Delhi District Court
Shyam Singh vs Union Of India Through on 11 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No.77A/11
UID 02404C0150962011
IN RE :
SHYAM SINGH
S/O LATE SH. TEK CHAND
R/O VPO HOLAMBI KALAN,
DELHI
...... PETITIONER
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
NORTH WEST,
DELHI.
2. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN, BOMBAY LIFE
BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI
........RESPONDENTS
Award No. 22/199798
Village HOLAMBI KALAN
Date of Award/ Date of
Announcement of Award 30.03.1998
Notification U/S 4 & 17(1) F.10(39)/96/L&B/LA
dt. 15.11.96
Notification U/s 6 F.10(39)/96/L&B/LA(II)
dt. 21.11.1996
LAC No.77A/11 Page 1 of 11
Date of Receipt of Reference : 01.06.2011
Date of Arguments : 11.12.2012
Date of Decision: 11.12.2012
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
J U D G M E N T
1. This reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as LA Act), was sent to the reference court by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred as LAC).
2. A large tract of Land measuring 940 bigha 6 biswa of village Holambi Kalan, Delhi, was acquired by the Govt. for "shifting of Industrial Unit from city area of Delhi/N. Delhi". Notification under Section 4 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') was issued on 15.11.1996. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 21.11.1996; Thereafter, Award bearing no. 22/199798 was announced by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) on 30.03.1998. The LAC determined the market price of the acquired land as Rs.1,86,500/ per bigha for Block 'A' and Rs.1,61,500/ per bigha for Block 'C'.
LAC No.77A/11 Page 2 of 11
3. The brief facts as stated in the reference are that petitioner was the owner/bhumidar of land bearing khasra no.44/14, 17, 45/7, 7, 14, 16, 17, 25, total measuring 5 Bighas 10 Biswas, situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Holambi Kalan, Delhi (the said land). The said land was acquired by Govt. and LAC has passed the award granting Rs.1,86,500/ per bigha as market value to the petitioner. Being dissatisfied to the said value he challanged the award by filing the reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. The petitioner has challenged the said award on the following grounds :
a) that land of the petitioner benefited with all modern facilities like water, electricity, transportation, roads etc. and is surrounded by well developed colonies, godown, farm houses, factories, where prices of the land are @ Rs.2500/ to Rs.3000/ per sq. yards;
b) that land is levelled land and free from all kinds of depression and defects and is situated at considerable high level;
c) that land is fit for industrial/commercial or residential;
d) that the petitioner is fully dependent upon the source of agriculture.
LAC No.77A/11 Page 3 of 11
5. The petitioner has demanded the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.3,000/ per sq. yards.
6. The reference petition was contested by Union of India (hereinafter referred to as 'UOI') as well as Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "DSIDC").
7. Both the respondents have filed their written statement, in which they had taken many objections to the claim filed by the petitioners. In its written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI it is stated that land of petitioner was not surrounded by developed or under developed colonies and can only be used for agricultural purpose and Delhi Land Reform Act was applicable to the said land. It is further stated that compensation awarded by LAC is fair, reasonable and adequate on the basis of market rate and petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement in the compensation awarded by the LAC.
8. In WS of Respondent no. 2/DSIDC, it is denied that land of the petitioner is adjacent to the developed area. It was further denied that at the time of notification u/s 4 market value of the land in the area was Rs.5,000/ per sq. yards. It is further stated that LAC has awarded the just and adequate compensation after taking into consideration all the facts LAC No.77A/11 Page 4 of 11 relevant for determining the compensation and as such petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement in the compensation.
9. During the admissiondenial of documents, petitioner has admitted statement u/s 19 of Land Acquisition Act sent by LAC.
10. After the completion of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any enhancement in compensation. If so, to what amount ?
2. Relief.
11. In support of his claim for enhancement of compensation, Ld. counsel for the petitioner has only tendered the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court dated 27.04.2006 in LA Appeal 591/2005 titled as Nanak Chand V. UOI as Ex.P1.
12. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondents have tendered the copy of the award as Ex. R1 and relied upon the judgment passed in case LAC No. 466A/08 titled as Jagat Singh Vs. UOI & Ors.
13. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record. After going LAC No.77A/11 Page 5 of 11 through the case file my issue wise finding are as under:
14. Findings of issue no. 1 14.1 Petitioner has contended that valuation of land determined by LAC is not reasonable as LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation. However, petitioner has not examined any witness to support his case for enhancement in compensation, but Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in case Nanak Chand Vs. UOI & Ors. (Supra) which was decided by Hon'ble High Court on 27.04.2006. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that Nanak Chand Vs. UOI (Supra) pertained to the same village, same notifications and same award by which the land of the present petitioner is acquired. Hence, same market value of petitioner's land be determined on the basis of said judgment. 14.2 On perusal of said judgment, I found that the Hon'ble High Court in Nanak Chand case (supra) determined the fair market value of levelled/'A' category land of village Holambi Kalan acquired vide award no. 22/9798, as Rs. 9,76,121/ per acre. 14.3 In Nanak Chand's case (supra) the Hon'ble High Court observed that : LAC No.77A/11 Page 6 of 11 "It can safely be stated that the land in question had the potential or had been developed into residential or industrial place. It had metalled roads and as such they would be entitled to some higher compensation than the one awarded by the collector."
