Delhi District Court
Smt. Anjali Garg vs Union Of India on 3 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
LAC No.58/11
New No. LAC -14/2016
Area: Mundka
Award No.: 02/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 01.01.2009
Smt. Anjali Garg
W/o Sh. Sunil Garg
R/o M-90, Guru Harikishan Nagar,
Delhi ....Petitioner
versus
1. Union of India,
Land Acquisition Collector,
(District West) Officat at D.C. Office,
Rampura, Delhi-35.
2. D.M.R.C.
Through its Director
H.O. : Metro Bhawan Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road Connaught Place,
Delhi-110001 .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 30.07.2011
Date of reserving of judgment : 30.09.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.10.2016
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 143 Bigha and 02 Biswa under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 1/35 (W)/3291 dated 07.06.2007 also under Section 6 vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/10635 dated 23.10.2003. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/10636 dated 23.10.2007. The land was acquired for the purpose of Construction of Depot, Staff Quarters and TSS of Inderlok- Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II near Senior Secondary School, Mundka and North of NH-10 (Mundka Depot).
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)') passed award no. 2/DC(W)/2008-09 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.1210/- per sqm.
3. According to statement of Section 19 of the Act filed by the Collector petitioners were shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
Item Name of Khasra Total Details of
No. of recorded No. Area in trees/
NM owner & share Bigha- Buildings/
Biswa Crops
30,31& Anjali Garg W/o 66
52 Sunil Garg (full) 2/1 min 0-2
2/2min 1-0 As per
3 min 1-6 Award
(3) 2-8
- do - 56
30,31&5 (Share disputed) 22/2 min
2 66 1-0
2/1 min 1-3
3 min 0-4 As per
(3) 2-7 Award
LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 2/35
4. The petitioner filed the reference under Section 18 of the Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Land Acquisition Collector, West has been referred to the reference court.
5. In brief the facts stated are that the land of the petitioner comprise Lal-Dora Abadi land/ in Khasa No. 66//2/1 min (1-5), 66//2/2 min (1-0), 66//3 min (1-10), 56//22/2 (1-0) mesuring 4 bighas 15 biswa having full share situated at Mundka was acquired vide award in question. The notice under Section 9 & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued to the petitioner by the Collector. Except the petitioner no other person has any right, title or interest in the aforesaid land. The petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of Award and the petitioner has not received any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act and the present petition is within limitation as per law.
6. It is stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector does not represent true and correct market value of the land as well as Lal Dora land (village abadi) as on date of notification under Section 4 of the Act on dated 07.06.2007 and the compensation assessed by the Collector is much below to the actual market value of the acquired land and same is assailed, interalia, on the following grounds:
7. It is stated that the market value of the land is not less than Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. The Collector failed to appreciate or apply his mind to determine the proper market value of the acquired land. The Collector failed to consider LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 3/35 that the acquired land is adjacent to industrial area situated between main Rohtak Road, National Highway No.10 and Railway Line at Revenue Estate of village Mundka. The Collector further failed to consider 12% appreciation on the compensation from the date of announcement of policy dated 30.08.2005 to 07.06.2007.
8. It is stated that the Collector failed to consider the important fact that Government of NCT of Delhi has increased the minimum rate of agricultural land @ Rs.53 lacs per acre vide notification dated 18.12.2007, whereby there is a increase of minimum rate of land up to three times. The Collector also failed to consider that the land situated within the Lal Dora is not having value less than Rs.6900/- per sq. yard. The circle rate as fixed by government does not imply correct and actual market value of the acquired land. It is stated that petitioner's land has great potential and higher value which is supported the fact that on 30.06.2007, DDA had invited the bid in Rohini Vicinity which is situated in vicinity of the acquired land and reserve price was fixed at Rs.85,000/- per sq. yards, whereas the Government has fixed the circle rate in vicinity of the land acquired @ Rs.18,000/- per sq. yards. The Collector failed to appreciate and does not consider the fact that only 34 days prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, government announced the policy of fixing the minimum rate of the land acquired and method adopted for assessing the award No. 2/DCW/1999-2000 has not been adopted in the present award. Further, the Collector has misinterpreted the notification no. RNZ/173 of MCD Delhi dated 24.08.1963, which was published in Gazette on 12.09.1963. According to which factories, warehouses are LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 4/35 permissible at the Lal Dora land but Building Bye-laws are applicable. The Collector wrongly interpreted that the boundary wall and structure existing at the Lal Dora (Residential area) land are unauthorized but infact all the structures are legal and boundaries are entitled to structure as well as awarded by the Collector while passing the award no. 2/DCW/1999-2000.
