Delhi District Court
Lala Ram Sarup Kasera Trust vs Union Of India on 15 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR-II, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
LAC No. 8/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Lala Ram Sarup Kasera Trust
Through its Authorized Trustee/Chairman
Sh. Radhey Shyam
S/o Lala Ram Sarup
R/o D-54, Mansarover Park,
Shahdara, Delhi.
.........Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
Distt. East [Erstwhile now Distt. Shahdara],
Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Centre, JLN Marg
Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002.
.........Respondents
Date of Institution : 20.01.2010
Date of reserving judgment : 26.08.2023
Date of judgment : 15.09.2023
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment, I shall decide the reference petition filed under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'L.A. Act, 1894') for enhancement of the compensation arising out of common award LAC No.8/23 1 No.27/DC[E]/2003-04 dated 09.02.2004 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector/ADM Distt. East Delhi with respect to Chandrawali @ Shahdara, GT Road, Delhi.
2 For deciding the reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In short L.A. Act) r/w statement U/s 19 of the Act sent by the LAC Delhi, the relevant dates and facts which are necessary for adjudication in the present matter are being given herein under:-
i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act : 18.02.2003
ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act : 07.10.2003
iii) Date of award : 09.02.2004
iv) Area of the locality : GT Road, Chandrawali @ Shahdara
v) Project : Construction of Grade Separator-cum-Road Over bridge at GT Road Shahdara Delhi
vi) The land use of the area as per the award : Residential
3 The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the notification dated 18.02.2003 under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 was issued by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") for acquisition of land/properties coming in the way of construction of Grade Separator-Cum-Road Over Bridge at GT Road Shahdara Delhi situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Chandrawali @ Shahdara, which was followed by the Notification dated 07.10.2003 under Section 6 & of L.A. Act, 1894. Keeping in view the use of the land under acquisition as Residential, the LAC assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.1,281/- per sq. mtr. with respect to 6817.50 sq. mtrs. of land which came to LAC No.8/23 2 Rs.87,33,217.50. Further, solatium at the rate of 30% of market value alongwith the additional amount @ 12% of market value w.e.f. 18.02.2003 to 17.02.2004 was allowed apart from cost of structure appended to the said land and statutory interest under Section 34 of the Act. Thus, an Award for total amount of Rs.1,72,28,621.85 was passed by the LAC.
4 Being aggrieved from the lesser rate fixed by the LAC for the acquired land, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 18 of L.A. Act, 1894 before the LAC. The LAC sent the present reference petition to this court for adjudication and notices were issued to the respondent no.1 and 2 and subsequently the present case was listed for trial.
5 In the present petition, the petitioner has contended that the LAC has assessed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of lowest rates possible and the market value of the acquired property was not less than Rs.50,000/- per sq. mtr. as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act. The petitioner further contended that the acquired property was a commercial property and a Dharamkanta was also existing on the acquired property along with 12 commercial shops. Out of the 12 shops, 3 shops were totally acquired and part of the remaining 9 shops was acquired vide the present award. LAC has not treated the structures standing on such lands as 'land' as defined under the Act and has failed to granted 30% solatium on the market value of the structures as well as additional amount of 12% as provided under section 23 of the Act on the same and that the market value of the structures has also been incorrectly assessed at low rates. He further stated that the petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of the award and that the LAC has LAC No.8/23 3 grossly erred in fixing the market value of the commercial land of the petitioner on the basis of lowest sales transactions of internal residential properties of Vishwas Nagar, Bholanath Nagar & Azad Nagar without making further enquires or enquiring as to the genuineness of the sale transactions referred in the award. He took various grounds in the petition inter alia that the LAC has assessed extremely low value for the commercial land of the petitioner and that the LAC has not taken into consideration the development of the area and the prevailing market rates at the time of acquisition. The LAC has failed to appreciate that the land of the petitioner was freehold land value of which was much higher than leasehold lands and that even the Govt. of India levied certain charges in the form of percentage while converting leasehold land to freehold. It is further contended that the LAC failed to appreciate that the acquired land was situated in an approved industrial cum commercial area where all amenities for running industrial establishments were available much prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and these facilities were in the form of grant of license to run a factory, branches of several banks in the area, proximity to a railway station, National Highway-8 i.e. GT Road, availability of regular transport facilities, hospitals, educational institutions, supply of electricity and various forms of communication. It is further contended that the market value of the land if sold in the open market under the prevalent conditions of demand and supply, would not be less than Rs.50 thousands per sq. mtr. which the petitioner claims to be the fair market value of his land and he therefore prayed that he be granted market value of his land at LAC No.8/23 4 the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per sq. mtr. besides other statutory benefits.
