Delhi District Court
Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs . Uoi & Anr. Page 1 Of 18 on 20 November, 2018
LAC No.19/2016
IN THE COURT OF DR. AJAY GULATI, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
ROOM NO. 606, SAKET COURTS, SOUTH DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
In the matter of
LAC No.19/2016
Filing No.641/2013
CNR No. DLST010001482013
1. Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand
S/o Late Nain Singh
R/o A330, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi110 076
2. Ektar Singh @ Gajraj Singh
S/o Late Nain Singh
R/o 575, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi110 076
3. Sushil Chauhan
S/o Late Kharak Singh
R/o 10B/18B, Gali No.10,
Molarband Extension,
New Delhi110 044
4. Rajesh Chauhan
S/o Late Kharak Singh
R/o S228, Iind Floor,
School Block, Shakarpur,
Delhi
5. Smt. Urmila Chauhan
W/o Sh. Santosh Chauhan
D/o Late Kharak Singh
R/o A287, Shalimar Garden,
Extension NO.1, Shahibabad,
Ghaziabad, UP
6. Smt. Bimla
W/o Sh. Arun Kumar
D/o Late Kharak Singh
Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 1 of 18
LAC No.19/2016
R/o H. No.327, Khasra No.242,
Meethapur Village, Badarpur,
New Delhi110 044
7. Smt. Lata
W/o Sh. Raju Chauhan
D/o Late Kharak Singh
R/o H. NO.176, Kabli Gate,
Mawana, Meerut, UP
...................... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
South, M. B. Road, Saket, New Delhi
2. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
.....................Respondents
Reference received on : 10.01.2013
Date of institution : 10.01.2013
Date on which order was reserved : 20.11.2018
Date of Award : 20.11.2018
AWARD
(by the court under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, 1894)
1. The present reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was received from the office of Land Acquisition Collector on an application moved by the petitioners, who have sought enhancement of the monetary award given by Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 2 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the assessment of the market value of the acquired land was done on the lower side without considering the relevant factors for correctly assessing the market value of the land in question. The reference was received from the office of LAC (South) on 10.01.2013.
For answering the present reference petition, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act 23.06.1989 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act 22.06.1990 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act 22.06.1990
(iii) for Project PDD viz Channalization of Yamuna River
(iv) Location/Name of Village Jasola (va)Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC 21/9293 (vb) Area under acquisitionin question 156502 (via) Petition referred to Court on 10.01.2013 (vib) Date of possession 19.01.2006
2. The present reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land situated in village Jasola which was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi. The land in question was acquired by the LAC vide award No. 21/9293 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 23.06.1989 which was followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 22.06.1990.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 3 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 considering the location of land, gave its Award No. 21/9293 by determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition @ Rs.27,344/ per bigha.
4. Since the petitioners did not accept the award, they preferred to file a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 against the Award, before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference filed by the petitioners along with statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 (giving details of acquired area, date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, date of possession and rate of compensation or the share of each of the petitioners in the land) has been forwarded to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector for answering the same.
PETITIONERS' CASE
5. It was claimed in the Reference application, which was forwarded by the LAC, that the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the value of the land at a very low rate without keeping in mind the relevant parameters for determining the rate of compensation. It was averred that petitioner No.1 was the owner of land bearing Khasra No.460 (110); petitioner No.2 was the owner of land bearing Khasra No.431 (010); and petitioner No.3 to 7, after the demise of their father i.e. the original owner, have equal shares in the land bearing Khasra No.458/2 (24). The acquired land in question is in the vicinity of developed Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 4 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 colonies like Sarita Vihar, DDA Flats of Jasola, Sukhdev Vihar, DLF Tower and Apollo Hospital etc. all of which were a part of the land falling in Village Jasola. The same is also surrounded by Friends Colony, New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh and Jamia Milia Islamia University. LAC, at the time of passing of Award, did not consider the sale transactions which had taken place in Village Jasola around the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act.
6. It was averred that the property has great potential value being suitable for commercial, residential as well as industrial purposes; and that civil amenities like water, electricity as well as basic infrastructure in the form of roads, sewerage and hospitals etc. were available on the acquired land prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. It was further pleaded that the market value of the area where the land of the petitioner is situated was not less than Rs.70,00,000/ per bigha or Rs.7000/ per sq. yds; that the land had been declared urbanized before the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act; and that the petitioners were not present at the time of passing of Award. Notice under Section 12 (2) of the L. A. Act was not served upon the petitioners. Petitioners, thus, prayed for grant of compensation for compulsory acquisition @ Rs.70,00,000/ per bigha or Rs.7000/ per sq. yd along with other statutory benefits.
Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 5 of 18 LAC No.19/2016RESPONDENTS' CASE On behalf of UOI/respondent No.1
7. In its Written Statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed the reference application by submitting that all the averments made by petitioners were wrong; that petitioners did not bring specific and cogent evidence in respect of relief claimed in the present reference; and that the Land Acquisition Collector has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act.
8. UOI/respondent No.1 refuted the claims of the petitioners and further submitted that petitioners were not entitled to enhanced compensation. Respondent No.1, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present reference petition.
On behalf of the DDA/respondent No.2
9. Despite opportunities, no Written Statement was filed on behalf of DDA.
ISSUES
10. On 19.11.2013, following issues were framed for answering the present reference:
1. Whether the reference is within period of Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 6 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 limitation?
2. What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of LA Act?
3. To what enhancement in compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled?
4. Relief EVIDENCE ADDUCED On behalf of the petitioners
11. Petitioners, in order to prove their claims for enhanced compensation, examined Sh. Jeet Singh as PW1; Sh. Rajender Prasad Yadav, Halqa Patwari from the office of SDM, Sarita Vihar as PW2; Sh.Mahender Singh, Stenographer from the office of DDA; and Sh. N. S. Bhatti, ASO (DD (LAResidential) as PW4. It is pertinent to mention that due to inadvertence, Sh. N. S. Bhatti, summoned witness was examined as PW2 instead of PW4.
12. PW1 Sh. Jeet Singh i.e. petitioner No.1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.A1 and relied on the following documents:
1. Copy of the judgment dated 24.05.2011 passed by the Court of Ms. Neelam Singh, the then ADJ02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in the case bearing LAC No.96/2011 Siri Ram & Ors Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 7 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 vs. UOI & Ors. As Ex.PW1/1;
2. Copy of the judgment dated 30.11.1998 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA NO.667/1998 titled as Nain Singh vs. UOI as Ex.PW1/2;
3. Copy of the certified copy of the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Court of Ms. Neelam Singh, the then ADJ02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in the case bearing LAC No.224/2011 titled as Jagdish Gulati vs. UOI as Ex.PW1/3;
4. Copy of judgment dated 19.10.2001 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA NO.416/86 alongwith RFA Numbers 408, 452 & 453 of 1986 titled as Ram Chander & Ors vs. UOI as Ex.PW1/4;
5. Copy of the notification No.F.2(49)/65LSG dated 03.06.1966 published in the Delhi Gazette as Ex.PW1/5; and
6. Copy of website printout of list of Urbanized Village as MarkA/PW1.
13. PW1 deposed on the lines of the reference filed under Section 18 of the L. A. Act. During his cross examination on behalf of UOI, he submitted that the land in question was an agricultural land but denied that the same depended on rain for Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 8 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 irrigation; and that there was distance of about 300 meters between the village road and main road. He admitted that at the time of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, there was no government college, hospital or government institute in the village Jasola. However, he submitted that there existed a Senior Secondary School besides Apollo Hospital; and that no commercial activities were undertaken in village Jasola; that there was no development or urbanization & facility of urbanization was only on papers, although water, road and electricity were available there. Witness denied that LAC had correctly assessed the market value of the land in question.
14. Learned counsel for the DDA adopted the cross examination conducted by Learned counsel for the UOI.
15. PW2 Rajender Prasad Yadav, Halqa Patwari was the summoned witness from the office of SDM, Sarita Vihar, who brought the Akshizra of Village Jasola. During his examination inchief, he submitted that Khasra No.431 was close to Link Road passing from Mathura Road to Kalindi Kunj and Khasra No.460 was close to Kalindi Kunj; that there were commercial activities on the main road of Abul Fazal Enclave which is situated near Kalindi Kunj and came in existence 12 to 13 years ago; that Sarita Vihar is a DDA Colony which is at a distance of 1 km from the acquired land; and that Apollo Hospital and Jasola Sports Complex are located within the revenue estate of Village Jasola.
Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 9 of 18 LAC No.19/201616. During his cross examination on behalf of UOI, PW2 admitted that Khasra No.431, 460 and 458/2 of Village Jasola were agricultural lands; and that the land in question was in the middle of the agricultural land of other people of the village. He submitted that Akshizra brought by him did not reflect Link Road to Mathura Road in respect of Khasra No.431. He denied the suggestion that no commercial or industrial activities were being run near the acquired land.
