Delhi District Court
Smt. Dimple Arora W/O Lt. Sh. Manav Arora ... vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR-II,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
LAC No. 24/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:-
(As per amended memo of parties)
Lt. Sh. Manav Arora (Deceased through LRs.)
1. Smt. Dimple Arora W/o Lt. Sh. Manav Arora (wife)
2. Mr. Shubham Arora S/o Lt. Sh. Manav Arora (Son).
3. Ms. Richa Arora D/o Late Sh. Manav Arora (Daughter)
All R/o: 1/9040, Second Floor,
Gali No.1, West Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-32.
Also at:
1/10627-A, 2nd Floor, Mohan Park,
Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-32.
.........Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector ,
North-East, Delhi.
2. PWD, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
New Delhi.
3. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(DMRC)
.........Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.09.2013
Date of judgment : 04.02.2023
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment, I shall decide the reference petition filed under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 KUMAR Page No. 1/24 RAMESH Date:
KUMAR 2023.02.04
16:45:43
+0530
referred to as 'L.A. Act, 1894') against the award no. 2/2007-08 North-East Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi whereby the Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the market value of the acquired land at a very low rate and has also assessed the construction value thereon at a very meagre rate. 2 For deciding the reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with 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 : 12.04.2006
ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act : 22.05.2006
iii) Date of award : 31.12.2007
iv) Area of the locality : Jhilmil Tahirpur
v) Project : MRTS project
vi) The land use of the area as per the award : Commercial/Industrial
vii) Petition referred to court on : 10.09.2013
3 The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the notification dated 12.04.2006 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 Shahdara Dilshad Garden Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase II at G.T. Road Shahdara situated in Village Jhilmil Tahirpur, which was followed by the Notification dated 22.05.2006 under Section 6 & 17 (1) of L.A. Act, 1894. Possession of the acquired lands was taken by the LAC on 17.08.2006. Keeping in view the use of the land under acquisition as commercial/industrial, the LAC assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 6450/- per sq. mtr. with respect to 16 Bigha 16 Biswa i.e. 14068 Sqr. mtr. of land which came to Rs.9,07,38,600/-. Further, solatium at the rate of 30% of market Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH KUMAR Page No. 2/24 KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04 16:45:50 +0530 value alongwith the additional amount @ 12% of market value w.e.f. 12.04.2006 to 17.08.2006 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.22,14,55,073/- was passed by the LAC. 4 Being aggrieved from the lesser rate fixed d by 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 subsequently the present case was listed for trial and finally after adjudication of the evidence filed by all the parties, the predecessor of this court finally announced an award / judgment dated 11.08.2016 in which the petitioner relied upon the judgment and the evidence led in case bearing LAC No.1/09 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh Vs. UOI & Anr. In the said case, the ld. Predecessor had relied upon the circle rates notified under the provisions of Delhi Stamp [Prevention of undervaluation of instruments] Rules 2007 and enhanced the market value from Rs.6,450/- to Rs.21,920/- per sq. mtrs. as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 12.04.2006.
5 Subsequently, the judgment passed by the trial court dated 11.08.2016 in the present case was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgement dated 21.12.2017, passed in LA Appeal No.101/2017 has set aside the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2016 thereby remanding back the matter to the reference court for recording of the additional evidence of the parties and thereafter passing fresh orders.Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR
LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH Date:
Page No. 3/24
KUMAR 2023.02.04
16:45:57
+0530
6 The petitioner in his application filed before LAC
stated that he was actual owner/landlord in respect of property bearing no.1/421, Khasra No. 307/21-28, 30/31/2 & 37 min situated at Jhilmil Tahirpur Friends Colony, Main GT Road, Delhi ad-measuring 45 sq. yds. as same was gifted to him by his late mother Smt. Kamlesh Arora vide gift deed dated 16.12.2022.