6 Both the respondents have filed their separate written statement/reply. The respondent no.1 i.e. Union of India took various preliminary objections in its written statement that the petition is not maintainable as the LAC has already assessed the correct market value of the land in question at the time of publication of the notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act and the value assessed by the LAC is quite reasonable and sufficient. The claim of the petitioner with respect to measurements, apportionment and compensation of land was admitted to the extent of Section 19 statement of LAC. The petitioner claimed excessive and exorbitant market value of the land and structures. In order to assess the fair market value of the land, LAC has considered 'Schedule of Market Rates' of land of various locality of Delhi, issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Government of India. After considering all the factors, LAC has found that potential of the land in the area was very limited. Lastly a prayer has been made for dismissal of the reference petition with heavy costs. 7 The respondent no.2/MCD also filed its written statement stating that the present petition is not maintainable and there is no legal infirmity in the award passed. The respondent no.2 further averred that the ADM / LAC had rightly assessed the compensation since the entire acquired area was residential in nature and prayed for dismissal of the reference petition. The respondent no.2 further averred that the award is based upon sound reason. The respondent no.2 further averred that respondent no.1 has vested with the powers under the provisions LAC No.8/23 5 of LA Act, 1894 to determine the compensation, therefore, the amount of compensation determined by LAC @ Rs.1281/- sq. meters, after considering the matter in its entirely, is legal, perfect and in accordance with law, Hence respondent no.2 also prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8 Replication to the written statements was not filed by the petitioner.
9 From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide its order dated 22.07.2011:-
1 Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the amount of compensation? OPP 2 Relief?
10 The present case has also passed through two rounds of litigation. My Ld. Predecessor had, vide order dated 23.07.2016, enhanced the market value of the acquired property of the petitioner on the basis of the market value assessed with respect to the properties acquired vide award No.2/2007-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi in case titled Chandra Pratap Singh Vs. UOI & Anr. bearing LAC no.1/2009 and assessed the market value of the acquired property @ Rs.6594/- per sq. mtr. along with all the statutory benefits and the proportionate amount of the value of structures as mentioned in the award to the extent of Rs.5,66,083/-. The said judgment was passed on the above stated judgment wherein the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act was 12.04.2006 and the date of notification in the present case is 18.02.2003 i.e. almost three years prior to the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act with respect to the properties acquired vide award no.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi.LAC No.8/23 6
11 Since the judgment dated 23.07.2016 passed by my Ld. Predecessor was on the basis of circle rates, the said matter was also remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 21.12.2017 in LA appeal No.86/17 stating that in opportunity to lead additional evidence would be given to all the parties since the circle rates could not be taken as the sole basis for the assessment of market value.
12 In the earlier proceedings, ld. counsel for petitioner examined as many as 2 witnesses in support of her claim which have been discussed and dealt by my Ld. Predecessor at the time of passing of the judgment dated 23.07.2016. 13 After the present case was remanded back for additional evidence, the ld. Counsel for the petitioner adduced additional evidence and PW3 Sh. Nishant Patwari, LAC (West), Raja Garden, New Delhi and PW4 Sh. Ranjan Kohli, Law Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Asset Recovery Branch, Ashram Chowk. The petitioner relied upon the entire evidence led in case titled Jyotsana Gupta Vs. UOI (supra) and therefore relied upon the Master Plan of 1962 along with the Zonal development plan of Zone E. In addition, the petitioner proved the schedule of L&DO rates of the various commercial properties of Delhi w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and which were published during the trial in the present case. The petitioner contended that the said rates were retrospective in nature and should be considered for assessment of market value as in the case of the properties acquitted vide award No.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi. The said rates were exhibited as Ex.PW12/1 in case titled Jyotsana Gupta vs. UOI (supra).
14 The petitioner further summoned a witness from the LAC No.8/23 7 office of LAC, West to prove the award No.4/DC(W)/10-11, Basai Darapur in which the LAC had assessed all the statutory benefits on the value of structure as well. The said award is Ex.PW3/1. The petitioners also relied upon the Zonal development plan of Zone E by summoning a witness from the concerned department and the said plan was exhibited as Ex.PW14/1 and Ex.PW14/2 in case titled Jyotsana Gupta vs. UOI (supra). Even the master plan stated that the area of Shahdara between GT Road and Railway Line was commercial since the year 1962 and the same ought to have been taken into consideration at the time of assessment of the market value.
