Delhi District Court
Dharampal And Ors. vs . Uoi & Ors. on 19 November, 2015
Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District, Room No. 602,
Sixth Floor, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi
In the matter of :
LAC No. 16/2014
Unique ID No. 02406C0109552014
1. Dharam Pal, S/o Late Charan Singh,
R/o House No. 163, Tikkar Mohalla,
Village Maidangarhi, New Delhi110068.
2. Shri Satpal, S/o Late Charan Singh,
R/o House No. 16, Village Maidangarhi, New Delhi.
3. Shri Kanwar Lal, S/o Late Charan Singh,
R/o House No. 16, Village Maidangarhi, New Delhi.
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India, through LAC / ADM,
South District, M.B. Road, D.C. Office,
South District, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority,
through its Vice Chairman,
INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
..... Respondents
Reference received from LAC on : 07.05.2014 Date of Institution : 07.05.2014 Decision reserved on : 18.11.2015 Date of decision : 19.11.2015 LAC No. 16/2014 Page 1 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
AWARD (by the Court under section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894) 1.1. (Introduction) The petitioners are seeking enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of land acquired, while dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Whereas, respondents stand by the Award that amount determined is correct and it represents fair market price.
1.2 In order to decide the petitioners' reference petition u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in brief the Act, 1894) read with statement u/s 19 of the Act, referred by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below :
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act 25.11.1980
(ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act 08.06.1985
(iii) for Project Planned Development of Delhi
(iv) Location/Name of Village Maidangarhi (va)Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC 23/198788 & date of award & 17.6.1987 (vb) Area under acquisition 25 bigha (vc) Date of possession taken 16.07.1987 (via) Date of reference petition to LAC 01.12.1987 (vib) Petition referred to Court on 07.05.2014 LAC No. 16/2014 Page 2 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
1.3. Pursuant to preliminary notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by declaration vide notification under section 6 of the Act, 1894, and then by award no. 23/198788 the petitioners' land measuring 25, as detailed in statement U/s 19 of the Act, was acquired and on 22.9.1987 they were paid the compensation from the office. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief the Collector or LAC) by considering the locations of land, it was put into BlockA, BockB, BlockC, Block D and BlockE visavis the other factors standing trees crops, wells and other structure, gave its Award No. 23. The Collector determined compensation @ Rs.16,000/ per bigha for blockA ; Rs 14000/ per bigha for blockB ; Rs 12000/ per bigha for blockC ; Rs 10000/ per bigha for blockD and Rs 3,500/ per bigha for blockE . The petitioners' land was put to blockC. Then, the petitioners feeling aggrieved, preferred a reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894 against respondent no. 1 before Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The said petition along with statement under section 19 of the Act, 1984 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector to decide the reference by giving details of acquired area, date of possession and rates of compensation or the shares that each LAC No. 16/2014 Page 3 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
petitioner has in the land. It is necessary to mention that DDA was impleaded party to the petition immediately on the day the reference was received, it was summoned as respondent no.2.
Petitioners' case 2.1 The petitioners are feeling aggrieved by the said Award, filed a joint reference petition under section 18 of the Act, 1894 before Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petitioners have sought enhanced compensation of the land acquired.
2.2 The market value of the land has not been correctly assessed, the rate determined against Government policy vis a vis the same is arbitrary, the petitioners do not accept the award with regard to its proprietary and legality. The rate determined by Collector is not true market value and it is at a very low rate without appreciating the location of petitioners' land and without applying judicious mind. The market value of land was not less than Rs.2000/ per sq. yards on the date of notification. It is also surrounded by big industrial area, which has come up and this has increased the potential value of land to great extent. Indira Gandhi Open University, renowned temple of Chhattarpur, posh colony like Saket is at stone throw distance, where value of land was not less than Rs.3000/ per LAC No. 16/2014 Page 4 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
sq. yard. The acquired land was giving 3/4 crops in a year, it had been source of their livelihood, the petitioners income was not less than Rs. 10,000/ per bigha. The land is near Main Mehrauli Faridabad Road on one side and Mehrauli Gurgaon Road on other side. DDA has been providing alternate plots at very high concessional rate of not less than Rs.400/ per sq. yard in lieu of acquisition. The Government has also provided facilities of electricity, water and transport. Thus market value of land was of Rs. 2000/ per sq. yard. There are about 20 trees on the land, the value of land is not less than Rs. 2 lacs, the petitioner is entitled for damages of Rs. 2 lacs.