7 In the present petition, the petitioner contended that respondent no.1 sent the reference of petition under section 30 and 31 of the Act to the court and the said reference LAC no.28-A/2011 titled as Union of India Vs Manav Arora decided vide order dt. 11.10.2012 hence, the petitioner received two cheques drawn on SBI bearing no.278582 and 278583 for amount of Rs.995474/- and Rs.11869/-
respectively in the last week of January 2013. The petitioner further stated that LAC has assessed the market value at a very low rate, whereas at the time of claiming the compensation, the value of property in question was Rs.25,000/- per sq. meter of land and Rs.15 lacs as cost of construction. The petitioner further claimed that the market vale of property in question is about Rs.2 lacs per sq. meter and Rs.15 lacs towards structure and damages. He further claimed that respondent no.1 assessed the market value of property in question @ Rs.6450/- per sq. meter under award no.2/2007-08 Jhilmil Tahirpur. He further claimed that the property in question is situated in authorized industrial area where plot is available at a price of not less than Rs.2 lacs per sq. meter. He further claimed that respondent no.1 committed a grave error by not giving the additional market Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH Date:
Page No. 4/24 KUMAR 2023.02.04
16:46:03
+0530
value for the period w.e.f. date of award, till the date of notification under section 4 of the Act. He further claimed that his industrial unit was closed down, so he paid his laboures Rs.25,000/- each which comes as Rs.2,50,000/-. She further claimed that Rs.40,000/- per month towards business loss till resettlement in the alternative accommodation. He also claimed Rs.1,50,000/- for shifting the goods to alternate accommodation. He further claimed Rs.4 lacs towards loss of his goodwill. Accordingly, the petitioner claimed enhancement of Rs.2,67,14,000/-. 8 Respondent no.1 filed its written statement to the claim of the petitioner stating therein that it has already assessed the correct market value of the land in question at the time of publication on of notification under section 4 of the Act and the value assessed by it is quite reasonable and sufficient as property in question is not surrounded by any developed colony. Further petitioner has failed to furnish any evidence in his favour in respect of relief claimed in the present petition and in response to the notice issued by it under section 9 and 10 of LA Act. It is further stated that petition is barred by limitation and averments made in the reference petition are wrong and denied. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed with costs. 9 The respondent no.2 i.e. PWD did not file any written statement/reply.
10 The petitioner filed an application under Order I rule 10 CPC to implead DMRC the beneficiary of acquisition as necessary party. The said application of petitioner was allowed vide order dated 31.10.2014 and Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH KUMAR Page No. 5/24 Date: KUMAR 2023.02.04 16:46:11 +0530 accordingly, DMRC (hereinafter called as respondent no.3) was impleaded as necessary party.
11 The respondent no.3 also filed its written statement to the claim of the petitioner stating therein that it has already assessed the correct market value of land in question at the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act and the value assessed by it is quiet reasonable and sufficient as property in question is not surrounded by any developed colony. Further, the petitioner has failed to furnish any evidence in his favour in respect of relief claimed in the present petitioner and in response to the notice issued by it under section 9 & 10 of the LA Act. It is further stated that the LAC has rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all aspects enumerated under law and he has assessed the fair market value of the land after considering its current use, potentiality for the future land use, proximity of the land. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and based on surmises and conjecture, therefore, petition is liable to be rejected. It is further stated that the petition of the petitioner is barred by law of limitation, therefore, the present petition is liable to be rejected.
12 The petitioner filed separate replications to the written statements of respondents wherein he denied all the averments made therein and reiterated the contents made by his in the petition.
13 After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 01.04.2015:-
Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH KUMAR Page No. 6/24 KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04
16:46:18 +0530
1 What was the market value of land in question
on the date of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894? OPP 2 Whether petitioner is entitled for any enhancement of compensation if so, for what amount? OPP 3 Relief.
