaidara pur and the said Aks Shajra is Ex PW-7/2 (OSR).
83. In view of the above-said testimonies, it has been proved that the land in question is surrounded by developed area including commercial and residential colonies and it is also proved that there was also existing a constructed building up to 3 floors (basement, ground floor and first floor) on the land of West, Patel Nagar before the issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in the present award. In the award of present reference, the LAC has also mentioned the fact that the acquired land falls in an unplanned colony but respondents have not led any evidence to prove that the colony where acquired land situated is an unplanned colony. The above- said facts prove that on the date of notification i.e. 01.06.2004, the acquired land has the potential to be developed and be used for residential purpose. Though, it has not been proved that the acquired land is equally developed, as per the surrounding developed colonies.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 55 of 7384. In a reference on the present Award, the lease deed/conveyance deed Ex PW-2/1 and Ex PW-2/2 relate to auction of residential plots of West, Patel Nagar which is situated on the land Village Khampur Raya. As the above said lease deed/conveyance deed are the only comparable sale transaction in the present reference and the auction sale transaction can be compared for determining the market value of the acquired land as these transactions are of residential plots and are of the same village. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of "Bhola Nath Sharma through Lrs Vs Union of India through LAC & Anr, LA.AAP. 109/2013 decided on 23.03.2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi"
85. PW-10 has deposed in his examination in chief that the DDA had auctioned plot no 3 and 4 of West, Patel Nagar, Delhi on 23.09.1996 and 11.10.1996. He further deposed that the reserve price of the above-said plots in the auction was Rs. 26,877/- per square meter. As per lease deeds, the above-said plots were auctioned for Rs. 39,027/- per square meter and Rs. 37,894/- per square meter respectively. It is also fact that the above-said residential plots were auctioned after substantial development by the development authority and the above-said plots also situated in a developed area. In a case titled as "Executive Engineer, Karnatka Housing Board (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex court has observed that while considering the auction sales for determining the market value of acquired land, the court should be cautioned while relying upon the price disclosed by such auction sales by providing an appropriate LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 56 of 73 deduction or cut to off-set the competitive hike in value. Hence, the auction sale amount cannot consider as the sale amount paid by as an average buyer. However, in the said auction sale, the DDA has reserved the sale price of Rs. 26,877/- per square meter and below this price the DDA was not ready to sell the abovesaid plots. So, this reserve price can be considered safely as an average sale price to be paid by an average buyer for purchasing the residential plots in West Patel Nagar.
86. The plot no 3 and 4 have been auctioned on 23.09.1996 and 11.10.1996 respectively, therefore, these auction proceedings do not reflect the true value of the acquired land in year, 2004 but these transactions are relevant for showing that as per the conveyance deed/lease deeds executed much prior in time, the market value of the nearby developed land of the same village was much higher than the market value determined by LAC under the present award. The notification for acquiring the land of present reference has been issued after 7 years and 7 months from the date of auction of plot no 4 i.e. 11.10.1996 and the petitioners were awarded compensation at the meager rate of Rs. 3500/- per sq meter, which has worked great injustice to the petitioners. The petitioners are also entitled for appreciation of land rates at the rate of 12% per annum, on the reserve price of plot no 4, which effect from 11.10.1996 to 01.06.2004, which is approximately for about 7 years and 7 months and 20 days. The reliance is placed upon the judgment of "Vedi Ram Vs Union of India & Anr," 93 (2001) DLT, 150, decided on 23.03.2021.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 57 of 7387. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of judgments that the sale deed of the highest market value must be considered for determining the market value unless there are strong reasons for deviation. It is also held in catena of judgment by Hon'ble Supreme court of India as well as by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that deduction upto 1/3rd from the sale price of comparable land may be made, on account of development charges required to be incurred for developing the acquired land. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments:
i. Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. UOI, 176 (2011) DLT 361;
ii. Sri Ram M. Vijayalakshamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of Madras C.A. No. 410 of 1962, decided on 24.04.1963, by Hon'ble Supreme Court; and iii Pratap Singh, through LRs. Vs. UOI & Ors. LA Appeal No. 193/2006 alongwith many other LA appeals, decided on 19.12.2008.
iv Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs Nemi Chand Damodar Dass & Anr" 2022 livelaw (SC), 603.