Thus the petitioner, in totality, examined as many as 04 witnesses to prove the location and market value of the acquired property as on the date of notification u/s 4.
15 The respondent no.1/UOI did not lead any evidence except the award and the respondent no.2/MCD filed an evidence by way of affidavit, in the earlier round of litigation stating that the said land have been handed over to the PWD vide letter dated 09.03.2012. Along with the said evidence, the MCD exhibited the copy of the letter as well as the list dated 5.11.2012 of all the roads which have been handed over to the PWD and exhibited the letters as Ex.R2W1/1 and Ex.R2W1/2. 16 The respondents chose not to lead any additional evidence in support of their claim or in rebuttal. However, the MCD averred that the order dated 23.07.2016 should be set aside as the compensation assessed is just, fair and reasonable. 17 After conclusion of additional evidence of all the parties, the matter was posted for final arguments.
18 Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and ld. Counsel for LAC No.8/23 8 respondent no.2 filed their respective written arguments and they submitted that they do not want to submit anything else beyond written submissions. The respondent no.1 did not file any written submissions despite giving opportunity.
19 I have perused the evidence and written arguments as filed by the parties and also perused the record. On perusal of record, my issue-wise finding is as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1
20 The onus to prove this issue was upon both the petitioner. First and foremost, for the ascertainment of the actual market value, it is necessary to consider the admissions made by all the parties in the pleadings as well as in their evidence led in support of their contentions. The relevant portion of the award announced by the LAC is reproduced herein under:-
"The properties under acquisition are situated adjacent to Shahdara Flyover and have residential as well as commercial activities in the vicinity. These properties are situated very close to the Metro Station Shahdara. There is also a commercial market nearby the properties under acquisition. The properties are under use of both for commercial as well as residential. However, the land use of the properties under acquisition is residential."
21 The LAC, while assessing the market value of the land has observed that the acquired properties were commercial as well as residential and there was a commercial market in existence at the time of the announcement of the award. The LAC has not stated as to on what basis the land use of the acquired property was held to be residential in spite of him making admissions that there were commercial as well as residential properties in the area.
LAC No.8/23 922 As per section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the market value of the acquired properties is liable to be ascertained/ determined as on the date of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the L.A. Act which in this particular case is 18.02.2003. The petitioner has duly stated that the rate of Rs.1281/- per sq. mtrs. as assessed by the LAC is extremely meagre for the prime commercial property of the petitioner and that the acquired area was on the main GT Road. Even the award bears a mention of the fact that the acquired properties are on Main GT Road Shahdara.
23 Section 23 of L.A. Act, 1894 provides that in order to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act.
24 In Kapil Mehra Vs. UOI (MANU/SC/0947/2014), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase, and where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighborhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4 (1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidence have to be considered. It has been further observed that for the purpose of fiXation of fair and reasonable market value of any type of land, abnormally high value or abnormally low value sales should be carefully discarded".
LAC No.8/23 10The factors have also been mentioned in para 10, which are required to considered in determining the market value of the land as:-
a. existing geographical situation of the land;
b. existing use of the land;
c. Already available advantages, like
proXimity to national or state highway or road and/or developed area and;
d. Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the acquired land.
25 In Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board & Ors. Vs. K.S. Gangadharappa & Anr.
(MANU/SC/0598/2009), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as:-
"11. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fiXation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made as:-
i. when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4 (1); ii. it should be a bona fide transaction; iii. it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and iv. it should possess similar advantages."
26 In the case of Krapa Rangiah Vs. Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition reported in [1982] 2 SCC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that where similar LAC No.8/23 11 lands are acquired under the same notification, the same rate of compensation should be awarded for other lands acquired under the same notification. In the case of Bhag Singh & Ors. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in [1992] 4 SCC 692, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that judgment of a court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired land even though not inter parties could be admitted in evidence as an instance from which the market value could be inferred. It was further observed that there would be no difficulty in accepting such judgment as one furnishing the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land if the opposite parties do not genuinely dispute the position that the judgment relied upon could be accepted as the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land. In the case of Goa Housing Board versus Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar reported in [2011] 10 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to reiterate that similarly situated land in the same area having the same advantages and acquired under the same notification should be awarded in same compensation.
27 In the present matter, the LAC itself admitted that there was a commercial market in the vicinity and that the properties are under the use of both commercial as well as residential.
28 Apart from the said admission made by the LAC, the petitioner and other property owners have also proved the Zonal development plan of Zone E as Ex.PW14/1 and Ex.PW14/2 in which the acquired area marked at Point A has been clearly shown to be commercial. Even the master plan clearly mentions LAC No.8/23 12 that the entire area between GT Road and Railway lines Shahdara is commercial. The respondents did not give any rebuttal evidence to rebut the said contention.