14 In earlier proceedings the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and he filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon certain documents i.e. his application to the respondent no.1 dated 29.01.2008 as Ex.PW1/1, certified copy of judgment dt. 11.10.2012 passed in LAC No. 28-A/2011 as Ex.PW1/2; certified copy of judgment dt. 24.05.2014 passed in LAC no. 01/2009 as Ex.PW1/3; certified copy of judgment dated 19.12.2013 passed in LA APP. No. 401/2014 as Ex.PW1/4; copy of notice dt. 03.03.2011 as Mark A; copy of covering letter dated 22.01.2013 received from SBI as Mark B and copy of two banker's cheque both dated 22.01.2013 as Mark D. 15 Ld. counsel for respondent no.1 tendered in evidence the copy of award bearing no. 2/2007-08 (North East) pertaining to village Jhilmil Tahirpur. The same is Ex.R1. Ld. counsel for respondent no.1 also adopted the evidence which was led by respondent no.1 in LAC no.1/2009 case titled Chandra Prakash Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.
16 Ld. counsel for respondent no.3 adopted the evidence led by respondent no.1.
17 In additional evidence, the petitioner examined as many as two witnesses. Sh. Sunil Kumar, SSA, Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi was examined as PW1 and he Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH KUMAR Page No. 7/24 KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04 16:46:24 +0530 has proved the schedule of market rate since 1998 to 01.04.2000 onward i.e. upto 31.03.2016 which is Ex.PW1/A (collectively page no.1 to 11).
18 The next witness examined by the petitioner was PW2 Mr. Arvind Arora and he has proved the sale deed dated 24.09.2015 which was executed by Smt. Mithlesh Gupta in his favour pertaining to property bearing no. 360/367 built on plot no.16 forming part of Khasra no. 1127/346-344-370 in abadi of Friends Colony Industrial Area, G.T. Road in the area of Jhilmil Tahirpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-95. The said sale deed was exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. 19 On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 has relied upon the copy of award No.2/07-08 passed by the LAC in which the market value of the acquired property was fixed at Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. which was the schedule of market rates of various localities in Delhi issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Govt. of India circulated by notification dated 16.04.1999.
20 By exhibiting the award Ex.R1, the respondent no.1 duly admitted the location and potentiality of the acquired properties to be commercial in nature which would go in a long way for determining the actual market value of the acquired properties as on the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act. When the present matter was remanded back, the respondent no.1 did not lead any additional evidence and relied upon the earlier evidence which was the award Ex.R1.
21 The respondent no.3/DMRC, in the earlier proceedings also adopted the evidence led by the Union of India i.e. respondent no.1 and in additional evidence, the respondent no.3 has examined Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH KUMAR Page No. 8/24 KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04 16:46:30 +0530 Sh. Vijay Kumar, Section Officer (Legal), Delhi Metro Rail Corporation as R2W1 and he has tendered certified copy of sale deeds as EX.R2W1/2 to Ex.R2W1/5 and Ex.R2W1/7 to Ex.R2W1/13 alongwith letters dated 29.06.2019 and 10.12.2019 as EX.R2W1/1 and Ex.R2W1/6 respectively, vide which certified copies of the sale deeds were obtained. The details of sale deeds as produced vide EX.R2W1/1 and Ex.R2W1/6 are as follows:-
S. Sale Deed Sale Deed Area (as Area in sq. Amount Considerable No. Registration Date per mtrs. value as per No. document) document 1 1075 27.02.2006 441 sq. yds. 368.73 sq mtr 1000000 2712.01/- sq. mtr.
2 1081 27.02.2006 300 sq. yds. 250.83 sq. mtr. 900000 3588.08/- sq. mtr.
3 5275 06.12.2006 150 sq. yds. 125.41 sq. mtr. 490000 3907.18/- sq. mtr.
4 2860 06.07.2007 150 sq. yds. 125.41 sq. mtr. 490000 3907.18/- sq. mtr.
5 543 13.02.2004 65 sq. yds. 54.34 sq. mtr. 150000 2760.54/- sq. mtr.