9. It is stated that the Collector has failed to consider that the amenities and facilities of daily life are available on and near the acquired land such a banks, namely, State Bank of India, Corporation Bank, Delhi Cooperative Bank, Punjab National Bank are situated at main Rohtak Road. Therefore, are in and around the acquired land is much developed and has good potential value and petitioner is entitled to market value of the acquired land not less than Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. Not only this, under notification, the part of the area under notification is also for the purpose of industrial area in Mundka Udyog Nagar, South of Rohtak Road, Mundka. Same is notified by government vide notification no. F1/C1/Policy/Institu/Firni Road Mundka and Mundka Udyog Nagar/ 2007/20 in Delhi Gazette Notification dated 17.09.2007.
10. The petitioner also referred to the sale deeds i.e.
(i) Gaurav Dua in favour of Relaxo Footwear Limited for the sum of Rs.60,00,000/- dated 12.12.2000 for the area of 10 Biswas only situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi, which is duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sub Distt. IX Janakpuri, Delhi as documents No. 7016 in additional Book No. 1 Volume No.246 on pages No. 31 to 50 LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 5/35 dated 12.12.2005; (ii) sale deed of Rs.2 Crore for land measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas situated in Khasra No. 815 in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna, in favour of MEK Developers Pvt. Ltd. by Smt. Gupta W/o Sushil Kumar Gupta executed on 24.11.2006 which is duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division West Distt. Delhi as document No. 6108 in additional Book No. 1, Volume no. 519 at page No. 42 to 105 on dated 24.11.2006; (iii) Sale deed of Rs.5 Crore and 35 lacs for land measuring 16 bighas 11 biswas situated in Khasra no. 663, 667, 773, 813, 780/1 in the village of Hiran Kudna in favour of Mek Developers Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jai lal S/o Chattar Singh executed on 14.11.2006 duly registered with Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh Sub-Division West Distt. Delhi as document no. 6113 in additional Book no.1 volume no. 521 at page Nos. 1-198 dated 14.11.2006;
(iv) sale deed for Rs.5 Crore for land measuring 11 bighas 9 biswas situated in Khasra no. 576 min, 586, 597, 602, 616, 617, 624, 625, 765 min, 766, 769, 770, 772 and 771 in the revenue estate of village of Hiran Kudna in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jagphool Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh executed on 31.05.2007; (v) sale deed of Rs.3 crores for land measuring 7 bighas 1-1/3 biswas situated in the village Hiran Kudna, in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Gordhan executed on 22.07.2007 duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division West Distt. Delhi as documents No. 2746 in additional Book No.1, Volume no. 691 at page no. 1-80 dated 22.07.2007; (vi) sale deed for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 12.12.2005 for the area of 10 Biswas only situated in Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi executed by Nikhil Dua in favour of M/s. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Which is LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 6/35 registered as document no. 7017 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 246 on pages 51 to 66 dated 12.12.2005 for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 12.12.2005; (vii) sale deed for Rs.43,75,000/- for land measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna in favour of Mek Developers Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Jagphool S/o Sh. Ram Singh executed on 31.05.2007 registered as document No. 2938 in additional Book No.1 volume No. 699 at page no. 36 to 74 on dated 31.05.2007 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division, West Distt. Delhi.
11. It is stated that the acquired land is quite leveled one and fit for residential, commercial and industrial purpose and petitioners are also entitled for alternative business site as per policy of DMRC. As per consistent policy of the government, it does not acquire built up lands and various notifications have been lapsed.
12. The petitioner seeks compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards along with statutory benefit as solatium @ 30%, additional amount at the rate of 12% and interest there on at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the enhanced amount is paid. Interest on the compensation amount till payment and compensation amount in respect of structure existed on the land of petitioner.
