Delhi District Court
Shri Rajinder Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India on 16 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF Ms Savitri
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
LAC No. 04/18
Area: Property No. 69/4A Patel Road ( Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-15
Award No.: 02/DC (W)/2006-07 dated 30.08.2006
Shri Rajinder Kumar Gupta
S/o late Shri Jyoti Pershad,
R/o 28, Ram Nagar,
New Delhi
.... Petitioner
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
District (West), Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 22.02.2018
Date of conclusion of arguments : 16.03.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.03.2020
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 11785.82 sq. meters under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9174 dated 03.09.2003. Notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9375 under Section 6 of said Act was issued on LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 1 of 11 02.09.2004. The land was notified under Section 17(1) vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9376 dated 02.09.2004. Such land had been acquired for the purpose of construction of Grade/Flyover at Najafgarh Road & Patel Road Intersection near Moti Nagar.
2. Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 02/DC (W)/2006-2007 dated 30.08.2006 (Ex. R-1) under Section 11 of said Act. He determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.20,900/- per square meter for industrial land under acquisition. The structure was valued as per the valuation report submitted by MCD.
3. According to the statement of Section 19 of said Act filed by the Collector, the petitioner was shown as recorded owner of the acquired land as per following particulars: -
Name of Property Total Kind Detail of recorded owner No. Area in of soil Buildings &share Sqm. 69/4A at Patel 69/4A 585.00 Nil As per award Road Moti nagar, Delhi (1/1 share)
Note: The reference petitioners are not recorded owners as per the award and compensation sent to ADJ court u/s 30-31 of LA Act, 1894 being dispute.
: Reference Petition is time barred.
Date of Possession is 07.06.2005.
4. The petitioner filed application under Section 18 of said Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by Collector.
5. In brief, the facts averred in the petition are that petitioner is a person interested as a tenant in the commercial built-up property bearing No. 69/4-A consisting of a shop No. 9 on the ground floor and LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 2 of 11 an office on the first floor. It is stated that petitioner is entitled to receive major share in the compensation i.e. 87% of the compensation.
6. The petitioner does not accept the findings and determination of the LAC. It is stated that LAC has grossly erred in awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,900/- per sq. meter which on the lowest side in the area. It is stated that the market value of land is not less than Rupees One lakh per square Meter. The land is commercial being surrounded by roads and commercial shops. Survey report itself indicates that commercial shops existed on the acquired land. The DDA has recently sold in open auction residential properties in various parts of Delhi which are much inferior in situation amenities and facilities available as compared to the land of the petitioner.
7. It is stated that petitioner has spent over Rs. 20,000/- for shifting machine, computer and other items including stationery etc. which were partly damaged. The stationery became useless as address printed on the stationery of the shop acquired became unusable and totally waste. The petitioner claims Rs. 20,000/- on this account.
8. It is further stated stated that market value of the structures on the date of Notification under Section 4 was in any case not less than Rs. 1,24,019/- as calculated in detail by the government approved valuer as against Rs. 23,267/- awarded by the LAC. It is claimed that petitioner has suffered permanent loss of earnings on account of taking over possession of the land and re-starting the business. The petitioner so far has not been allotted alternative accommodation to re-start the business. The petitioner claims Rs. 2,00,000/- on this account alongwith other benefits.
LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 3 of 119. Respondent no.1 / Union of India filed written statement. In the preliminary objections, it was stated that the present petition is not maintainable as the same is time barred and has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the land in question is government by DLR Act, 1954. It is further stated that the Collector, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, had correctly and legally assessed the market value of the land in question and the same was adequate and just. It is stated that the compensation of the acquired land has already been paid by the LAC to the petitioner. The claim of petitioner is highly excessive, unjustified and denied.
10. On merits, the averments made in the petition were denied as wrong and incorrect.
11. Reply / objections were filed on behalf of respondent no.2 / MCD (North) as well. It was claimed therein that the present petition was not maintainable and the grounds taken for the enhancement of compensation were not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was claimed that the reference petition filed by the petitioner is hopelessly time barred and liable to be dismissed.
