Delhi District Court
Manhora Through Lr'S vs Uoi on 27 January, 2024
DLNT010047642022
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABAS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS :
DELHI
LAC No. (Old No.224/1982) New No.92/2022
In the matter of
Sh. Manohra (since deceased) through his LRs namely:-
1. Sh. Gopal (son)
2. Sh. Shyam Lal (deceased son) through his LR's:-
a) Smt. Shakuntala (wife)
b) Sh. Naresh Kumar (son)
c) Sh. Suresh Kumar (son)
iii. Sh. Satyawan (son)
iv. Smt. Indirawati (daughter)
v. Smt. Bala (daughter)
vi. Smt. Prem (daughter)
vii. Smt. Kamla (daughter)
viii. Sh. Sube Singh (deceased) through his LR's :-
a) Smt. Shanti (wife)
b) Sh. Umesh (son)
c) Sh. Harender (son)
d) Ms. Asha (daughter)
ix. Sh. Ajeet Singh (deceased) through his LR's:-
a) Smt. Kamlesh (wife)
b) Sh. Shekhar (son)
c) Smt. Anjali (daughter)
x. Sh. Ballar @ Bal Ram (deceased) through his LR's:-
LAC no. 92/22 Page 1 of 13
a) Sh. Lal Singh (son)
b) Smt. Suman w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar (daughter)
r/o Kh. No.349/2, Gali no.1, Opp. Balaji
Apartment, Upkar Colony, Burari, Delhi-110084.
c) Smt. Krishan Devi w/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan (daughter)
r/o 29, Ghasipura Village, South-West,
Delhi-110043.
d) Smt. Bimla Devi w/o Sh. Satbir Singh (daughter)
r/o 88-B, Choti Chopal Wali Gali,
Bawana, Delhi- 39.
e) Smt. Poonam Devi w/o Sh. Vijay Kumar (daughter)
r/o H. No.A86/2, Gali No.20, near
Som Bazar, Gamri Extension, North-East,
Delhi-110053.
xi. Sh. Lakhmi Chand (deceased) through his LR's:-
a) Smt. Santra @ Santro (daughter)
b) Smt. Seema (daughter)
c) Smt. Maya (daughter)
d) Smt. Sheela (daughter)
c) Sh. Vikramjeet Singh (son)
All r/o Village Badli, Delhi.
xii. Sh. Omi @ Om Parkash (deceased) through his LR's:-
a) Smt. Dayawati (widow)
b) Smt. Poonam @ Guddi (daughter)
c) Sh. Pawan Kumar (son)
All r/o H. No.280, Ward no.4, Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar, Haryana.
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India through
Land Acquisition Collector (North)
Office at: DM (North) Office, Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice-Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
LAC no. 92/22 Page 2 of 13
...... Respondents
Award No. 35/1981-82 Village Badli Notification U/s 4 LA Act F.15 (245)/60-LSG/L&H dt. 24.10.1961 Notification U/s 6 LA Act F.4(5)/63/L&H (I) dt. 06.12.1966 Date of Announcement of LAC Award 10.11.1981
Date of Receipt of Reference : 23.01.1982 Date of Arguments : 03.01.2024 Date of Decision: 27.01.2024 REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 AWARD:
(BY THE COURT U/S 26 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT- 1894 ON REFERENCE PETITION U/S 18 OF THE ACT):
1. This is a reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC') under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act'). The reference was initiated on a petition made by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the LAC vide above-referred award.
2. As per the reference, a large tract of land measuring 5459 bighas 09 biswa of village Badli, Delhi, was acquired by the Government for public purpose namely LAC no. 92/22 Page 3 of 13 Planned Development of Delhi. The notification under Section 4 of The LA Act dated 24.10.1961 was issued. The Declaration under Section 6 was made as mentioned on the index page. Thereafter, above-referred award was announced by the LAC. The LAC determined the market price of the acquired land as Rs.2,500/- & Rs.2,000/- per Bigha for Block A land, Rs.1,600/- per Bigha for Block B land and Rs.1200/- per bigha for Block C land.
3. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the market value determined by the LAC, filed the present petition u/s 18 of the LA Act, seeking reference to this court. The LAC forwarded the same to this Court for adjudication.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he was the interested person of the land as mentioned in the Statement u/s 19 of the LA Act annexed with the present reference, situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Badli, Delhi (the said land). The said land was acquired vide notification dated 24.10.1961.