88. So, it is clear that as per settled law the deduction of around 1/3rd can be made while determining the market value of the acquired land, on account of difference in the level of development between the area of acquired land and the neighbouring area, the sale deed of which is relied for comparison.
89. Hence, in the present case, the fact that land in question is an undeveloped and hilly land and significant LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 58 of 73 engineering skills are required for construction of underground reservoir and pump house by Delhi Jal Board on the acquired land. Huge amount is required to be spent on the acquired land for making it plain and for further develop it and to make it suitable for creating an underground water reservoir and water pump house in a hilly terrain and further for creating an underground water reservoir and water pump on the acquired land. Considering the above-said facts, this court deems it fit to make deduction of 1/3rd from the above-said reserve price of Rs. 26,877/- as development charges. After giving appreciation @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.26,877/-, the amount came to Rs 51,509/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount as development charges from the above-said amount, the amount of Rs. 34,340/- for per square meter is determined as market value of the acquired land.
90. Accordingly, it is held that the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was Rs. 34,340/- per square meter. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
91. Findings on Issue no. 3.
Issue no. 3: Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate?OPP
92. In the present reference, the plea of limitation has neither been framed as an issue nor been raised by any of the LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 59 of 73 party either during the trial or during addressing final arguments. In the present reference, the award has been passed by the LAC, West on 30.05.2007 and the application under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act for sending the reference to the court, has been moved by the petitioners before LAC, West on 10.07.2007 and there is also receiving of the office of LAC, West, on the application filed by the petitioners, wherein date of receiving is mentioned as 10.07.2007. The reference application has been filed by the petitioners within 6 weeks from the date of passing of award by the LAC, West and the application is within limitation, as per Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Hence, it is held that present reference is within period of limitation.
93. The petitioners are also claiming damages under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have alleged in the reference application that the possession of the acquired land ad measuring 3 bighas and 6 biswas had been taken by the Government illegally and unlawfully, more than 40 years ago without acquiring the said land under the law and even without paying compensation to the petitioner. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the land in question has been in illegal possession/occupation of the respondent no. 2/Delhi Jal Board for the last several years.
94. It has been argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the MCD, Delhi after notification on 13.11.1959 without waiting the announcement of award, took the possession of the land in question, immediately after notification issued under LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 60 of 73 section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on 13.11.1959. It is further argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to interest under Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act from 13.11.1962 as the possession of the land was taken immediately by respondent no. 2 even prior to the declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.
95. PW-10, who is one of the petitioner has been examined himself in the court by filing his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In the affidavit, Ex PW-10/A, PW-10 has not mentioned any date and year on which the respondent no. 2 has taken possession of the land in question from the petitioners. The Affidavit of PW-10 is completely silent about the date, month and year of taking of possession of the land in question by the respondents. In the affidavit, the averments regarding taking of possession has been mentioned in para no. 9, wherein it is mentioned that "since the possession of the petitioners' land have been illegally and unauthorizedly obtained/taken over by the respondents, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for interest on compensation under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, from the date of possession till the date of payment of compensation".
96. In his cross examination, PW-10 deposed that he cannot tell since when DJB was in possession of the acquired land since the notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act. He voluntarily deposed that DJB was in unauthorized possession of the land much prior to the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 61 of 73He further deposed that he cannot give the exact year since when DJB was in unauthorized possession of the land.
97. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ petition "Phool Singh Vs Union of India" has held that since the respondents had already utilized the land for public purpose, therefore, inquiry under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, is dispensed with.
98. PW-3 has deposed in the Court that the construction of reservoir and pump house was started by the Delhi Jal Board vide work order dated 04.02.2000 Ex. PW-3/1 and he further deposed that the work was re-awarded and completed on 28.08.2008 vide completion report Ex. PW-3/2. The above said fact is not disputed by respondents during examination of PW-3. The respondent no.2 has also admitted in his written statement regarding utilizing the land in question for underground reservoir and pump house by respondent no. 2 before the issuance of notification under section 4 of the L. A. Act.
