Delhi District Court
Prem Prakash vs U.O.I (Tikri Kalan) on 4 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No.282/2016
DLWT010053802016
Area: Tikri Kalan
Award No.: 02/DCW/2004-05 dated 20.09.2004
Notification u/s 4: no. F.7 (35)/98/L&B/LA/15548 dated
17.12.2002
Notification u/s 6: no. F.7 (35)/98/L&B/LA/21242 dated
11.12.2003
1. Sh. Prem Prakash
2. Sh. Dharam Singh
3. Sh. Jagat Singh
All Sons of Sh. Devi Singh
4. Sh. Azad Singh ( Deceased)
through LRs:-
(i) Smt. Bhaga Devi
W/o Late Sh.Azad Singh
(ii) Sh. Yogesh Kumar
(iii) Sh. Inderjeet Arya
Both S/o late Sh. Azad Singh
5. Sh. Phool Kumar
6. Sh. Ram Kumar
Both Sons of Sh. Devi Singh
All R/o Village & P.O. Tikri Kalan
Delhi
....Petitioners
versus
1. Union of India,
Through L.A.C. West,
Rampura, Delhi
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 1/22
2. Delhi Transco Ltd.,
Shakti Sadan,
Kotla Marg,
Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 05.08.2016
Date of reserving of judgment : 20.05.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.06.2024
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 480 Bigha 12 Biswas of village Tikri Kalan under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification NO. F.7 (35)/98/L&B/LA/15548 dated 17.12.2002, issued under section 4 of the Act and thereafter issued notification under Section 6 vide notification no. F.7 (35)/98/L&B/LA/21242 dated 11.12.2003. In view of the urgency of the scheme the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act were also made applicable to this land. The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of 400/220, K.V. Grid Sub Station at Village Tikri Kalan.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 02/DCW/2004-05 dated 20.09.2004 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for A-Block land and @ Rs.14,00,000/- per acre for B-Block land.
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 2/22
3. The petitioners are the recorded co-owners of the acquired land i.e. 32 bigha 15 biswas which is subject matter of present reference and the land of the petitioners falls in Block B as per the Award passed by the LAC, West.
4. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector, the petitioners have been shown as recorded owner of the acquired land as follows:
Item Name of recorded Khasra Total Details of No. of owner & share No. Area in trees/ NM Bigha- Buildings/ Biswa Crops 53 Prem Prakash S/o 72//23, 4-16 B As per Award Devi Singh 1/6 share 72//24 4-16 B 72//25/1 3-08 B 54 Dharam Singh S/o 72//25/2 0-11 B Devi Singh 1/6 share min 55 Jagat Singh S/o Devi 87//3 4-16 B Singh 1/6 share 87//4 4-16 B 87//7 4-16 B 56 Azad Singh S/o Devi 87//8 4-16 B Singh 1/6 share 32-15B 57 Phool Kawar S/o Devi Singh 1/6 share 58 Ram Kumar @ Ram Kawar S/o Devi Singh 1/6 share Note : Date of possession is 29/11/2004
5. The petitioner filed application for sending reference under Section 18 of the Act, against the findings and LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 3/22 determination of the market value of the land in question made by the Land Acquisition Collector, West and the LAC, West sent the reference to the court for re-determination of the market value of the land in question.
6. In brief the facts stated are that the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No. 72//23 (4-16), 24 (4-16), 25/1 (3-08), 25/2 min ( 0-11), 87//3(4-16), 4 (4-16), 7(4-16),8(4-
16) total measuring 32 bigha 15 biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan, Delhi, has been acquired vide the aforesaid award.
7. It is further averred that petitioners were served notice under Section 9 and 10 of the L.A. Act and they had filed their claim to the LAC, West and the same is mentioned in the award.
8. It is further averred that the petitioners are not satisfied with the award and they object/protest the same on the grounds that the land of the petitioners is very fertile and fit for all purposes i.e. commercial, residential, industrial etc. and all facilities and necessities have been installed there and the land in question is levelled. The land in question is near to the National Highway No. 10, Delhi Rohtak Road and surrounded by many prestigious colonies, village, industries etc. and the value of each and every commodity has been raised day by day and the value of the land has also been increased day by day. The market value in the abovesaid area is not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. yds.
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 4/22
9. It is further averred that the land in question has all modern facilities, necessities of life like telephone, electricity, water connection, public school, Govt. school and most frequently served by DTC, Railway Station, other transportation. The land of the petitioners was very fertile and gave 2-3 commercial crops in a year.