12. Respondent no.2 also highlighted about various previous aspects related to land in question. According to MCD, the Delhi Improvement Trust (now known as DDA) had sanctioned a plan of industrial area of in question. Plot No. 69 was eventually purchased by Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani. He and others submitted a proposal for sub- division of Plot No. 69 for approval by MCD in the year 1973. Such proposal was put up before the Standing Committee and was approved LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 4 of 11 vide resolution dated 31.05.1973. It was also approved by the Standing Committee that the land required for widening of Najafgarh Road, Patel Road and intersection of these two roads shall be left, as per approved alignment land, free of cost. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner submitted the layout plan indicating the land to be surrendered for the purpose of road widening and sought sub-division of plot No. 69 into six parts. Accordingly, the land was sub-divided into six parts. Five plots after sub-division were retained by Virmani family and one bigger size plot i.e. 69/1-A was sold to M/s. India Export Pvt. Ltd. MCD claimed that Virmani family had taken full benefit of the resolution passed by MCD and got the land sub-divided but the other conditions which were in favour of MCD or general public were not fulfilled. Therefore, the resolution passed in the year 1973 stood lapsed and therefore, such resolution came to an end and consequently, the sub-division of the plot into six plots and transfer of sub-division to different persons became illegal and therefore, the entire plot was required to be dealt as one single plot and the construction raised thereupon individually and separately by such various owners was also required to be dealt with as per the provisions of DMC Act. It has been claimed that such occupants of sub-divided plots were not permitted to take any benefit.
13. On merits, it was claimed that the petitioner was not entitled for further enhancement in compensation. It was agitated that rather compensation amount paid by MCD or LAC was required to be revoked in the light of resolution of MCD of the year 1973 and 1996.
14. No replication was filed by petitioner.
LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 5 of 1115. My Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 06.07.2018, framed the following issues:
1. What was the fair market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable being time barred? OPR 1 & 2
3. Relief.
16. Petitioner in order to prove his case appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and also rely upon the copy of judgment under Section 30-31 of LA Act dated 24.09.2008 as Ex. PW-1/1. He also relied upon the copy of judgment of India Export House as Ex. PW-1/2.
17. Petitioner further examined Sh. Chander Kant, official from record room Sessions as PW-2 who proved the original judgment in case bearing no. LAC No. 05/2006, titled as Union of India Vs Banarsi Lal & Ors. Decided on 24.09.2008 by Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then ld. ADJ and marked as mark PW-2/1.
18. PW-3 Sh. Satish Kumar, JJA from Record Room Sessions, proved the record pertaining to Ex. No. 14/09 and Ex. No. M-25/10, both titled UOI Vs Banarsi lal Pasricha and copy of the order sheet LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 6 of 11 dated 05.05.2009 marked as Mark PW-3/A. Vide separate statement of ld. Counsel for the petitioner, evidence on behalf of petitioner was closed on 25.07.2019.
19. Sh. S.K. Puri, Ld. Counsel for UOI tendered the copy of Award No. 02/DC(W)/2006-07 as Ex. R-1 and closed evidence on 21.11.2019 on behalf of respondent no. 1/ UOI.
20. Respondent no.2/MCD adopted the evidence led by ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1-UOI and closed evidence on behalf of respondent no. 2 on 21.11.2019.
21. It is reiterated that in Section 19 Statement, it was mentioned that the reference petitioner was not recorded owner as per the award and compensation amount was, therefore, being sent to ADJ court u/s 30-31 of LA Act, 1894, there being dispute about entitled person.
22. The reference petition under Section 30-31 of the LA Act bearing LAC No. 5/2006 titled 'Union of India vs. Banarasi Lal Pasricha & Others' has already been decided by Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then ld. ADJ on 24.09.2008.
23. Thus, in LAC No. 5/2006 titled Union of India Vs Banarasi Lal Pasricha & Ors. the share percentage of petitioner i.e. IP no. 3, inter alia, was adjudicated.