99. In view of the above-said evidence, the petitioners has succeeded to prove that the land in question was taken from the petitioners by the respondent no. 2 on 04.02.2000 ( As per Ex. PW-3/1).
100. In a case titled "Bhola Nath Sharma Through Lrs. vs Union Of India Through LAC & Anr, decided on 23 March, 2016, passed by Hon'ble High court of Delhi.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 62 of 73"122. It has been submitted that the compensation to the landlord requires interest to be paid from the date of actual dispossession from the land in dispute. The appellants were dispossessed from 1972 though the notification under Section 4 of the Act came only on 30.06.1978. It appears that the appellants were dispossessed for the purposes of construction of water treatment plant and residential quarters of Delhi Jal Board. This fact has not been disputed and thus it can be taken into account that the dispossession is from the year 1972".
"123. Now the question arises whether the appellants are entitled to payment of interest since the date of their dispossession which is prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act".
"124. The Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself dealing with acquisition of land, taking possession of the same and paying compensation to the land owner. After the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, a proper survey is made. Thereafter the interested persons have the right to object to the acquisition. Thereafter a declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made and published in the Official Gazette. It is at this stage that the Collector issues notice to the interested persons under Section 9(1) of the Act intimating them that the Government intends to take possession of the land. An award is made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act regarding compensation which would be allowed for the land. Section 16 of the Act provides that when a Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land which will thereafter vest in the Government. The stages provided in the Act reflect that possession of the land can be taken only after the award is made under Section 11 of the Act. In urgent situations, an exception has been carved out under Section 17. Whenever, an appropriate Government so directs, the Collector without having made any award, may, on the expiry of 15 days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1), take possession of any land needed for a public purpose and such land shall thereupon vest in the Government without any encumbrance. The urgency which is taken care of by Section 17(1) of the Act requires a notification under Section 9(1) of the Act. Such notification also cannot be issued prior to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act.LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 63 of 73
Thus any possession prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) is without any sanction of law. It is precisely for this reason that the Act requires the determination of the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for the purposes of grant of compensation".
"125. The relevant provisions with regard to payment of interest namely Section 34 of the Act makes it very clear that the interest shall be paid at the rate of 9% per annum from the time of taking possession until paid or deposited".
"126. The Supreme Court in R.L.Jain vs. DDA, (2004) 4 SCC 79 at para 12 held as under:-
"12. The expression "the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited" should not be read in isolation divorced from its context. The words "such compensation" and "so taking possession" are important and have to be given meaning in the light of other provisions of the Act. "Such compensation" would mean the compensation determined in accordance with other provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 11 and 15 of the Act which by virtue of Section 23(1) mean market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) and other amounts like statutory sum under sub-section (1-A) and solatium under sub- section (2) of Section 23. The heading of Part II of the Act is "Acquisition" and there is a sub- heading "Taking Possession" which contains Sections 16 and 17 of the Act. The words "so taking possession" would therefore mean taking possession in accordance with Section 16 or 17 of the Act. These are the only two sections in the Act which specifically deal with the subject of taking possession of the acquired land.
Clearly, the stage for taking possession under the aforesaid provisions would be reached only after publication of the notification under Sections 4(1) and 9(1) of the Act. If possession is taken prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) it would not be in accordance with Section 16 or 17 and will be without any authority of law and consequently cannot be recognized for the purposes of the Act. For parity of reasons the LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 64 of 73 words "from the date on which he took possession of the land" occurring in Section 28 of the Act would also mean lawful taking of possession in accordance with Section 16 or 17 of the Act. The words "so taking possession" can under no circumstances mean such dispossession of the owner of the land which has been done prior to publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which is dehors the provisions of the Act."
"127. In the aforesaid case namely R.L.Jain (Supra), land had been acquired only after the preliminary notification was issued on 09.09.1992 as earlier acquisition proceedings were declared null and void in the suit instituted by the land owner and consequently, he was not entitled to compensation or interest thereupon for the anterior period".