13. Written statement filed by respondent no.1/ Union of India and taken the preliminary objection that the Collector has already assessed the market value of the land in question taking into consideration the prevailing market rates of the LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 7/35 land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petition is time barred and is also not maintainable as the land in question is governed by DLR Act, 1953.
14. On merits, all the averments made in the reference petition are denied. The grounds taken by the petitioner are also denied. It is stated that petitioner is not entitled to any relief and reference is liable to be dismissed.
15. Respondent no.2/DMRC also filed written statement and taken preliminary objection that reference petition is liable to be rejected under Section 7 Rule 11 CPC and the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question. It is stated that the petition is barred under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC.
16. On merits, again all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied 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 categorically denied that petitioner is also entitled to alternative business site from DMRC/respondent no.2. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to written statements filed by respondents.
18. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 23.02.2012 by Ld. Predecessor:
LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 8/35
1. What was the market value of land on the date of notification U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any enhancement, if yes, to what an extent?
OPP
3. Relief.
19. In support of his case, petitioner got examined PW1 Sh. Rewti Prasad Sharma, Patwari from the office of SDM/SDO, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi; PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Kanoongo, L & B Department; PW3 Sh. Jagat Pal, UDC, Industries Department; PW4 Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Record Keeper from the office of Sub-Registrar II-A (Punjabi Bagh), Nangloi; PW5 Sh. Parveen Kumar, Kanoongo for LAC from the office of DC (West), Ram Pura; PW6 Ms. Anjali Garg - petitioner and PW7 Sh. D.S.Rathi, Kanoongo from DMRC. Thereafter, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner closed petitioner evidence vide separate statement dated 04.07.2014.
20. From the side of respondent no.1/ Union of India, Sh. S.S. Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered copy of award No. 02/DC (W)/2008-2009 pertaining to Village Mundka as Ex. R1 and photocopies of sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to R-6 and closed the R/E on 09.01.2015.
21. Sh. Sikandar Arora, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2/ DMRC adopted the evidence led by respondent no.1 and closed evidence on behalf of respondent no.2/ DMRC vide statement dated 09.01.2015.
LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 9/35
22. I have heard Sh. Sumit Bansal and Sh. Aakash Parashar, Counsels for the petitioner; Sh. S.S. Mittal, Counsel for the respondent no.1/ Union of India; and Sh. A.S.Rao, Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC and perused the record.
23. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the acquired land of the petitioner does not fall within the extended Lal Dora Abadi. He further submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the land of village Mundka issued on 07.06.2007. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 23.10.2007. The award passed by Collector (West) on 07.01.2009. It is submitted that the land measuring 143 Bigha 2 Biswa situated at village Mundka has been acquired for construction of Depot, staff quarters and TSS of Inder Loak-Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS, Project Phase-II, near Senior Secondary School, Mundka and North of NH-10. He has drawn my attention to ground (d) taken in reference petition where it is stated that the acquired land in question is just adjacent to already existing Industrial area situated between main Rohtak Road, national Highway No. 10 and Railway Line at revenue estate of village Mundka and the Government at Delhi has been going to regularize this area as Industrial area so the land of the petitioner is not less than of the value of Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards as the land in question is situated on the main Rohtak Road.
24. Further the ground (K-1) is referred, where stated that the petitioner is entitled for compensation for damages for super structure constructed at the land in question where well furnished office was situated as land in question was LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 10/35 being used for industrial/commercial purposes. Further, para 5 of the petition referred where it is stated that the acquired land in question is situated at NH-10, which is mettled road and very near to village Mundka, Nangloi and other neighbouring revenue estate. The area is fully developed as industrial area at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The part of industrial area in Mundka Udyog Nagar, South of Rohtak Road, Mundka, which is recently notified to regularize as an Industrial area vide notification no. F1/C1/Policy/Institu/Firni Road Mundka and Mundka Udyog Nagar/2007/20.
25. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per valuation report Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B, the valuation has been carried out by the Khanna and Associates Valuer of DMRC/ respondent no.2, which clearly mentioned that the acquired land is agricultural with industrial use. There exists proper concrete structure. This report has been prepared on 16.08.2007 just after the two months of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Ld. Counsel read out the award Ex. R-1. The method of valuation adopted by the Collector (West). He pointed out that the petitioner filed the claim and evidences before the Collector which are totally ignored by the Collector (West). He pointed out that the Collector has taken into consideration wrongly the minimum rate fixed by the Government of NCT vide notification dated 30.08.2005. The sale deeds which were considered by the Collector (West) are pertaining to very small area of the lands were not similarly situated as per the acquired land.
LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 11/35
26. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Aks Sazra proved by PW1 Sh.Rewti Prasad Sharma Ex. PW1/A of village Mundka, the land in question is situated on the highway NH-10 where all the surroundings are developed into an industrial area. He further referred to the judgment of LA Appeal No. 784/2005 titled 'Jamuna vs. UOI' Ex. PW6/1 and referred to para 5 and 6 of the judgment regarding the location of the acquired land, which has been settled by Hon'ble High Court. He submitted that the acquired land in question is situated in well developed industrial cluster and very near to NH-10 have great potentiality which has been ignored by the Collector while determining the market value of the acquired land. He pointed out that Ex. PW3/1, the notification issued by Govt. of NCT whereby as per Master Plan 2021, the industrial cluster has been notified for redevelopment.
27. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further referred to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Ex. PW6/2 in the case of 'Jayant Juneja vs. E. Sridharan' in Contempt Petition No. 34/11. He referred to the valuation report which is Annexure prepared in the case of Jayant Juneja (Supra) as per orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the valuer ABC Valuers and Company, the acquired land of Sh.Jayant Juneja, who was owner of the part of Khasra No. 57/15 and part of 6/2, Village Mundka was taken by DMRC subject to the valuation. According to the valuation report of ABC Valuers and Company, it was valued at Rs.36533.33 per sq. meter. It is submitted that the report has been accepted by DMRC and payment was made to Sh. Jayant Juneja before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is pointed out that the acquired land of the LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 12/35 petitioner is similarly situated. Therefore, it has the same potential value and as per accepted valuation of ABC Valuers, the petitioner is also entitled to the same value of Rs.36533.33 per sq. meter.
28. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on four sale deeds i.e. sale deed dated 13.07.2007 between Naresh Kumar (Attorney) and M/s. Raghunandan Prop.; sale deed dated 06.02.2008 between Johinder Singh & others and Tabasco Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; sale deed dated 20.12.2006 between Naresh Kumar (Attorney) and M/s. Shiv Durga Buildwell (P) ltd.; and sale deed dated 28.02.2006 between Khayali Ram and M/s. Raghunandan Properties (P) Ltd. In which the lands have been sold Apx. Rs.1744/- per sqm.; Rs.6852/- per sqm.; Rs.1632/- per sqm.; and Rs.1428/- per sqm. respectively.
29. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of 'Gigamber & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.' decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5346 of 2013 on 01.08.2013; and 'Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (dead) by LRs & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Another' (2015) 10 SCC 469. Ld. Counsel emphasized on para 83 of judgment of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Supra) and para 21 of Digamber's case (Supra). In both the judgments, it is pointed out that judgment of 'Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, AIR 1939 PC 98, wherein the principles laid down for determining the market value has been reiterated.
30. In addition to it, written arguments also filed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 13/35
31. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/Union of India and Law Officer for respondent no.2/ DMRC submitted that the acquired land in question is agricultural land. According to Award, 143 Bigha 2 Biswa of land has been acquired for MRTS Project Mundka Corridor. It is submitted that the petitioner has not examined any witness or proved any record according to which the acquired land was for industrial purposes. The land acquired in question has been used by Villagers for agricultural purposes and in case some other persons is using for some other purpose which is contrary to the purposes for which the land has been allowed by the Government. It is further submitted that the land in question has been situated within the revenue estate of village Mundka and surrounded by other villages i.e. Bakkarwala, Rani Khera, Neelwal. Some portion of village Mundka is touching the Highway No. 10 but the village is not well developed and has no potential for an industrial use. It is further submitted that the land acquired in question is used for agricultural purposes.
32. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Union of India and Law Officer of DMRC that the survey report of DMRC is only to identify the structures existing on the acquired land for assessing the compensation for the structures. It was not meant for determining the purpose of use of the acquired land in question. It is stated that the order in the case of Jayant Juneja in Contempt Petition No. 34/11 cannot be relied by the petitioner because that concerned to a very small land acquired. It is pointed out that the valuation report of ABC Valuer & Company is not proved by the petitioner as per law. As the original report is not filed, LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 14/35 the author of the report is not appeared and no authority is given to respondents to find out the basis of the report. Therefore, the report is not legally proved and cannot be read. It is further stated that the sale deeds i.e. sale deed dated 13.07.2007 between Naresh Kumar (Attorney) and M/s. Raghunandan Prop.; sale deed dated 06.02.2008 between Johinder Singh & others and Tabasco Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; sale deed dated 20.12.2006 between Naresh Kumar (Attorney) and M/s. Shiv Durga Buildwell (P) ltd.; and sale deed dated 28.02.2006 between Khayali Ram and M/s. Raghunandan Properties (P) Ltd., which have been relied by the petitioner are not referring to the fair market price as one of the sale deed is after the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Both the respondents submitted that on the contrary, the sale deeds filed by the respondents are in regard to agricultural land and reflects the fair market value. It is further submitted that the Collector (West) has fairly determined the market value of the acquired land and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement.
33. I have given thoughtful consideration to the respective oral and written submissions of both the counsel and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE Nos. 1 & 234. I have taken up both these issues together as they are interconnected and onus to prove both these issues is on the petitioner. Before examining the issue of determination of market value of the acquired land, firstly I would like to refer to relevant provisions of Land Acquisition LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 15/35 Act which are Section 23 and 24 which are reproduced hereunder :-
Section 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation -
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration----
first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1).
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any), bona fide resulting from LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 16/35 diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
(1A)...............................................................
(2).................................................................
Section 24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. -- But the Court shall take into consideration----
first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition;
secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit;
fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of, the land acquired commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section 1; eighthly, any increase to the value of the the land on account of its being part to any use which is forbidden by land or opposed to public policy.
LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 17/35
35. The determination of market value of acquired land shall be keeping in view the settled principles of law in evaluating market value in compulsory acquisition on the hypothesis of a willing Vendor and a willing Vendee. Therefore, let us glance through the settled principles of law in this regard.
36. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Narayan Gajapati Raju Vs. Revenue Divisional officer, AIR 1939 PC 98 held that :
"compensation for compulsory acquisition governed by Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Act "what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser".
37. The function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the evaluation may be as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Adinarayana Setty AIR 1959 SC 429 where the Supreme Court laid down the following principles :
"(1) Opinion of experts; (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the land acquired or the land adjacent to the acquired land and possessing LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 18/35 similar advantages; (3) Number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately perspective profits of the land acquired."
38. In Tribeni Devi Vs. Collector of Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 1417, the Supreme Court held that :
"for determining compensation payable to the owner of the land, the market value is to be determined by reference to the price which may be reasonable obtained from willing purchasers but since it may not be possible to ascertain this with any amount of precision the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. While reiterating the three tests laid down in S.L.A. Officer's case, it was further emphasized that these methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive at as nearly as possible at an estimate of the market value. In arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may be necessary to take even two or all these methods into account inasmuch as the exact evaluation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which the valuation can be accurately determined.