10. It is further averred that the Collector has not legally assessed the market value of the land as he has wholly and solely relied on the policy announcement which come into effect from the year 2001-2002 in which the government fixed the indicative price of agricultural land at the rate of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre for the acquisition of the agricultural land vide letter no. F(9)/20/80/L&B/L.A./6696 dated 09.08.2001 which effect from 01.04.2001. It is further averred that the Collector has not considered the fact that the market value had increased between 01.04.2001 to 17.12.2002 and the Collector failed to find out the real market value of the land. The land under acquisition is assessed at the highest rate of Malgujari, which clearly shows that the land is of the best quality.
11. It is further averred that the land is situated on Main Road and very close to HSIDC Bahadurgarh, PVC Market Tikri, Chara Mandi Tikri, Netaji Subhash Tourism Centre, FCI Godown Ghevra, Indian Oil Depot Ghevera, Proposed sports Academy at Ghevra, Metro Workshop and thousand of Industries working at the time of the notification in the surrounding area. It is further averred that Sir Chhotu Ram Polytechnic Kanjhawla, sir Chhotu Ram High School, Haryana Shakti High School are at stone LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 5/22 throw away from the land of the petitioners.
12. It is further averred that according to the award the land above mentioned has been mentioned in the 'B' Category and the market value assessed by the Collector is @ Rs.14 lacs per acre but the land is totally leveled and in cultivatory possession and there is not a single gadda in the land. The Collector categorized the land of the village in 2 blocks without going through the true facts and without doing the proper survey, which is a gross error on the part of the Collector. There cannot be the differential treatment as to the payment of compensation and if there is discrimination in the payment of the amount of compensation then it amounts to hostile discrimination. It is averred that the act of the LAC is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in awarding the different compensation for the land acquired under the same notification and the award of the land is also same.
13. The petitioner seeks compensation of the land in question @ Rs.10,000/- per sq. yds.; interest @ 15% on the compensation amount due from 29.11.2004 till its realization; solatium @ 30% on the market value and additional amount under Section 23(10-A) of the Land Acquisition Act with all other statutory benefits with damages of the crops @ Rs.1 lacs; to pay 'A' Category compensation to the petitioners for their land which is mentioned as 'B' Category in the award and further the enhancement in the market value of 'A' category land as determined by the LAC.
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 6/22
14. Respondent no.1/ Union of India filed written statement and taken the preliminary objections that the compensation assessed by the Collector is sufficient and reasonable and it reflect the true value of the land, at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners have not denied that they have not received the notice under section 12, sub-section (2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, therefore the present reference is barred by limitation and has to be dismissed at the very threshold as the same cannot be extended in any circumstances. The limitation for filing the reference as per the Land Acquisition Act has to be governed under section 18 (2) of the Act only.
15. It is further contended by respondent no. 1 that the petitioners are claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land without any documentary evidence. The value determined by the Collector is quite fair and reasonable on the basis of location, situation and the potential value of the land. The petitioner has not brought any specific and cogent evidence on record to claim a higher compensation. The reference petition is barred by limitation.
16. On merits, all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied by respondent no. 1 and it is reiterated that the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 7/22
17. Respondent no.2/Delhi Transco Ltd. has also filed written statement. In the preliminary submissions/objections, it is stated that the contents of written statement filed by respondent no.1/ Union of India may be read as part and parcel of their reply. It is stated that land was acquired for public utility in respect of installation of 400/220 KV Grid Sub-Station at Tikri Kalan through LAC and the possession of the land has already been handed over to the answering respondent/DTL and necessary compensation has already been paid. The present petition is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. The amount paid is just and fair and requires no enhancement.
18. On merits, all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied by respondent no. 2 and it is reiterated that the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
19. Petitioners have not filed any rejoinder to written statements filed by respondents.
20. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 17.11.2016:
1. Whether the petition is barred by limitation?
OPR
2. What was the fair market value of the land in question on the date of Notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 8/22
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
4. Relief.
21. In support of their case, petitioner no.1 Sh. Prem Prakash got examined himself as PW1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A in which he reiterated the contents of the reference and relied upon following documents:
(i) Mark A: Copy of Judgment of Hon'ble High Court passed in LA.A No. 193/2006
(ii) Mark B: Copy of Judgment passed by the court of Sh.
Paramjit Singh, ld. ADJ, Delhi dated 15.10.2014, titled 'Pradeep Singh Vs Union of India' in LAC No. 05/11.
Thereafter, as per statement of petitioner no. 1, the evidence of petitioners was closed on 28.04.2017.