"128. In R.L.Jain (Supra), the Bench, however, noted that where possession is taken prior to the issuance of notification, it would be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the property".
"129. It may be noted here that no effort was made by the land owner to claim any damages for use and occupation of the land or to get the rent for the same".
"130. Strictly speaking, interest is payable since the date of dispossession after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, taking into consideration that appellants are surely to be compensated for the number of years for which they were dispossessed prior to the notification, I deem it expedient to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of dispossession in the year 1972 till the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. This would take care of the damages to which the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, would be entitled to".
"131. The appellants would further be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of notification and 15% per annum after the expiry of one year till the payment".
"132. The appellants shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits, including solatium at the LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 65 of 73 rate of 30% per annum and interest over solatium in terms of the judgment delivered in Sunder vs.Union of India, 2001(7) SCC 211 and Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457".
101. In view of the above said judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled Bhola Nath Sharma ( Supra), it is held that petitioners are entitled to receive damages u/s 34 Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 6% per annum, on the compensation amount w.e.f. 04.02.2000 till date of issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act i.e. 01.06.2004.
102. Ld counsel for the Union of India has argued that the Government should not be burdened with interest at the rate of 15% per annum, as per Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, because there was no fault on the part of Union of India for causing delay in deciding the present reference and the delay in the decision of the present reference took place due to title dispute between the co-sharer of the land in question.
103. He further argued that as per settled law the petitioners are not entitled for interest of the period during which their petition under section 30-31 of L.A. Act remained pending for deciding title dispute between them. He further argued that the legal heir of deceased petitioners who filed delayed application for impleadment, should not be granted interest of the delayed period in moving applications.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 66 of 73104. The case file reveals that during the pendency of present reference petition, some of the petitioners were died and the applications for impleadment of legal heirs of deceased petitioners were filed at belated stage, after the expiry of limitation period, therefore, it is held that the legal heirs of the deceased petitioners, for whose impleadment applications have been filed at belated stage, after expiry of limitation period shall not be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced compensation, for the delayed period in moving application for impledment as legal heirs of deceased petitioners.
105. The second contention of ld. counsel for Union of India is that the petitioners should not be granted interest on the enhanced compensation of the period, during which their petition under section 30-31 of L.A. Act was remained pending for deciding their iner-se dispute of title as it would unnecessary and without any justification burdened the State Exchequer to pay interest @ 15 % p.a. without any lapse on the part of government.
106. In the present case, the application for sending the reference to the court, has been filed by the petitioners before the LAC, West on 10.07.2007 but the reference to this court has been sent by LAC West on 10.07.2015 after expiry of 8 years. The reference petition u/s 30-31 L.A. Act was decided by the court on 01.08.2016. The petitioners have not taken adjournments due to the pendency of the title dispute between them. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioners in pursuing the present LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 67 of 73 reference petition due to the pendency of the title dispute. The government authority i.e. LAC West has taken 8 years in sending reference to court, therefore, the delay is on the part of the government authority in sending the reference to the court.
107. In an appeal ( civil) 667 of 2002, titled Khazan Singh (dead) by LRs vs Union of India, decided on 24.01.2002, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"Section 18 of the Act empowers a person interested in the land to move by a written application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the person interested. If the application for reference is in order the Collector is bound to make a reference of it to the Court."
108. In a case titled as K. Kankarathnamma and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1965, AIR 304, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"We say unfortunately because this is not 'a kind of plea which the State ought at all to have taken. Quite clearly applications objecting to the rates at which compensation was allowed were taken in time by persons interested in the lands which were under acquisition and it was no fault of theirs that a reference was not made by the Land Acquisition officer. Indeed, whenever applications are made under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference unless there is a valid ground for rejecting the applications such as for instance that the applications were barred by time. Where an officer LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 68 of 73 of the State is remiss in the performance of his duties in fairness the State ought not to take advantage of this fact "
109. There is no just/reasonable grounds with government authorities to keep the application of petitioners pending for 8 years. There is no justification as to why the application was kept pending for so long. There is unwarranted delay on the part of the officials who have dealt with the application of the petitioners for forwarding the present reference to this court and due to the lapse of the government authority in timely sending the reference petition to the court, the petitioners can not be dis-entitled from receiving interest of such period as there is no lapse on their part. The petitioners have filed application which is required by law to be filed by the petitioners and thereafter it is the duty of LAC, West to send the reference timely to the court. So, there is clear negligence on the part of officers who have dealt with the present reference application. Due to negligence of the officers of government, in not sending the reference to the court timely, the State has been burdened unnecessary to pay interest @ 15 % p.a for which the erring officers are liable to compensate the government.