29 The respondent no.1 also admits the fact that the LAC has admittedly considered the acquired property to be commercial.
30 It is pertinent to mention that the L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development had revised the land rates of various commercial leasehold properties in Delhi vide list dated 02.05.2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and the commercial land rates for the entire East Delhi was the same which included the area of the properties acquired vide award No.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur as well as the present area.
31 Admittedly, the acquired properties were freehold in nature and the acquired area of Chandrawali, Shahdara GT Road is touching the area of Jhilmil Tahirpur and there is no evidence on behalf of the respondents to negate the contention of the petitioner and the evidence proved by him. Since the L&DO rates for entire East Delhi were the same and there is no distinction made in the said rates, I am of the opinion that the market value as assessed in respect of the properties acquired vide award No.2/07-08 can be taken as the basis for the assessment of the market value in the present award as well specially when the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act in the present case is only three years prior to the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act of award no.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi.
32 The written arguments submitted by the MCD are also only a reiteration of their written statement and the respondent no.2 has vehemently argued that circle rates could not be taken LAC No.8/23 13 as the sole basis for the determination of the market value in the present case as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled UOI Vs. Savitri Devi, 2017 SCC online 1400. This court is also of the view that the circle rates cannot be taken as the basis for assessment of market value in the present case and is thus relying upon the judgments passed in case titled Chandra Pratap Singh Vs. UOI & Anr. which pertains to the award No.2/07-08 wherein the market value has been enhanced to Rs.48,000/- per sq. mts. as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act in the said case i.e. 12.4.2006. Since the said market value was determined on the basis of L&DO rates relied upon by the LAC himself, there is no reason why the said rates cannot be relied by this court, more specifically when the location and potentiality of the properties acquired vide the present award is similar to that of award no.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur.
33 The petitioner has also relied upon another judgment titled Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. Vs. State of J&K reported in AIR 2017 SC 1518 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons."
34 The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Lal Chand Vs. UOI (supra) that "the distance between the two properties, the nature and situation of the property, proximity to the village or a road and several other factors may all be relevant in determining the market value. Mere production of some exemplar deeds without LAC No.8/23 14 'connecting' the subject matter of the instrument, to the acquired lands will be of little assistance in determining the market value".
The aforesaid judgment has also been relied upon by the respondent no.2 itself and the said judgment has to be construed as a whole and cannot be read in piecemeal.
35 This court has already decided the market value with respect to the properties acquired vide the same notification and the present award and the present case is also no exception.
36 Hence for the foregoing reasons recorded above since the date of notification in the present case is 18.02.2003, this court deems it fit to award Rs.30,000/- per sq. mtrs. as the actual market rate with respect to the acquired properties duly acquired vide award No.27/DC(E)/2003-04, Chandrawali @ Shahdara Delhi after due deduction to the market value assessed at Rs.48,000/- per sq. mts. for the properties acquired vide award No.2/07-08 wherein the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act was 12.04.2006.
37 The LAC has awarded an amount of Rs.1,281/- per sq. mtrs. Therefore the petitioner is held entitled to an enhancement @ Rs.28,719/- per sq. mtrs. over and above Rs.1,281/- per sq. mtrs. as on the date of notification U/s 4 i.e. 18.02.2003. Besides the said market value, the petitioner would also be entitled to solatium @ 30% as per the provisions of LA Act and additional amount U/s 23(1-A) and 28 of the LA Act.
38 Besides the above stated value, the petitioner would be also entitled to the value of structures of Rs.5,66,083/-.
LAC No.8/23 15RELIEF 39 In view of the findings of issue No.1, the petitioner is entitled to the market value @ Rs.30,000/- per sq. mtrs. as on 18.02.2003. In addition, the petitioner would also be entitled to all statutory benefits i.e. 30% solatium on the market value in view of the compulsory nature of acquisition U/s 23 (2) of the LA Act and an additional amount of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act till date of possession or award whichever is earlier as per section 23 (1A) of the LA Act. Besides the petitioner would also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of dispossession till expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of the balance amount.
40 Reference is answered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
41 A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned LAC for information and necessary compliance within three months of its receipt. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed by RAMESH (Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and RAMESH KUMAR pronounced in open court on 15.09.2023). KUMAR Date:
2023.09.15 16:41:46 +0530 (RAMESH KUMAR-II) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHADARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI LAC No.8/23 16