17. Learned counsel for the DDA adopted the cross examination conducted by Learned counsel for the UOI.
18. PW3 Mahender Singh, Stenographer was also a summoned witness from the office of DDA, Institutional Land Branch, Vikas Sadan, who brought the site plan of Kalindi Kunj Depot showing handing over of the possession of the acquired land i.e. Khasra No.431 (308), 460 (110) & 458 (204) by DDA to DMRC on 08.01.2013 alongwith Kabza Karwai and exhibited the same as Ex.PW3/1. He further exhibited the relevant portion encircled on site plan as Ex.PW3/2.
19. In his examinationinchief, PW3 deposed that he did not know as to when had DDA taken over the land from Delhi Government/LAC & what was the status of land i.e. whether agricultural or not. With regard to questions in respect to the handing over of agricultural land/ developed land by LAC/DDA to DMRC, the witness referred to Ex.PW3/2. About the rate at which DDA sold the residential and commercial plots in Jasola Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 10 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 Vihar, he replied that the same could be answered by other wing of DDA. He further deposed that he did not have knowledge about the surrounding areas and as to when did the DDA sell the land to DMRC by submitting that appropriate note in this regard was yet to be put up.
20. During his cross examination on behalf of UOI, he submitted that he was not an expert in reading or preparing site plan of any project; that he did not have personal knowledge about site plan or Kabza Karwai Ex.PW3/1; that he could not say on what basis did the DDA gave land to public in auction or on project basis to the companies; and that he had never visited the acquired land.
21. Learned counsel for the DDA adopted the cross examination conducted by Learned counsel for the UOI.
22. PW4 N. S. Bhatti, ASO, DD (LAResidential), Vikas Sadan was also summoned as a witness who brought the summoned record of Village Jasola. He deposed that he did not know as to when was the colony named Jasola Vihar carved out by DDA; that this colony was carved out around 1995 in which residential as well as commercial plots were carved out and sold through auction. He further deposed that he had come with the residential file of the year 2003; and that plot No.69, PocketI measuring 250.14 meter was auctioned to Manish Malhan for a consideration of Rs.57,15,000/ against reserved price of Rs.46,27,590/ record of which was exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 11 of 18 LAC No.19/2016
23. He also brought the residential file of the year 2004 and deposed that plot No.41, PocketII measuring 250.14 meter was auctioned to M/s Medi Tonics (India) Pvt Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.8,15,40,000/ against reserved price of Rs.78,79,410/ record of which was exhibited as Ex.PW2/B. He further deposed that as per the file of the year 2003 regarding commercial plots, one commercial plot No.7 measuring 5198 sq. meter was auctioned @ Rs.33,07,50,000/ against the reserved price of Rs.22,00,00,000/ record of which was exhibited as Ex.PW2/C. During his cross examination on behalf of UOI, he admitted that the plots which were reserved for auction were already developed by the DDA. He further submitted that the DDA also executed a perpetual deed in the name of the purchaser but he could not tell the procedure as to how the rates of the auction of the plots were reserved by the DDA because the said work was of the Finance Department.
24. Despite opportunity, no cross examination was conducted by the DDA.
No further evidence was led and the same was closed on 14.11.2017.
25. It is pertinent to mention here that DMRC has not been impleaded as a party in the present reference.
On behalf of the respondents
26. On 13.03.2018, in evidence on behalf UOI/respondent Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 12 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 No.1, statement of Sh. S. K. Puri, Learned counsel for UOI was recorded whereby he exhibited the Award No.21/199293 dated 19.06.1992 of Village Jasola as Ex.R1/1.
27. On behalf of DDA/respondent No.2, no evidence was led and consequently, vide order dated 13.03.2018, evidence on behalf of DDA was also closed.
FINDINGS
28. The Court gave a patient hearing to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties, and has also minutely gone through the pleadings on record and the evidence adduced.
29. After giving due consideration to all of the above, the issuewise findings are as follows:
ISSUE NO.2 What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of LA Act?
30. Petitioners in support of their claim for enhancement of the compensation amount, primarily relied on different judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court as well as the Learned Predecessor Judges. At the time of addressing final Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 13 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 arguments, Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a judgment passed by the court of Sh. Lalit Kumar, ADJ01, Southeast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi pertaining to the acquired land of Village Jasola vide Award No.21/199293 bearing LAC No.39/2014 titled as Madan Lal vs. UOI & Ors. Respondent No.1 on the other hand only relied on the Award passed by the LAC as R1/1.
