Delhi District Court
Smt. Pyari Devi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No. 446A/08
UID No. 02404C0180922008
IN RE :
SMT. PYARI DEVI
W/O SH. NARAYAN,
R/O VPO ALIPUR, DELHI
......PETITIONER
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
NORTHWEST, DELHI.
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN
VIKAS SADAN, I.N.A. MARKET,
NEW DELHI.
.........RESPONDENTS
Award No. 30/200304
Village Alipur
Date of Award/ Date of
Announcement of Award : 18.03.2004
Notification U/s 4 F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7329
dated 22.08.2001
Declaration U/s 6 F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7910
dated 26.07.2002
LAC No. 446A/08 Page 1 of 5
Date of Receipt of Reference : 27.05.2008
Date on which judgment reserved: 17.01.2011
Date of Decision : 25.01.2011
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
J U D G M E N T
1. A large tract of land measuring 281 bighas 15 biswas in village Alipur was acquired by the Government for a public purpose namely "Freight Complex (Narela)" under Planned Development of Delhi. Notification u/S 4 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') was issued on 22.08.2001 and a declaration u/s 6 LA Act was issued on 26.07.2002. The award was announced on 18.03.2004 by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "LAC"), determining the market value of the acquired land of village Alipur @ 15.70 lacs per acre.
1.1 The petitioner not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by LAC for his land, challenged the same under section 18 of LA Act, before the LAC, who forwarded the same to this court, for adjudication.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present reference petition are that petitioner was the owner/bhumidar in possession of land bearing LAC No. 446A/08 Page 2 of 5 khasra no. 31/02(212), total measuring 02 bigha 12 biswas, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Alipur, Delhi110081(the said land). The said land was acquired along with other land for public purpose namely Freight Complex (Narela), Delhi under Planned Development of Delhi. The said land was acquired vide award no. 30/0304. The LAC determined the market value of the land at Rs. 15,70,000/ per acre.
3. The petitioner has challenged the said award on the following grounds:
i) that LAC has assessed the compensation merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without looking into actual market rate of land prevailing in the area.
ii) that LAC had not adopted the correct method of valuation and determined the market value on the basis of policy of the Government of NCT, whereas price of land should have been assessed considering the situation and potentiality of land;
iii) that LAC has failed to appreciate the potential value of the land as the land of the petitioner has great potential value and fit for residential, commercial as well as industrial purposes ;
LAC No. 446A/08 Page 3 of 5
iv) that all the civic facilities, amenities like educational institutes, roads, bus services, electricity, school, college, hospitals and telecommunications etc. are available in the land of petitioner ;
v) that land of petitioner is very fertile and productive and gives atleast three crops in a year.
4. The petitioner has demanded compensation of his land @ Rs.10,000/ per sq. yard and Rs.50,000/ for severing charges.
5. Respondents i.e. Union of India (hereinafter referred to as 'UOI') as well as by Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "DDA") contested the petitioner's claim raising number of usual objections viz. the land in question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can be used only for agriculture ; the compensation as awarded by the LAC, is just and fair.
6. The respondents defended the award and asserted that the compensation granted by the LAC is adequate, just, fair and legal. They contended that the LAC, while making the award, had taken LAC No. 446A/08 Page 4 of 5 into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of all the documents which were made available and produced before him. He had also taken into consideration the area of the land and other amenities/facilities available thereon, while assessing the compensation, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. The onus was on petitioner to prove that he is entitle for enhancement in the compensation awarded by LAC as it was held in State of UP & Anothers Vs. Rajender Singh AIR 1996 SC 1564, Hon'ble Supreme Court Judge held that :
"the onus is on the petitioners to prove that their lands are capable of fetching higher compensation then what has been determine by the LAC and that he is entitle for enhance compensation."
However, he has failed to appear despite giving number of opportunities and therefore petitioner has failed to prove his case. In view of this, I held that petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement in compensation. Reference is decided accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (SANJEEV KUMAR)
TODAY i.e. ON 25.01.2011 ADJ01/ROHINI/DELHI
LAC No. 446A/08 Page 5 of 5