39. In P. Ram Reddy and Others Versus Land LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 19/35 Acquisition Officer (1995) 2 SCC 305, the Supreme Court held that :
"An acquired land could be regarded as that which has a building potentiality, if such land although was used on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act for agricultural or horticultural or other like purposes or was on that date even barren or waste, had the possibility of being used immediately or in the near future as land for putting up residential, commercial, industrial or other buildings. However, the fact that the acquired land had been acquired for building purposes, cannot be sufficient circumstance to regard it as a land with building potentiality, in that, under clause (4) of Section 24 of the LA Act that any increase to the value of land likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired, is required to be excluded. Therefore, wherever, there is a possibility of the acquired land not used for building purposes on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act, of being used for putting up buildings either immediately or in the near future but not in the distant future, then such acquired land would be regarded as that which has a building potentiality. Even so, when can it be said that there is the possibility of the acquired land being used in the immediate or near future for putting up buildings, would be the real question. Such possibility of user of the acquired land for building LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 20/35 purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it should be a matter of inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on record to establish such possibility. Material so placed on record or made available must necessarily relate to the matters such as :
(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;
(ii)the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;
(iii)possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put upon that land;
(iv)absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes;
(v)existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;
LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 21/35
(vi)benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and
(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.
The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentiary value for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."
40. In Shaji Kuriakose Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001) 7SCC 650, the Supreme Court held that :
"3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 22/35 land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 23/35 covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land that what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land."
41. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 the Supreme Court held that :
"18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 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. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 24/35 notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
The amount of compensation cannot be
ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A
comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under :
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area.
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the
interior at a distance
from the road.
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land
with very small frontage
compared to depth.
(iv) nearness to (iv) lower level requiring
developed areas depressed portion to be
filled up.
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from
developed locality
acquisition
(vi) level vis-a-vis land (vi) some special
under acquisition disadvantageous factors
LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 25/35
which would deter a
purchaser
(vii) special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it
may have some very
special advantage.
42. In a case Union of India Versus Pramod
Gupta (Dead) by LRs. and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Supreme Court considered the two methods laying down the principles for determining the market value. Firstly, what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser. Secondly, comparison of sale deeds. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. The area of land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the land. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages.
43. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Sumit Bansal and Sh. Aakash Parashar contended that the petitioner has been using the acquired land in question for industrial purposes as they referred to para K-1 of the petition. They also relied on Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B, the valuation report prepared by M/s. Khanna and Associates on behalf of the respondent no. 2/DMRC. I have gone through the reports, the report Ex. PW7/A pertains to M/s. Raj Kirpal Lumper Ltd. And Ex. PW7/B pertains to one Sh. Ram Gopal. These reports are LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 26/35 not prepared with the purpose of determining the use of the acquired land. Fundamentally, these valuation reports are prepared to identify the structures and assessing the value thereof for compensation purposes. The petitioner in the ground K-1 of the petition mentioned that the land has been used for industrial/commercial purposes and described the existence of office rooms and other construction. However, no document proved on record to establish the industrial activity and use. No document proved on record to establish the name and style of the unit which has been run at acquired land in question. It has not been mentioned what industrial activities have been going on and since when.
44. Further, there is no document filed and proved on record regarding the required permission and sanction by the concerned authorities to run industrial unit at the acquired land. No license, no electricity used as industrial document, no VAT document, no Income Tax documents filed and proved by the petitioner to establish the industrial use. Further more, the petitioner has also not examined any witness or filed on record any notification or permission or sanction by Government of NCT which authorize and legalize the use of the acquired land as industrial. On the contrary, as per award Ex. R-1, the total land in question acquired is 143 Bigha 2 Biswa. There is nothing brought on record that the whole acquired land has been used for commercial or industrial purposes. Petitioner also examined PW3, who proved a notification dated 17.09.2007, which provides norms for redevelopment of clusters of industrial concentrated in non confirming areas. This notification establishes that on the day of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the acquired LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 27/35 land in question was not notified or part of Master Plan. The use of the acquired land contrary to the Master Plan, does not create any potentiality for the said illegal industrial purpose in this notification, as per Clause 7.6.1.1. and 7.6.2, the village Mundka is not included.
45. In my considered opinion, the petitioner failed to establish that the acquired land was legally used for industrial and commercial purpose with proper permission and sanction from the competent authority. Further more, the petitioner failed to establish the industrial unit activities conducted/carried out by the petitioner.
46. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Sumit Bansal vehemently argued and relied on Ex. PW6/2, an order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayant Juneja vs. E. Sridharan, Cont. petition No. 34/11 and a report filed by ABC Valuer and Company before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Jayant Juneja's case (Supra). I have gone through the pleadings, in the petition and grounds, no such ground taken by the petitioner regarding the land of Jayant Juneja. It is not clear whether land of said case was acquired by any award or DMRC/respondent no.2 directly entered into an agreement, nothing has been brought on record in this regard. Petitioner appeared in witness box as PW6 and in affidavit, she relied on the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court along with the valuation report. It is pertinent to mention here that the order dated 23.08.2011 of the case of Jayant Juneja (Supra) is a photocopy. The report appears to be an Annexure filed in some petition as it is numbers as P-13 and it is a photocopy. This report cannot be a document which is part of the order of LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 28/35 Hon'ble Supreme Court, although it mentioned. After going through the order, it was an agreement between Jayant Juneja and DMRC for a very small piece of land i.e. 873 sq. meter out of 2175 sq. meter which was required by DMRC. The valuation report of the ABC Valuer and Company required to be proved by author of the report and at least certified copy of the valuation report should have been filed by the petitioner. The Union of India/ respondent no.1 must have been given the opportunity to test the parameters and the factors taken by the valuer Sh.Jitendra Gupta on behalf of ABC Valuer & Company, who prepared the report. The photocopy of valuation report filed by the petitioner in this manner is not proved in accordance with law. Therefore, it cannot be relied. Further more, the valuation report pertains to much later period of notification under Section 4 of the Act of the present award as it mentioned the date of valuation made on 08.12.2008 and pertains to very small piece of land. The petitioner miserably failed to proved the valuation report as per law as neither authentic copy has been filed on record nor the Valuer has been examined before the Court. Hence, the valuation report by ABC Valuer & Company cannot be read and relied.
47. The petitioners filed four sale deeds i.e. sale deed dated 13.07.2007 between Naresh Kumar (Attorney) and M/s. Raghunandan Prop.; sale deed dated 06.02.2008 between Johinder Singh & others and Tabasco Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; sale deed dated 20.12.2006 between Naresh Kumar (Attorney) and M/s. Shiv Durga Buildwell (P) ltd.; and sale deed dated 28.02.2006 between Khayali Ram and M/s. Raghunandan Properties (P) Ltd. In which the lands have LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 29/35 been sold Apx. Rs.1744/- per sqm.; Rs.6852/- per sqm.; Rs.1632/- per sqm.; and Rs.1428/- per sqm. respectively. The respondents filed 5 sale deeds i.e. (i) sale deed dated 12.02.2007 registered as document no. 868 in book no. 1, Vol. No. 596 on pages 84 to 90 registered with Sub-Registrar-II (A), Punjabi Bagh, Delhi; (ii) sale deed dated 12.02.2007 registered as document no. 878 in book no. 1 Vol. no. 596 on pages 163 to 171 registered with Sub Registrar -II (A), Punjabi Bagh, Delhi; (iii) sale deed dated 05.01.2007 registered as document no. 116 in book no. 1 Vol. no. 561 on pages 112 to 120 with Sub-Registrar -II (A), Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. (iv) sale deed dated 12.02.2007 registered as document no. 867 in book no. 1 Vol. no. 596 on paged 76 to 83 with Sub Registrar-
II (A), Punjabi Bagh, Delhi; (v) sale deed dated 19.03.2007 registered as document no. 1453 in book no. 1 Vol. no. 624 on pages 156 to 160 with Sub Registrar-II (A), Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
48. I have gone through the sale deeds, the sale deed of Mundka is dated 13.07.2007 and notification under Section 4 of the Act is of June, 2007. Therefore, it is not relevant. Other sale deeds are of Village Bakkarwala. Village Bakkarwala is not ideally, geographically and topographically considered to be similar to the village Mundka. Whereas the sale deeds relied by respondents belongs to very small piece of land. In my considered opinion, all the sale deeds are not the indicator of fair market price on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The sale deeds of petitioner shows sky high rates and respondents shows very low rates. Therefore, the sale deeds relied by the parties are not much help to arrive at a fair market price.
49. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ex. PW6/1, LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 30/35 the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LA Appeal No. 784/2005 titled 'Jamuna vs. UOI', and also relied on three other judgments i.e. (i) Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India 93 (2001) DLT 150; (ii) Rameshwar Solanki vs. Union of India 57 (1995) DLT 410; and (iii) Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese vs. Union of India 2002 VI AD (Delhi) 315. The contention raised is that the judgment of Jamuna (Supra) decided the award of village Mundka pertaining to notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 17.06.2005 and Hon'ble High Court applying the principle of progressive appreciation of land value, increased the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of all the acquired land in the said award. In the present case, award is after two years and the market value fixed by Hon'ble High Court in the case of Jamuna (Supra) shall be given progressive increase of 10% per annum. In addition to it, further contended that the Government of NCT vide notification dated 24.01.2008 fixed the minimum rates of all agricultural land to Rs.53 lacs. Therefore, on the date of notification in the present case, the market value can be determined after deducting the progressive increase from 30.08.2005 to 18.12.2007 from which the notification came into effect.
50. Ld. Counsel also emphasized on para 5 of the judgment of Jamuna (Supra), wherein the geographical situation has been described and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. I have gone through the judgment of Jamuna (Supra) as emphasized by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, I agree about the findings of geographical situation of village Mundka as per judgment of Jamuna (Supra). However, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court has not taken LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 31/35 into consideration any other purpose of use of the acquired land except the agricultural and determined the market value.
51. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner emphasized upon judgment of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Supra). This judgment pertains to acquisition of land by State for establishing industrial complex. Therefore, the future potential and use has been taken as one of the factor while deciding the fair market value. However, in the present facts and circumstances, this judgment is distinguishable because the Government acquired the land for providing Mass Rapid Transport System to the citizens by Delhi Metro which is being run for the benefit and convenience of public at large. Similarly, another judgment pressed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is of Digamber & Others (Supra). In this case also the land was acquired for non agricultural purposes and there were several sale instances on record at the time of notification. However, in the present circumstances, the land has been acquired for providing the Metro Transport System to the National Capital. So this judgment is also distinguishable.
52. It is pertinent to mention here that the method for arriving at fair market value of the acquired land in question on the basis of sale deeds proved by the parties has not led us to any fair parameter or indicator where a vendor and vendee freely agreed to accept the voluntarily sale of the land. The method of appreciating the sale deed is of no help in the present circumstances of the case. Now coming to the LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 32/35 Jayant Juneja's case (Supra), it is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. More importantly, the petitioner failed to prove the valuation report which is not tendered legally, therefore, it cannot be basis for arriving at fair market value. The petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment of Jamuna (Supra). Now applying the principle and formula laid down in Jamuna's case (Supra), the award of village Mundka dated 17.06.2005 was arriving at the fair market value applied the progressive appreciation value @ 10% per annum.
53. In my considered opinion in the present facts and circumstances also in order to arrive at fair market value, this principle is applicable. The fair market value determined by the Collector (West) is erroneous, which is Rs.17,58,400/- per acre on the basis of rate fixed in the year 2005. Therefore, it has to be given progressive appreciation from 30.08.2005 to 07.06.2007 i.e. 645 days. Now applying the principle of law relied by petitioner in the matters of Jamuna (Supra), Bedi Ram (Supra), Ramshwar Solanki (Supra) and Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese (Supra), the value for the period 30.08.2005 to 07.06.2007 @ 12% per annum comes out to be Rs.3,72,877/-. Both the issues are decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
54. In view of my findings on Issue nos. 1 and 2, the fair market value of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.21,31,277/- per acre after enhancement @ Rs.3,72,877/- per acre. Besides this the petitioner is also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 33/35
55. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
56. The petitioner 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 dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
57. The petitioner is further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
58. Petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation as per judgment under Section 30-31 of the L.A. Act dated 19.08.2016 in the case bearing No. LAC-4A/11 titled as 'Union of India vs. Anjali Garg & Others'.
59. The interest on compensation for the period of delay due to impleading of LRs or stay of High Court or any other court may also be deducted.
60. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioner be adjusted and deducted from total amount of LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 34/35 compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
61. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
62. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 3rd of October, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 03.10.2016 LAC No. 58/11 (New No.14/16) Anjali Garg vs. UOI & Anr. 35/35