6 2565 15.07.2004 60 sq. yds. 50.16 sq. mtr. 120000 2390.34/- sq. mtr.
7 2714 22.07.2004 100 sq. yds. 83.61 sq. mtr. 300000 3588.08/- sq. mtr.
8 2713 22.07.2004 170 sq. yds.142.14 sq. mtr. 480000 3376.95/- sq. mtr.
9 3741 17.09.2004 80 sq. yds. 66.89 sq. mtr. 160000 2391.98/- sq. mtr.
10 3999 28.07.2004 50 sq. yds. 41.80 sq. mtr. 150000 3588.51/- sq. mtr.
11 4460 27.10.2004 110 sq. yds. 91.97 sq. mtr. 300000 3261.93/- sq. mtr.
22 After conclusion of additional evidence of both the parties matter was fixed for final arguments.
23 It is matter of record that during the pendency of the present case the petitioner died and on 07.09.2022 his Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH Date: Page No. 9/24 KUMAR 2023.02.04 16:46:37 +0530 counsel moved an application under order XXII Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC for bringing on record the legal heirs of late Manav Arora. Ld. counsel for respondent no.1 as well as Section Officer on behalf of respondent no.3 submitted that they have no objection if the present application is allowed. In view of submissions of the parties, the application under order XXII rule 3 CPC was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2022. Ld. counsel for respondent no.1 filed LR report in respect of LR's of deceased petitioner. Accordingly, LR's of deceased petitioner, namely Smt. Dimple Arora, Mr. Shubham Arora and Ms. Richa Arora were taken on record and were impleaded as necessary party in the present case. 24 Both the parties filed their respective written arguments and they submitted that they do not want to submit anything else beyond written arguments.
25 I have perused the written arguments as filed by both the parties and also perused the record. On perusal of record, my issue-wise finding is as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1 & 226 Issue no.1 and 2 are being taken up together for disposal being inter connected. The onus to prove these issues was upon 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 market value of the land under acquisition is to be determined with reference to the date of notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 12.04.2006. To arrive a Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 KUMAR Page No. 10/24 RAMESH Date:
KUMAR 2023.02.04
16:46:43
+0530
fair market value of the land under acquisition, the locality of the site, its current land use, the salutation of the area, the quality, the potentiality of future land use of the land are to be taken into consideration under the LA Act. The properties under acquisition are situated adjacent to Shahdara Flyover and have commercial as well as Industries in the vicinity. To ascertain the land use of the land under present acquisition, the report of the joint survey conducted by the officials of the Land Acquisition Collector, Land & Building Department and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation were kept in mind. Papers submitted by the claimants shows that it is a commercial/ industrial site. The evaluation report as submitted by the DMRC and vetted by the PWD regarding the properties also confirms the above land use."
27 The LAC, while assessing the market value of the land has observed that the acquired properties were commercial in nature and for this very reason, the commercial L&DO rates/ schedule of market rates in Delhi issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Department of Urban Development were made the basis for the ascertainment of market value w.e.f. 01.04.1998.
28 Accordingly an escalation of 10% was allowed w.e.f. 01.04.1999 and the amount of Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. was assessed by the LAC for the properties acquired vide the present award. The respondent no.3 admitted the said award to be correct thereby admitting the basis of ascertainment of the market value to be correct as well.