31. The judgment passed by the court of Sh. Lalit Kumar, the then ADJ02, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi i.e. LAC No.39/2014 titled as Madan Lal vs. UOI & Ors dated 15.01.2016 pertains to the land of Village Jasola acquired vide Award No.21199293 (same as the Award in the present reference) and squarely covers the present reference.
32. Learned Reference Court, in the aforesaid judgment, while assessing the correct market value of acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in an appeal titled as Ram Chander & Ors vs. UOI & Ors wherein market value of the acquired land under reference was assessed @ Rs.2240/ per sq. yds. The Learned Reference Court also relied on the judgments passed by the court of the then Learned ADJ titled as Sadhna Gupta vs. UOI & Jagdish Gulati vs. UOI vide which rate of compensation for acquisition of land was fixed @ Rs.4948/ per sq. yds. Consequently, the compensation was enhanced by assessing Rs.4,948/ per sq. yds as the correct Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 14 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 market value of the acquired land. The acquired land in the present reference petition as also the land in question the judgment relied upon by the petitioners i.e. Madan Lal s. UOI & Ors. were acquired vide the same Award i.e. Award No.21/1992
93. Consequently, the correct market value of acquired land in the present reference petition is also fixed at Rs.4,948/ per sq. yds, irrespective of the nature of land.
33. Accordingly, issue No.2 is decided as above.
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the reference is within period of limitation?
34. The application for forwarding the reference of the petitioners was filed before the LAC on 17.10.211. The petitioners contend that limitation to file a reference application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act is to be construed from the date of payment of compensation amount by the LAC since the said date is to be construed as the date of knowledge of passing of the Award qua the petitioners. The petitioners received compensation from LAC on 11.08.2011 & 23.01.2012 Admittedly, no notice was served on the petitioners under Section 12(2) of the L. A. Act. No evidence has been led by respondents to show the presence of the petitioners before the Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 15 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 LAC on the date of passing of the Award. However, this Court is unable to accept the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioners that they are deemed to have gained knowledge about the 'Award' only when they received compensation from the LAC, under directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a writ petition preferred by the petitioners against the LAC for seeking directions for payment of compensation amount.
35. In this regard, it needs no specific highlight that there is nothing to suggest in the entire L. A. Act that limitation stipulated in Section 18 of the L. A. Act is to be worked out from the date of receiving compensation amount. It may be possible that knowledge of Award coincides with payment of compensation. However, in the present case, the petitioners were well aware of the contents of the 'Award' having been passed on 19.06.1992 which is clear from the fact that petitioners had appended a copy of the 'Award' along with the writ petition filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Even as per the averments of writ petition and the written submissions filed before this Court, petitioners had moved an application before the LAC for receiving compensation amount in the year 2007. Such an application could only have been moved if the petitioners had specific knowledge that 'Award' had been passed in respect of the acquired land in question. It is not possible for this Court to believe that despite having moved an application in for receiving compensation in the year 2007 i.e. qua the Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 16 of 18 LAC No.19/2016 acquired land, the petitioners did not have knowledge of the contents of the Award till the filing of the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the year 2011 wherein a copy of the Award was appended along with the Writ Petition. The reference application was eventually filed by the petitioners on 17.10.2011 even though the contents of the Award was within their knowledge since the year 2007 i.e. when they had moved an application in the year 2007 for receiving compensation awarded by the LAC. Consequently, the reference application was moved after the period of 6 months from attaining knowledge of the Award dated 19.02.1992. Consequently, the present 'Reference' is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 18(2)(b) of the L. A. Act.
36. This issue is accordingly decided against the petitioners.
ISSUE NO.3 To what enhancement in compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled?
37. In view of the findings given in issue No.1, the reference filed by petitioners has been held to be barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, petitioners are not held entitled to receive the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land.
Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 17 of 18 LAC No.19/2016Consequently, issue No.3 is decided against the petitioners. RELIEF
38. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners are not held to be entitled to receive the enhanced compensation.
39. The reference petition stands answered as above. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, South District, Delhi, for necessary information. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (AJAY GULATI)
COURT ON 20.11.2018 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Jeet Singh @ Satish Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. Page 18 of 18