110. In the statement filed under Section 19 of L.A. Act, The LAC, West has mentioned the name of petitioner no. 18 as Sh. Ranvir Singh. I have perused the Jamabandi Ex PW-6/2, in which the name of petitioner no. 18 is mentioned as Raghuvir Singh. The LAC, West has failed to correct the name of the LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 69 of 73 Petitioner no. 18, despite taking objections by the petitioners. In view of the above-said facts, it is held that the name of Sh. Ranvir Singh be read as Late Sh. Raghubir Singh and the legal heirs of Late Sh. Raghubir Singh are entitled to receive his share.
111. In view of the above said fact, this court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled for interest for the entire period.
112. Vide order dated 29.01.2017, it has already been held by the court that the petitioner no. 34 to 40 shall be entitled to receive the share of petitioner no. 33, Late Sh. Shanti Devi, in the compensation amount of the acquired land, in equal shares.
113. It has already been held above that the petitioners are co-owner/co-sharers of the acquired land to the extent of their shares mentioned, as per revised statement dated 04.07.2018 filed under Section 19 of L.A. Act and as per Jamabandi Ex. PW-6/2 & the market value of acquired land for compensation is determined @ Rs. 34340/- per square meter. So, the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land, as per their shares mentioned in revised statement dated 04.07.2018 filed under Section 19 of L.A. Act and as per Jamabandi Ex. PW-6/2. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 70 of 73114. ISSUE NO-4 (RELIEF):-
115. In view of above discussion and observation, petitioners are held entitled to following reliefs :-
(i) Petitioners are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.
30840/- (Rs. 34340 - Rs. 3500.00) per sq. meter of the acquired land as an enhancement compensation, over and above the already given compensation @ Rs. 3500/- per sq. meter by LAC, West.
(ii) In addition to the above, the petitioners shall also be entitled for 30% solatium on the enhanced amount, as per Section 23 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(iii) The petitioners shall also be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced compensation amount u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of LA Act till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment, as per judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given a case titled as Bhola Nath Sharma Vs UOI (supra).
(iv) The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of @ 12 % per annum, on the market value of the acquired land, as per u/s 23 (1A) of the L.A. Act, from the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act, till the date of award.
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 71 of 73(v) The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and on additional amount as per directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569, wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded would also be entitled to get interest on additional amount as well as on solatium.
(vi) In addition to above, the petitioners are also entitled to damages @ 6% P.A. on the market value of the acquired land w.e.f. 04.02.2000 till the Section 4 Notification i.e. 01.06.2004.
(vii) The legal heirs of the deceased petitioners, for whose impleadment applications have been filed at belated stage, after expiry of limitation period, shall not be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced compensation, for the delayed period, in moving application for impleadment as legal heirs of deceased petitioners.
(viii) Petitioner no. 34 to 40 shall be entitled to receive the compensation amount of the share of deceased petitioner no. 33 in acquired land, in equal shares.
ix) The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands allowed accordingly.
116. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Copy of the judgment and decree sheet be sent to Land Acquisition Collector LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 72 of 73 (West) for intimation and compliance.
117. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
SHIV Digitally signed by SHIV
KUMAR
Announced in the open court KUMAR Date: 2024.10.28 16:30:44
+0530
on 28th October, 2024 (SHIV KUMAR)
Addl. District Judge-02
(West), Delhi
LAC-72/16 Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 73 of 73