29 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 12.04.2006. The petitioner Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH Date: Page No. 11/24 KUMAR 2023.02.04 16:46:50 +0530 has duly stated that the rate of Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. as assessed by the LAC is extremely meagre for the prime commercial property of the petitioner. For the assessment of the correct market value, the petitioner has relied upon the schedule of market rates issued by the Ministry of Land & Development Office published in the year 2017 i.e. 02.05.2017 as Ex.PW1/A. 30 As already stated above, the LAC while assessing the market value of land has observed that properties under acquisition are situated adjacent to Shahdara flyover and have commercial as well as industrial activity in the vicinity. He has considered the joint survey report conducted by the officials of Land Acquisition Collector (Land & Building Department) and DMRC to ascertain the use of the land under acquisition. To assess the market rate of land, the LAC had considered the schedule of rates circulated by Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Department of Urban Development (land Division) vide No.J-22011/4/95-LD dated 16.04.1999 for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 which was Rs.2805/- per sq. meter for residential land and Rs.5865/- per sq. meter for commercial land in Jheel Khuranja; Rs.2805/- per sq. meter for residential land and Rs.5865 per sq. meter for commercial land in Geeta Colony; Rs.1980/- per sq. meter for residential land and Rs. 4140/- per sq. meter for commercial land in Narela and other outlying colonies. The LAC has applied the rate of Rs. 5865/- per sq meter for commercial land in Jheel Khurenja and Geeta Colony by stating that area of Jheel Khuranja and Geeta Colony though not in immediate proximity of the land under acquisition, but are nearest in terms of distance and gave 10% escalation over Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR RAMESH Date:
LAC No. 24/2016 KUMAR Page No. 12/242023.02.04 16:46:57 +0530 the rate effective from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 and held that rate of Rs. 5865/- per sq. meter after escalation of 10% comes to Rs. 6451.50/- which was rounded off to Rs. 6450/-.
31 The assessment of market value of acquired land on the basis of rate effective for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 as circulated by Land Division of Ministry of Urban Development is not legally sustainable as the LAC was required to assess the rate as prevalent on 12.04.2006 i.e. date of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act, 1894. The grant of escalation of 10% on Rs.5865/- per sq. meter for the period of six years would not justify the assessment of fair market value of land in question.
32 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.
33 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".
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH KUMAR Page No. 13/24
KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04
16:47:04
+0530
The 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.
34 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."
35 The respondent no.3/DMRC on the other hand has also admitted that the award announced by the LAC is true and correct and reflects the actual market value of the property of the petitioner.
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
LAC No. 24/2016
RAMESH KUMAR
Page No. 14/24
KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04
16:47:11
+0530
36 Going by the admissions of all the parties, the land use of
the acquired property is commercial and therefore, it is not a matter of doubt that commercial land rates are required to be assessed for the properties acquired vide award No.2/07-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi.
37 During the proceedings pending with respect to the present reference petition, the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Development itself published the revised rates dated 02.05.2017, exhibited as Ex.PW1/A, with respect to the various localities in Delhi w.e.f. 01.04.2000 onwards. Perusal of the aforesaid schedule shows that the rate for commercial land for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 (the period of the date of notification U/s 4 in the present case) was Rs.30,000/- per sq. mtrs. for Jheel Khurenja, Rs.30,000/- per sq. mtrs.; for Geeta Colony; Rs.12,000/- per sq. mtrs. for Narela & other outlying colonies. It is pertinent to mention here that the said rates have been made the basis for ascertainment of the market value even by the respondents and therefore this can very well be taken as a safe principle to ascertain the actual market value for the acquired properties.
38 In written arguments it is contended by respondent no.3/DMRC that the petitioner has failed to furnish any cogent evidence in his favour in respect of the relief claimed by him i.e. market value of acquired land, proof of doing any business, damages sustained due to property acquisition, expenditure incurred on change of business and shifted of business, loss of goodwill etc. and it is pertinent to note that the property in question is industrial property as affirmed by the petitioner in his Digitally signed by RAMESH RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 24/2016 KUMAR Date: Page No. 15/24 2023.02.04 16:47:19 +0530 affidavit Ex.PW1/A and the same is required to be determined only on the basis of industrial nature.
The petitioner has contended that he is liable to receive Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation paid to his laboures on account of closure of his unit, Rs.40,000/- per month towards business loss; Rs.1,50,000/- for shifting the goods to alternate accommodation and Rs.4 lacs towards loss of his goodwill, however the petitioner has not led any evidence in support of the claim mentioned in the reference petition and is therefore, denied.