22. From the side of respondent no.1/ Union of India, Sh. Daya Ram, Counsel for the respondent no.1 relied upon and tendered in evidence copy of award No. 2/DC (W)/2004-05 pertaining to Village Tikri Kalan as Ex. R-1. Thereafter, as per statement of Counsel for the respondent no.1, the evidence on behalf of respondent no. 1 was closed on 20.07.2017.
23. Sh. S.L. Trisal, Counsel for the respondent no.2/DTL vide statement dated 20.07.2017 adopted the evidence LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 9/22 led by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/UOI and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.2/DTL.
24. I have heard Sh. Parvesh Dahiya, ld counsel for the petitioners; Sh. Vijay Sharma, Counsel for the respondent no.1/UOI and Ms. Chetna Rai, Counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the record.
25. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also filed written submissions. In the written submissions, ld. counsel for the petitioner averred that the petitioners were the recorded co- owners of land bearing Khasra numbers 72//23 (4-16), 72//24 (4-
16), 72//25/2 min (3-08), 87//3(4-16), of Category 'B' total measuring 32 bigha 15 biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan, Delhi was acquired by the award no. 2/DC/2004-05 dated 20.09.2004. It is further averred that vide the said award, the compensation for the above said acquired land was assessed by the LAC ( West) at Rs. 15.70/- Lac per acre for Category "A" and the Rs. 14 lacs per acre for Category "B" of the land of Village Tikri Kalan.
26. Ld. counsel for the the petitioner further averred that since the petitioners were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAC, the present reference has been filed. Ld. counsel for the petitioners averred that in L.A. Appeal No. 193/2006 titled Pratap Singh ( Dead) through LRs etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 19.12.2008, pertaining the award in question i.e. award no. 02/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 20.09.2004 of village Tikri Kalan, had LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 10/22 fixed the fair market value of the acquired land of Category "B" @ Rs. 15,59,280/- per acre.
27. It is further averred in the written submissions that in pursuant to the above said judgment dated 19.12.2008, the Hon'ble Court of ld. ADJ-02 (West) vide judgment dated 15.10.2014 tilted as " Pradeep Singh & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors, passed the judgment on the basis of above said judgment dated 19.12.2008. It was highlighted that present case is covered by decided judgment of Hon'ble High Court and in the written submissions, it is further averred that petitioners are required to be paid the compensation @ Rs. 3,34,850/- per bigha (i.e. Rs. 15,59,280/- per acre) for the acquired land of Block B in question alongwith 30% solatium on the above said amount, additional amount @ 12% p.a from the date of notification till the date of award i.e. 17.12.2002 to 20.09.2004.
28. It is further averred that petitioners are also entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession of the land in question and @ 15% p.a. for the subsequent years till the entire payment of the compensation is made as per section 28 of the L.A Act. It is further averred that petitioners are also entitled to the statutory benefits in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sunder Vs UOI.
My issue-wise findings on the issues are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 11/22
1. Whether the petition is barred by limitation?
OPR
29. The onus to prove issue no. 1 is upon the respondents. The respondent no. 1 has averred in its written statement that the present reference is barred by limitation, however, no evidence has been led on behalf of both respondents to prove that the present reference is not within the limitation as per section 18 of the L.a. Act.
30. PW-1/Sh. Prem Prakash who is one of the petitioners has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW- 1/A. In para no. 13 of his affidavit, PW-1 has deposed that the reference petition of the petitioner is within the time prescribed. No cross-examination of PW-1 to the above said fact has been done on behalf of both respondents. Even no suggestion has been given to PW-1 on behalf of respondents that the present reference is barred by Limitation. The respondents have failed to disclose as to how this reference is not within limitation.
31. As per proviso 'a' of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners are entitled to file reference before the Collector within 6 weeks from the date of Collector's order, in case the petitioners are present or represented before the Collector at the time of passing of award.
32. As per proviso 'b' of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in other cases, the petitioners are entitled to file reference before the Collector within 6 weeks of the receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12 sub section 2 (2) or LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 12/22 within 6 months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
33. In the present reference, the award was pronounced by Collector on 20.09.2004 and reference petition was filed before Collector on 01.11.2004. No plea has been taken by the respondents that the petitioners were present or represented, at the time of pronouncement of the Award. The only plea taken by Union of India/respondent no. 1 in the written statement is that the petitioners have not denied that they have not received the notice under section 12 (2) of the L.A Act.