However, the Land Acquisition Collector failed to appreciate all these features, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.2000/ per sq. yds besides other compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ for trees.
Respondents' case
3. The respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 filed their separate written statements and they opposed the reference petition on the ground, in nutshell, that the findings given by Collector in his Award is based on market value of the land, the compensation was just, adequate, sufficient and it was rightly assessed in accordance with the conditions LAC No. 16/2014 Page 5 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
prevailing at relevant time. The market value is a question of fact and evidence depending upon evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case, the onus is always on the claimant. The petitioner has not brought any cogent or specific evidence on record to claim such compensation. Respondent no.2/DDA also supplements that possession of the land was given to DDA on 16.7.1987, the land has not been transferred to any scheme as per land record. The reference petition also deserves dismissal and petitioners do not deserve any more compensation.
Issues
4. On 17.3.2015, the following issues were framed for determination :
1. Whether the reference is without cause of action as Award no. 23/19871988 dated 17.6.1987 reflects actual and assessed market value of the land acquired land? OPR1 & 2
2. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of preliminary notification of 25.11. 1980? Onus on parties.
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation? OPP
4. Relief.
LAC No. 16/2014 Page 6 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
Evidence 5.1 In order to establish the issues, the petitioner No.1 Dharampal (PW1) appeared in the witnesses box for petitioners' evidence and he tendered judgments (Ex PW1/1 LAC No. 92/09 Kishan Chand & others Vs Union of India & DDA) of Ld. Predecessor to prove rate of land under same notification in the same village, Ex PW1/2 LAC No.118/11 Daljeet Singh Vs Union of India of Village Jasola (of Award no. 21/9293), Ex PW 1/3 Siri Ram & others Vs UOI of Village Jasola (Award no. 247/8687), reported judgments Ex PW1/4 Hari Chand Vs UOI 91 2001 DLT 602 of notification dated 1.6.92 of Village Tughlakabad, Delhi, Ex PW1/5 Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana 2011 IV AD SC 383 and Ex PW1/6 Mehrawa Khewajhi Trust Faridkot Vs State of Punjab 2012 V AD SC 110; then the petitioners' evidence was closed. PW1 has also been cross examined thoroughly from all angles of demographic position of land acquired and use of land. 5.2 Then, respondents were given opportunity to lead evidence and Shri S K Puri, Ld counsel for Union of India tendered same Award no. 23/8788 (as Ex R1), then evidence was closed by them. LAC No. 16/2014 Page 7 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
Final Hearing
6. At the juncture of final hearing, Shri Inder Singh, Counsel for petitioners and Shri S.K Puri, Counsel for UOI / respondent no. 1 and Ms Renu Gupta, Advocate of DDA/respondent no.2 advanced their respective submissions.
Findings 7.1 Issues No. 1, 2 and 3
1. Whether the reference is without cause of action as Award no. 23/19871988 dated 17.6.1987 reflects actual and assessed market value of the land acquired land? OPR1 & 2
2. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of preliminary notification of 25.11.1980? Onus on parties.
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation? OPP 7.2 All issues are taken together. Issue no.1 is with regard to the cause of action and market value of land acquired on the date of preliminary notification, the onus lies on the respondents. Issue no.2 is in respect of market value of land on the date of preliminary notification, the onus to prove it is on the parties. Issue no. 3 is in respect of entitlement for enhanced compensation, onus to prove it lies on the petitioners. LAC No. 16/2014 Page 8 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
7.3 The rival submission are considered and analyzed in the light of record, statutory provisions of law, precedent and findings arrived & rate determined in other case.