39 The petitioner in support of his case has placed on record a copy of sale deed Ex.PW2/A registered on 24.09.2015 with Sub- Registrar IV-A, Seemapuri, Delhi, but the said exemplar is not reliable since in the present case, the notification was issued on 12.04.2006 under section 4 (1) of LA Act and the sale deed Ex.PW2/A was registered almost after 9 years of the date of notification i.e. 12.04.2006. Since the sale deed Ex.PW2/A was registered after 9 years of the date of notification, therefore the sale deed Ex.PW2/A cannot be accepted as evidence in the present case.
40 R2W1 Sh. Joginder Singh has exhibited as many as 11 sale deeds in his testimony pertaining to the area of Jhilmil Tahirpur, which are EX.R2W1/2 to Ex.R2W1/5 and Ex.R2W1/7 to Ex.R2W1/13.
41 In the written arguments, the contention raised by the respondent no.3/DMRC is that the sale deeds tendered by the respondent no.3 giving the average value of sale varying from 2712.01 sq. mtr. to 3907.18 sq. mtr. at the time of notification Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH KUMAR Page No. 16/24 KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04 16:47:25 +0530 while the LAC has fixed the market value @ 6450/- per sq. mtr. which is more than the true and correct market value of the land based on facts, circumstances and prevailing market rates at the time of acquisition.
42 I have perused the said sale deeds. The said sale deeds pertain to the year 2004, 2006 & 2007. Two out of the eleven sale deeds are subsequent to the date of notification U/s 4 and therefore, cannot be taken into consideration. The sale deeds registered vide Regn. No.1075 and 1081 are registered on the same very date i.e. on 27.02.2006 and there is a vast difference in the rate per sq. mtrs. in respect of both the sale deeds. Out of the remaining 7 sale deeds which have been executed in the year 2004, the sale deed registered vide Regn. No.3999 is much more in value compared to the rest of the sale deeds executed in the same year. This glaring difference in the market value of the properties sold in the open market on and around the same very period creates a grave suspicion and doubt with respect to the prevailing market value and can in no manner be relied for the determination of the actual market value. Even otherwise, the value of the sale deeds relied upon by the respondent no.3 are extremely less in value compared to the market value as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and it is improbable that the commercial properties in the prime areas of Jhilmil Tahirpur were being sold only at a nominal rates of three to four thousand rupees per square meter only.
Also, by relying upon the sale deeds of the commercial land use, the respondent no.3 has itself admitted the land use of Digitally signed by RAMESH RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 24/2016 KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04 Page No. 17/24 16:47:32 +0530 the area to be commercial. So the stand taken by the respondent no.3 is controverted by their own evidence.
43 Reference is made to judgment cited as AIR 2018 Supreme Court 645 titled as Maya Devi Vs. State of Haryana in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically upheld that "Post notification instances cannot be taken into consideration for determining the compensation of the acquired land."
Following the above dictum, the sale instances exhibited by the respondent no.3 cannot be taken into consideration for assessment of the market value of the acquired properties.
44 As already stated above, a careful perusal of the sale deeds exhibited by the respondent no.3 shows that since there was a great variation in the market value reflected in the sale deeds and the amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondent no.3 ought to have proved the sale deeds by examining either the vendor or the vendee in order to show that the same were executed between a willing purchaser and a willing seller which is the ground rule for relying on the same. However in the present case since there is extreme discrepancy in the market value of the sale deeds exhibited by the respondent no.3, the same cannot be considered and appreciated without proper evidence and examination of the respective vendor and vendee.
45 The sale deeds relied upon by the respondent no.3 do not specify the detail regarding the nature and proximity of the said industrial properties to the commercial properties in question.