5. The petitioner has challenged the said award inter alia on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and incorrect assessment of market value of land inter-alia due to non-consideration of relevant factors like potentiality LAC no. 92/22 Page 4 of 13 and fertility of the suit land, the surrounding colonies and developed areas, the market value of the adjoining areas /villages, the sale deeds of other lands of the contemporary period, nearness to the National Highway and industrial areas, the amenities available in the suit land etc.
6. The petitioner has prayed compensation at enhanced rate besides interest thereon and solatium in addition to the compensation.
7. The respondent no.1/the Union of India (UOI)/Land Acquisition Collector and respondent no.2/Delhi Development Authority contested the reference petition by filing their respective Written Statement.
8. The petition has been contested mainly on the ground that the LAC awarded adequate compensation to the petitioner after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and therefore, LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the land after taking into account the market rates prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
In written statement R-2/DDA also supported the contention of R-1/UOI.
9. During the proceedings, the petitioner and some of LAC no. 92/22 Page 5 of 13 his LR's expired. Consequently, application (s) u/o 22 Rule 3 CPC were moved to implead their LRs. The said application(s) for impleadment of LRs of petitioner were allowed. Amended memo of parties was also filed.
10. After completion of pleadings following issues were framed :-
i) Whether the petitioner is the owner of the land in dispute?
ii) To what enhancement in the amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled.?
iii) Relief.
11. In evidence, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment and orders in case LAC No.228/82 titled as UOI vs. Gopal & Ors. Decided on 17.11.2011 by the court of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. ADJ Ex.P1; order dated 23.02.2013 passed in miscellaneous No.11/12 in LAC No.228/82 titled as UOI vs. Gopal & Ors., by the Court of Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. ADJ which is Ex.P2; and photocopy of judgment RFA No.200/1983 in case titled as Bhoop Singh vs. UOI decided on 12.12.1984 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, reported as 28 (1985) DLT page-240 Ex. P-3.
12. The respondent no.1/Union of India, in its evidence, LAC no. 92/22 Page 6 of 13 relied upon the award Ex. R1. The respondent no.2/Delhi Development Authority adopted the evidence led by respondent no.1/UOI.
13. I have heard Ld. Counsel(s) for the parties and have also carefully considered the record. My issue-wise findings are given as under:-
14. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1
As far as Issue no.1 is concerned i.e. Whether the petitioner is the owner of land in dispute, it is pertinent to mention that vide judgment dated 17.11.2011 i.e. Ex.P-1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. ADJ-01, Rohini Courts, Delhi had held that LR's of IP-15/Manohra/petitioner herein are entitled to 60% compensation of the 1/5th part of the acquired land which comes to 3 Bigha 8 Biswas and Goan Sabha is entitled to remaining compensation. It is also pertinent to mention that vide order dated 23.02.2013 i.e. Ex.P-2 Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. ADJ-01/Rohini Courts, Delhi modified the judgment dated 17.11.2011 and held that LR's of IP-15/Manohra/petitioner herein are entitled to 60% of the entire land and remaining shall go to Goan Sabha.
During course of arguments ld. Counsel for LAC no. 92/22 Page 7 of 13 petitioner stated at Bar that no appeal/revision etc. is pending in any Court of Law against said orders/ judgment dated 17.11.2011 and 23.02.2013 and said judgment/order have attained finality. Ld. Counsel for R-
1/UOI and R-2/DDA have not disputed the aforesaid position.
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that petitioner/ his LR's are owner/ entitled to compensation as per order dated 23.02.2013 i.e. Ex.P-2.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2 :-
15. Petitioner has contended that valuation of land determined by LAC is not reasonable as LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation. However, he has not led any evidence to show as to how the LAC was wrong in fixing market value of land. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has only relied upon the judgment titled as Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India i.e. RFA No.200/1983 and RFA No.379/1984 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 12.12.1984 reported as 28 (1985) DLT 240 and conceded that award be passed in terms of the said judgment and the same enhancement which was granted in the said judgment be also granted to petitioner. LAC no. 92/22 Page 8 of 13
16. In Bhoop Singh's case (Supra), an elaborate and detailed discussion was made before determining the amount of compensation. With respect to the land of the village Badli (involved herein), acquired through the same notification (as made herein), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi determined the market value of the land as Rs.
7000/- per Bigha.