34. I have perused the award Ex. R-1. In the award, it is fact is not mentioned as to whether petitioners were present or represented at the time of pronouncement of the award. The respondents have not led any evidence to prove that petitioners were present or represented at the time of pronouncement of the award. Even no plea has been taken by respondent no. 1 to the fact that the petitioners were present or represented at the time of pronouncement of award. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to file their reference within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2) of L. A. Act or within 6 months from the date of Collector's Award, whichever shall first expired.
35. The respondents have not disclosed as to whether any notice under section 12 (2) of the L.A. Act was issued to the petitioners and if this notice was issued then as to on what date. The respondents have not led any evidence to prove that notice LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 13/22 under section 12 (2) of L.A. Act was issued to the petitioners and the said notice was received by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to file their reference within 6 months from the date of Collector's award. In view of the above said facts , it is held that the present reference petition has been filed by the petitioners within period prescribed under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondents.
ISSUE No. 2 & 32. What was the fair market value of the land in question on the date of Notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
36. Both the above said issues are inter-connected and therefore, both are taken together.
37. The onus to prove issue no. 2 & 3 is upon the petitioners. In order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners has examined only one witness i.e. petitioner no. 1/PW-1.
38. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon one Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled Pratap Singh (Dead) through LRs etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors, L.A. Appeal No. 193/2006 decided on 19.12.2008. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submit that the above LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 14/22 said judgment pertain to the award in question i.e. award no. 02/DC(W)/2004-05 dated 20.09.2004 of village Tikri Kalan. He further submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has fixed the fair market value of the acquired land of Category "B" @ Rs. 15,59,280/- per acre. He further argued that the present case is covered by the above said decided judgment of Hon'ble High Court and market value of the land of the petitioners be determined as per above said judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
39. Ld. counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per judgment titled Nand Ram Vs State of Haryana Jt. 388 (4) SC 260, if the compensation amount has already fixed for a land then the same amount of compensation has to be given to the other land owners whose similarly placed land, situated, adjacent are acquired under the same notification.
40. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has place on record certified copy of above said Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
41. Ld. Counsel for the respondents also submits that the present reference may also be decided as per the above said judgment given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as the present award was in question before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the above said Judgment titled Pratap Singh (dead) through L.Rs etc. Vs Union of India & Others ( Supra).
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 15/22
42. I have perused the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled Pratap Singh ( Dead) through LRs etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors, L.A. Appeal No. 193/2006 decided on 19.12.2008. In the above said judgment, some of the co-owners, whose reference has been decided earlier, have filed appeal u/s 54 of the L.A. Act challenging the market value of the acquired land of B-Block, fixed by ld. Additional District Judge, in its Judgment given in reference of Award no. 2 /DC(W)-2004-2005 dated 20.09.2004 of Village Tikri Kalan. By way of above said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has decided the appeal of some of the co-owners of the present award as well as appeals in some other awards. At para no. 49 of the above said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has given findings qua the award in question is held as follows:
"49. Appeals arising out of Award No. 2/DCW/2004-05 dated 20.09.2004 "In respect of these acquisitions, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.12.2002 and the Award was rendered on 20.09.2004. The learned ADJ has made the Award No. 2/1997-98 dated 23.07.1997 as the basis, as per which the market value of the land for Block- A is fixed at Rs.1,68,000/- per bigha and for Block-B the market value is fixed at Rs.1,26,840/- per bigha. On this enhancement @ 12% p.a. is granted.
Since we have revised the market value in respect of the aforesaid Award at Rs.2,35,815/- for Block- A and Rs.190,156/- for Block-B, further enhancement has to be given on these rates for the period from 17.11.1995 to 17.12.2002. However, at the same time, we are of the view that in these cases enhancement @ 12% p.a. should not be LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 16/22 given because of the reason that in some of these areas the market value of the land had even gone down. Therefore, taking holistic view of the matter and balancing the upward and downward trends, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if enhancement is granted @ 10% p.a. On this basis, market value for Block-A land is fixed at Rs. 4,02,850/- and for Block-B and it is fixed at Rs. 3,24,850/- . LA. A. Nos 284, 229, 228, 226, 230, 282, 283, 133, 226, 84, 22225, 227, 125, 132, 231, 236, 234, 235, 274, 275, 276 & 286/2007 are decided accordingly.
43. The petitioner in this case has relied upon the order/judgment dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA ( Appeal) No. 193/06 in case titled as "Pratap Singh (dead) through Lrs etc. Vs UOI & Ors" pertaining to the same ( i.e. Award No. 02/DCW/2004-2005 dated 20.09.2004) and same village ( i.e. Tikri Kalan), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has fixed the fair market value of the acquired land of Block-B @ Rs. 3,24,850/- per bigha.