46 It is also not out of place to mention here that the LAC himself has not relied upon the sale deeds exhibited as Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH Date:
Page No. 18/24 KUMAR 2023.02.04
16:47:39
+0530
Ex.R2W1/2 to Ex.R2W1/5 & Ex.R2W1/7 to Ex.R2W1/13 in order to arrive at the market value of the property in question due to the fact that there was a great suspicion with respect to the authenticity and validity of the sale deeds and in fact, the said sale deeds provide lower rates than awarded by the LAC.
47 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 '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 both the respondents and the said judgment has to be construed as a whole and cannot be read in piecemeal.
48 The respondent no.3 has not disputed the award of the LAC in which the commercial L&DO rates have been made the basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired properties and in view thereof, the said sale deeds fall out of zone of consideration in view of the reasons and findings stated above for the purpose of assessing market value of the land in question.
49 In Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State Of Goa & Anr, 2010 (2010) 13 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"13. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a Digitally signed by LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH Page No. 19/24 RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04 16:47:46 +0530 narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons."
50 It is again relevant to note herein that the LAC has also not relied upon the sales deeds Ex.R2W1/2 to Ex.R2W1/5 & Ex.R2W1/7 to Ex.R2W1/13. The LAC has passed the award on the basis of schedule of rates circulated by Ministry of Urban Development (Land Division) vide Circular dated 16.04.1999 for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000, though the relevant date for the said purpose was 12.04.2006 i.e. date of notification under section 4 of L.A. Act, 1894. The LAC had given 10% escalation on the rate of Rs 5,865/-, which was the rate notified for Jheel Khuranja and Geeta Colony having considered the fact that notification under section 4 (1) of L.A. Act, 1894 was issued on 12.04.2006. Since the Schedule of commercial land rates by L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development, EX.PW1/A had already come into operation w.e.f 01.04.2000, which provides rate as Rs. 30,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 for Jheel Khuranja and Geeta Colony, therefore, the rate assessed by Ld. LAC is apparently on lower side. In view thereof, this referral court will be well within its jurisdiction to take note of the same in considering the prayer of the petitioner in seeking the enhancement even though the said rates are only for 100 FAR and not for 300 to 350 FAR which is the FAR of the area Jhilmil Tahirpur.
51 The written arguments filed by the respondent no.3 have failed to satisfy this court with respect to the discrepancies in the Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 KUMAR Page No. 20/24 RAMESH Date:
KUMAR 2023.02.04
16:47:54
+0530
rates of sale deeds exhibited as Ex.R2W1/2 to Ex.R2W1/5 & Ex.R2W1/7 to Ex.R2W1/13. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no reason to rely on the sale deeds exhibited as Ex.R2W1/2 to Ex.R2W1/5 & Ex.R2W1/7 to Ex.R2W1/13 since there is a great suspicion with respect to the authenticity of the said sale deeds and they have not been relied by the LAC himself for assessment of the market value. Furthermore, the said sale deeds are pertaining to the commercial properties executed on the same very date i.e. 27.02.2006 also do not reflect the actual market value since admittedly the value arrived at in the said sale deeds are also extremely different from each other and neither the buyer nor the seller have been examined in order to determine the genuineness of the said transactions. The extreme difference in the rates of the sale deeds persuade me to neglect the sale deeds Ex.R2W1/2 to Ex.R2W1/5 & Ex.R2W1/7 to Ex.R2W1/13.
52 The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in case titled as Monika Gupta Vs. Union of India bearing LAC No.07/2020 which pertains to the same notification and same award i.e. Award No.2/2007-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi which have been decided by this court on 26.07.2022, in which the market value of the acquired properties acquired vide same notification and same award have been enhanced from Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. to Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as on 12.04.2006.
53 On the other hand, the respondent no.1 in written arguments vehemently contended that the earlier judgments relied upon by the petitioner and other property holders titled as Ashwani Arora Vs. UOI & Anr., Kanta Kumari Arora Vs. UOI & Anr., Amit Arora Vs. UOI & Anr. which also pertain to the same Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH KUMAR Page No. 21/24 KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04 16:48:00 +0530 notification cannot be relied upon for the purpose of deciding the said case.