24. I have heard Ms Dimple Dhamija, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 7 of 1125. My issue wise findings are as under:
1. What was the fair market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable being time barred? OPR 1 & 2
26. Both these issues are inter-connected and inter-woven and, therefore, these are being taken up together. The contention of petitioner is very simple and precise. It has been contended that as per judgment given by reference Court in case of M/s. India Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI, bearing LAC No. 49/08, this court has already determined the fair market value of the land acquired vide Award No. 02/DC(W)/2006-07 i.e award in question. Admittedly, the land of the petitioner herein is also part of the same award and, therefore, same yardstick needs to be applied. The petitioner has also relied upon various other judgments passed by this court with respect to same award i.e. Award No. 02/DC (W)/2006-07 dated 30.08.2006 in cases bearing LAC No. 106/11 titled 'Smt. Rajinder Kaur vs. Union of India & Anr.' dated 05.01.2016, LAC No. 105/11 Sh. Virender Pal Arora Vs Union of India & Others dated 04.01.2016 and LAC No. 2/13 (New No. 67/18) Ms Divya Jain Vs Union of India dated 10.10.2018.
LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 8 of 1127. On the other hand, Union of India has relied upon the award Ex. R-1 passed by the Collector. MCD has not examined any witness and only adopted the evidence led by respondent no. 1/UOI.
28. Since the reference court has already given decision with respect to the land falling under the same notification and same award, this court does not find any requirement of entering into said controversy all over again.
29. Law is well settled. Once the market value is determined by reference Court, the same market value is applicable to the other cases as well falling under the same notification and same Award. Reliance is placed on 'Nand Ram & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana' JT 1988 (4) SC 260. Reference be also made to 'Goa Housing Board vs. Ramesh Chandra Govind Pawaskar & Anr.' AIR 2012 SC 193 wherein also it has been observed that there can be no doubt that similarly situated land in the same area, having the same advantages and acquired under the same notification should be awarded the same compensation.
30. Hence, in view of the above observation and discussion, the petitioner is entitled to fair market value of the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.28,438.53 per square meter with statutory interest and solatium as already decided in earlier reference petitions.
31. Accordingly, issue nos. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 9 of 113. Whether the present petition is not maintainable being time barred? OPR 1 & 2
32. As per the settled law in LAC matters, it is the Government, which is required to set up and prove by documents available on record, if any claim/reference was barred by limitation. Accordingly, in the present matter also the onus to prove if the petition was barred by limitation, was upon the respondents. The respondents have failed to adduce any evidence to that effect. In absence of evidence, I hold that they have been unable to prove that the petition was barred by limitation. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF
33. Accordingly, the reference is disposed of by holding that the compensation awarded to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.20,900/- per sq. meter by LAC was inadequate and unreasonable.
I) Petitioner is awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.28,438.53 (Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred thirty eight and paisa fifty three only) per square meter. Petitioner is thus entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,538.53 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred thirty eight and paisa fifty three only) along with 30% solatium.
ii) 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 additional amount as well as solatium.
LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 10 of 11iii) Petitioner is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of Section 4 notification till the date of possession i.e. 03.09.2003 to 25.10.2005 as per provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
iv) Petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per Section 28 of the Act.
34. Needless to emphasize that the compensation payable to the petitioner would be as per share percentage adjudicated in Reference Petition pertaining to sec 30-31 of said Act decided on 24.09.2008, titled as UOI Vs Banarsi Lal Pascricha & Ors.
35. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
36. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
37. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SAVITRI SAVITRI CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY ATTRI ATTRI Date: 2020.03.16 13:11:49 +0530 Announced in the open court on 16th March, 2020 (Savitri) Addl. District Judge-02 West/Delhi LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 11 of 11
Note: (The above judgment has been dictated directly on computer and shorthand dictation was not given to the stenographer).
LAC4/18 Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI & Anr Page 12 of 11