44. In the case titled as, " Nand Ram Vs State of Haryana" ( reported as JT 1988 (4) SC 260), it has been inter-alia held that if a compensation amount is already fixed for a land then the same amount of compensation has to be given to the other land owners whose similarly placed land situated adjacent is acquired under the same notification.
45. In the instant case, the petitioners have not brought on record any evidence, documentary or otherwise, that their land was having more potential and that the compensation should LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 17/22 have been granted to them at a higher rate. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that their land is similar situated as land of A Block and has same potential of development as of land of A Block. The petitioners have failed to lead any evidence to prove that the market value of the property of the petitioners is at par with the market value of the property of A-Block.
46. In these circumstances and in view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as, "Nand Ram Vs State of Haryana (Supra) and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as awarded by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide above said judgment dated 19.12.2008 in LA (Appeal) Nos.193/06, 284, 229, 228 etc, of 2007 in case titled as " Partap Singh (dead) through Lrs etc. etc Vs UOI & Ors.". in respect of the same award and village i.e. @ Rs. 3,24,850/- per bigha ( i.e. Rs. 15,59,280/- per acre) for the acquired land of Block-B in question. In view of above said discussions, it is held that the market value of acquired land of B Block, at the time of issuance of Notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act is Rs. 3,24,850/- per bigha ( i.e. Rs. 15,59,280/- per acre).
47. Vide order dated 17.11.2016, while allowing the application of L.Rs of deceased/petitioner no. 4/ late Sh. Azad Singh, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court has held that the L.Rs of deceased petitioner late Sh. Azad Singh shall not be entitled to receive 15 % interest from the date of the death of the deceased i.e. 26.06.2008 till the filing of the application on 20.10.2016.
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 18/22 The said order has not been challenged and has attained finality. In view of the above said order, it is held that the L.Rs of deceased petitioner late Sh. Azad Singh shall not be entitled to receive any interest from the date of the death of the deceased i.e. 26.06.2008 till the filing of the application on 20.10.2016 as there was delay of about eight years on the part of the LRs in moving application for impleadment.
48. In the present case, the application for sending the reference to the court, has been filed by the petitioners before the LAC, West on 01.11.2004 but the reference to this court has been sent by LAC West on 05.08.2016, after expiry of more than 12 years. The government authority i.e. LAC West has taken more than 12 years in sending reference to court.
49. 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."
50. 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:
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 19/22 "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 of the State is remiss in the performance of his duties in fairness the State ought not to take advantage of this fact "
51. There is no just/reasonable grounds with government authorities to keep the application of petitioners pending for more than 12 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 authorities, 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 sending 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 public exchequer i.e. State.
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 20/22
52. In view of the above said fact, this court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled for interest for the entire period.
53. The petitioners are recorded co-owner/co-sharers of the acquired land and their names have been mentioned in the statement filed u/s 19 of the L.A. Act on behalf of LAC, West, so the petitioners are entitled to receive enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land.
54. In view of the foregoing discussions and observations, issue no. 2 & 3 are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF)
55. In view of above discussions, observations and findings on issue no. 1 to 3, the present reference is answered in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners are held entitled to the following reliefs :-
(i) Enhanced compensation @ Rs.1,59,280 (Rs. 15,59,280-
14,00,000) per acre over and above the compensation determined @ Rs. 14,00,000/- per acre by LAC, West of the acquired land of B-Block.
(ii) The L.Rs of deceased petitioner late Sh. Azad Singh shall not be entitled to receive any interest from the date of the death of the deceased i.e. 26.06.2008 till the filing of the application on 20.10.2016
(iii) In addition to the above, the petitioners shall also be entitled for 30% solatium on the enhanced amount.
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 21/22
(iv) The petitioners shall also be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9% from the date of Section-4 notification till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment.
(v) The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of award.
(vi) The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it was held that person entitled to compensation awarded would also be entitled to get interest on additional amount as well as on solatium.
(vii) 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.
56. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Copy of the judgment and decree sheet be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for intimation and compliance.
57. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
SHIV Digitally signed by SHIV
KUMAR
Announced in the open court KUMAR Date: 2024.06.04
17:13:36 +0530
today the 4th June, 2024. (SHIV KUMAR)
District Judge-02,
West Distt,
Tis Hazari courts
Delhi
LAC No. 282/2016 Prm Prakash & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. 22/22