54 The respondent no.1 and 2 have repeatedly contended that the judgment passed in case titled as Ashwani Arora & Ors. Vs. Union of India (Supra) as well as the judgments passed by this court are not binding upon me, however in terms of the evidence led in the present case and in the present award, I do not wish to differ from the same. Also as per the judgments titled Nandram vs. State of Haryana & Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. vs. State of J&K (Supra), I hold that the same amount of market value as assessed in cases titled as Monika Gupta & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr., should be awarded to the petitioner in this case as well.
55 Relying upon the said judgment, I hereby rely upon the schedule of market rates Ex.PW1/A which was notified w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and the rates for the relevant period are Rs.30000/- per sq. mtrs. for the leasehold properties of the various localities of Delhi. The revised rates for conversion of commercial properties from leasehold to freehold for the financial year 2006-07 for East Delhi is Rs.18000/- per sq. mtrs and adding up the said rates to the value of Rs.30,000/-, the said court has fixed the market value of the acquired property with respect to the same award at Rs.48000/- per sq. mtrs. In the present case also, the petitioner has categorically contended that the acquired property was freehold which has not been denied or controverted by the respondents in any manner. The schedule of market rates has been taken to be the admitted basis for arrival of the market value by all the parties and I find no reason to rebut the said reliance in any manner.
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
RAMESH KUMAR
LAC No. 24/2016 KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04 Page No. 22/24
16:48:07
+0530
56 Hence for the foregoing reasons recorded above, this court
deems it fit to award Rs.48,000/- per sq. mtrs. as the actual market rate with respect to the acquired properties duly acquired vide award No.2/2007-08, Jhilmil Tahirpur Delhi.
57 The LAC has awarded an amount of Rs.6450/- per sq. mtrs. A perusal of the file also reveals that the petitioner has already received the enhancement of compensation @ Rs.21920/- per sq. mtrs. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled to a further enhancement of Rs.26080/- per sq. mtrs. over and above Rs.21920 per sq. mtrs. [21920 + 26080 = 48000 per sq. mtrs.].
58 I further hold that the original documents submitted by the petitioner as surety in compliance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India be also returned to the petitioner with immediate effect since the market value of the acquired property is now fixed at Rs.48000/- per sq. mtrs. as against Rs.21920/- per sq. mtrs.
RELIEF 59 In view of the findings of issue nos.1 and 2, LR's of deceased petitioner is entitled to the market value @ Rs.48000/- per sq. mtrs. as on 12.04.2006. In addition, LR's of 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 28 of the L.A. 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 this, LR's of petitioner would also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of Digitally signed by RAMESH LAC No. 24/2016 RAMESH KUMAR Page No. 23/24 KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04 16:48:14 +0530 dispossession till expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of the balance amount. It is made clear that the statutory benefits shall be available to the petitioner on the balance amount of Rs.26080/- per sq. mtrs. since in the present case, the petitioner has received the enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs.21920/- per sq. mtrs. along with statutory benefits. Enhanced compensation be awarded to LR's of petitioner in the ratio earlier decided by the court of Sh. Reetesh Singh, Ld. Addl. District Judge-01 (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 11.10.2012 in proceedings under section 30-31 of the LA Act in case titled as Union of India Vs. Manav Arora bearing LAC No.28A/11.
60 The original documents submitted as surety by the petitioner be returned to LR's of petitioner on filing of appropriate application. Reference is answered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
62 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. A copy of this judgement 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.
(Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and Digitally
pronounced in open court on 04.02.2023) signed by
RAMESH
RAMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2023.02.04
16:48:20
+0530
(RAMESH KUMAR-II)
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHADARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
LAC No. 24/2016 Page No. 24/24