The reference petition under section 18 of the Act, is pursuant to dissatisfaction of petitioners to the amount/market value of land determined as compensation on the date of acquisition of land. Section 23(1) of the Act, 1894 lays down the matters to be considered by court in determining the compensation and section 24 of the Act, 1894 talks about the matters to be neglected in determining the compensation. In Adusmilli Gopala Krishna vs. Special Deputy Collector AIR 1980 SC 1870, it was held the court has to consider nature of land, present use and its capacity for higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighbouring land has been put and impact of such use on land acquired, while assessing the compensation. In Tribeni Devi and others vs. The Collector AIR 1972 SC 417, it was held that the principles for determination of compensation payable to owner of land is the market value which is determined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser but as this may not be possible to ascertain with any amount of precision, the Authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an LAC No. 16/2014 Page 9 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
objective standard. In Suresh Kumar vs. Town Improvement Trust AIR 1989 SC 1222 it was held that in estimating the market value of land, the proper way to ascertaining the market value of land is by taking into consideration the special value of land, which ought to be attached to the special advantage possessed by the land like its proximity to developed urbanized areas. Further, the court has to ascertain as best as possible from the materials before it what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser for the land in that particular position and with that particular potentiality. The value of the potentiality has to be determined on such material as a available and without indulgence in fits of imagination. 7.4 There is no evidence by the respondents or from cross examination of PW1 that petition is without cause of action, in fact the reference has been sent to court to adjudicate the issues raised. Therefore, respondents could not establish issue no.1 in their favour. Accordingly issue no.1 stand disposed off.
On comparison of entire submission of parties, although the petitioners stake their claims on many aspects on amount of compensation but they also refer findings given in Kishan Chand & others case (Ex PW1/1 supra), which determines market value of land @ Rs.59,770/ per LAC No. 16/2014 Page 10 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
bigha as on 25.11.1980 in the same preliminary notification in same village, which is also not disputed by the respondents. However, PW1 was cross examined on various aspects. But, it is settled law, that two equals are to be treated equally. The petitioners cannot be treated differently among equals, they are entitled for compensation at the same rate as others were held entitled. Hence, on the date of preliminary notification, the market value of land was Rs.59,770/ per bigha and issue no.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. The petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation to Rs.59,770/ per bigha, this determines issue no. 3 in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
However, the petitioners have made other claims of trees etc, the same have not been whispered in evidence nor proved, therefore, such claim could not have been established by the petitioners. Since the respondent no.2 is beneficiary of land acquired, therefore, both the respondents will be liable jointly and severally. 7.5 Ld counsel for petitioners requests that interest for the period 18.3.1981 to 15.11.1983 was not allowed by LAC and they were declined interest because of stay by court (as mentioned in page 72 of the Award) in terms of explanation appended to section 23(1A) of the Act, 1894. However, LAC No. 16/2014 Page 11 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
without disturbing this aspect, the petitioners shall not be deprived of interest on enhanced amount of compensation by court, since the chapter of stay has been over when proceedings of acquisition were pending before the Collector.
Issue No. 3 - Relief
8. In view of the findings given on Issues no. 1 and 2 above, the petitioners are held entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.59,770/ per bigha from the amount awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, in respect of petitioners' land acquired, also detailed in the statement under section 19 of the Act, 1894, besides 30% solatium under section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land, interest @ 12% per annum under section 23(1) from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC or date of taking of possession whichever is earlier; 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court from the date of possession of land to payment of excess amount in the court, for one year and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in court. They will also be entitled for other benefits allowed in the Award by Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The compensation will be disbursed to petitioners as per their shares in the land as detailed in statement U/s 19 LAC No. 16/2014 Page 12 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
of the Act. The respondent no.2 is beneficiary, therefore, both the respondents no.1 and 2 will be liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. However, interest declined by Collector (for period of 18.3.1981 to 15.11.1983 of stay by court as per page 72 of Award), while making award and paying compensation, would not be construed as allowed by court.
9. The reference petition stand answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance on his part for remitting of amount payable to the petitioners.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today (Inder Jeet Singh) th Tuesday, 28 Kartika, Saka 1937 Addl. District Judge02 (South) Saket, New Delhi / 19.11.2015 LAC No. 16/2014 Page 13 of 13 Dharampal and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
LAC No. 16/2014 19.11.2015 Present : Proxy counsel for Shri Inder Singh, Counsel for petitioners, memo of parties filed, copies are given to opposite side.
Proxy counsel for Shri S.K. Puri, Counsel for UOI / respondent no. 1.
Proxy counsel for Ms. Renu Gautam Sharma, Counsel for DDA / respondent no. 2.
Vide separate Award announced today, the reference petition stands answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance on his part for remitting of amount payable to the petitioners.
File be consigned to record room.
(Inder Jeet Singh) ADJ02 (South), Saket New Delhi / 19.11.2015 N LAC No. 16/2014 Page 14 of 13