Further, the Hon'ble High Court after taking into account judicial pronouncement in Union of India v. Amar Singh RFA 464/88 and other connected appeals, decided on 7.2.2003, Jai Lal (dead) through L.Rs Vs. UOI 94 (2001), DLT 429, Om Parkash (dead) by L.Rs and others Vs. UOI & Anr. 2004 VII AD (SC) 37, determining fair market value of land in village Bhorgarh, in the vicinity of village Holambi Kalan, observed that : ".......The High Court had granted compensation @ Rs.82,255/ per bigha . Still another notification was issued for acquisition of land in village Bhogarh for acquiring a land measuring about 52 acres for construction of godowns for Food Corporation of India etc. in the village Bhorgarh and the other two villages and the Supreme Court approved the grant of compensation to the claimants @ Rs.82,255/ per bigha. As in 1979 as well as in 198283......." ........It is clear from the various judgments which are judicial precedents in relation to the land situated in the revenue estate of Bhorgarh adjacent to the acquired land that the same had received compensation of Rs. 82,255/ per bigha for LAC No.77A/11 Page 7 of 11 acquisition of the land in the year 1982, then by any standards, the present claimants are certainly entitled to enhancement at least of some compensation for compulsive acquisition of their lands which were also their livelihood. ..........." Thus petitioners are entitled to same enhancement."
The Hon'ble High Court further noted that though LAC gave benefit to the claimants by adding value of land @ 11.5% p.a., but has erred in not giving the benefit for the period 1.4.96 to 15.11.96 and observed as under : ".......... No benefit has been given to the claimants for the period from 1.4.96 to 15.11.96, the date of acquisition of their land. Seven to eight months is a material period for considering the benefit to be given on an immovable property in the case of compulsive acquisition. The reference court as well as the Collector have accepted that the claimants would be entitled to the advantage in increase of price of their lands @ 11.5% compounded annually as the original price under the old policy was fixed @ 4.65 lacs per acre w.e.f. 1.4.90 . While, it was raised to Rs.10 lacs per acre w.e.f 1.4.96. This error is manifest in the impugned judgment and in the award of the Collector. The claimants have been given compensation @ Rs.8,95,200/ per acre while they should have given compensation at the rate computed as per the Collector's award even if maintained @ LAC No.77A/11 Page 8 of 11 Rs.9,49,173/ per acre. In terms of the judgments of the High Court and as approved by the Supreme Court in Om Parkash's case (supra) and by the High Court in Jai Lal's case, the claimants would certainly be entitled to higher compensation than the one awarded by the reference court. Even if the land of village Hulambi Kalan is treated inferior to that of Bhorgarh, the claimants would be entitled to higher compensation making a deduction for better location and potential in comparison to the acquired land. In furherance to the judicial pronouncements relating to Bhogarh and with the above recorded benefit @ 12 % annually compounded, the claimants would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.10,03364/ per acre. On the basis of EX.PW1/A if it is taken to be of some evidential value and the reasonable deduction is made on account of industrial development of the sheds in village Bhogarh @ 25% from the rate of 260 per sq.m. And giving some adjustments on account of sq.yds or sq.meters, the claimants would get nearly Rs.9,75,000/ per acre.
The fair market value of the acquired land can reasonably be concluded at Rs.9,76,121/ per acre. ..........."
Because of lack of evidence by the claimants , we approve the agricultural yield, computation based on judicial pronouncements of adjacent village and after correcting an error which has crept in the judgment of the Collector and the reference court with reference to the ploicy given by the Government in relation to agreicultural land in case of acquisition i.e. Policy dated 1.4.97, the LAC No.77A/11 Page 9 of 11 claimants are entitled to more or less the same compensation. Deducing the mean of the above three figures, the fair market value of the acquired land reasonably be concluded at Rs.9,76,121/ per acre. Thus, we would award the said amount of compensation to the land owners/claimants...,"
14.4 Since respondent has not led any evidence to prove that said judgment which pertain to the same notification u/s 4 and same village has been set aside, therefore, I do not find any ground to differ from it, thus determine the market value of the petitioner's land, which is of Category 'A' land @ Rs.9,76,121 per acre. Besides this petitioner shall also be entitle to 12% additional amount u/s 23 (1) A and 30% solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act and 9% interest for the first year and thereafter 15% interest on the enhanced compensation u/s 28 LA Act till the payment of the enhanced compensation.
Issue no. 1 decided accordingly.
15. Issue no. 2 : Relief 15.1 In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled to the following reliefs:
i) Compensation @ Rs. 9,76,121 per acre for the lands failing in category 'A' ;
LAC No.77A/11 Page 10 of 11
ii) additional amount u/s 23 (1A) @ 12% p.a., on the market value from the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
iii) solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation ;
iv) interest under Section 28 of L.A Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC ;
15.2 Reference is disposed of accordingly. 15.3 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. A copy of the judgment be sent to LAC for necessary action.
15.4 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (AMIT KUMAR)
today on 11.12.2012 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01:
DELHI
LAC No.77A/11 Page 11 of 11