17. Since, no different evidence has been led by the petitioner in the present case, I have no reason to give a different treatment to the land of the petitioner and to give a determination, different from that determined in the Bhoop Singh's case (Supra). The fair market value of the acquired land is adjudicated as @ Rs.7,000/- per Bigha as determined in Bhoop Singh's case (Supra). Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner would be entitled to market value @ Rs.7,000/- per Bigha.
18. It is also pertinent to mention that on 05.03.2019 i.e. at the time of revival of present petition, Ld. Counsel for R-1/UOI had argued that there has been delay in getting the petition revived and hence petitioner/his LR's are not entitled to interest for the delayed period i.e. w.e.f. 23.02.2013 till 28.05.2018. On the other hand Sh. I.S. LAC no. 92/22 Page 9 of 13 Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for petitioner/LR's has relied upon a case titled as Chander vs. U.O.I & Anr. Reported as 122 (2005) DLT 517 (FB) and argued that petitioner/LR's are entitled to interest for said period also. I have carefully perused the said judgment upon which reliance has been placed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner/LR's. In Chander's case Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:-
"Para - 26. In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, we hold that the principle laid down in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Gupta (supra) for payment of interest during the period the proceedings remained stayed at the instance of the claimant with the statement that he shall not claim interest during the period of stay, interest is required to be granted is not in consonance with law. This Court is of the opinion that when a claimant requested the Court to stay the proceedings with the statement that the party shall not claim interest during the period of stay, the party cannot claim any interest for such period."
Perusal of record shows that in the present case proceedings were stayed sine die vide order dated 26.02.1987. Vide order dated 26.02.1987 any/all parties were given liberty to move an application for revival of same after decision of the reference u/s 30-31 of LA Act. Reference u/s 30-31 of LA. Act was decided vide judgment dated 17.11.2011. Vide order dated 23.02.2013 judgment dated 17.11.2011 was modified. Application for revival was filed on 28.05.2018 by petitioner/ LR's. R- 1/UOI never filed any application for revival of present LAC no. 92/22 Page 10 of 13 petition inspite of the fact that liberty was given to it also for filing of said application. The conduct of R-1/UOI is not better than that of petitioner/his LR's. The land of petitioner has been acquired by virtue of award in question and he has been rendered landless. Grave injustice will be caused to petitioner/his LR's if interest is not paid to them for said period i.e. more than 5 years.
Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, I find no force in the aforesaid submissions/ contention of Ld. Counsel for R-1/UOI. The said submission/contention is hereby rejected.
19. Petitioner has also claimed compensation for crops, tree, tube well etc. However, the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim or to establish that he was not awarded sufficient compensation for same. Accordingly, I hold that petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement in compensation on this count.
20. Besides above, petitioner shall be entitled to other statutory benefits under the LA Act viz. 12% additional amount [as per section 23 (1A)] and 30% solatium [u/s 23 (2)] and will be entitled to interest under Section 28 of L.A Act on the fair market value @ 9% per annum for the LAC no. 92/22 Page 11 of 13 first year and @ 15% for subsequent year till the making of payment of enhanced compensation by LAC as per provision of Section 28 of the Act.
Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
21. Findings on Issue No.3 - RELIEF In view of the findings on Issue no.1 &2, the petitioner/s are granted the following reliefs: -
1. fair market value @ Rs.7,000/- per Bigha for the acquired land ;
2. As there is difference of more than three years between the notification u/s 4 (24.10.1961) and the declaration under section 6 (6.12.1966) of the Act the petitioner will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the market value of the land under section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment &Validation) Act, 1967 provided there is no overlapping in the payment of interest under section 28 of the Act and section 4(3) of the Amendment Act of 1967;
3. solatium u/s 23 (2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of market value;
4. interest under Section 28 of L.A Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till LAC no. 92/22 Page 12 of 13 its payment.
22. As far as question of share /land of petitioner is concerned the same shall be 60% of the entire land i.e. in terms of order dated 23.02.2013 i.e. Ex.P-2 proved on record and the said order shall constitute a part of this award.
23. Reference petition stands answered. Parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this award be sent to the LAC for necessary information, action and expeditious compliance for remittance of the amount. File be Digitally consigned to record room. signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK DABAS Announced in the DABAS Date:
2024.01.30 Open Court on 27.01.2024 14:54:51 +0530 (DEEPAK DABAS) ADJ-01/North District, Rohini Courts/Delhi Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS LAC no. 92/22 Page 13 of 13