Delhi District Court
Sh. Bhagat Ram vs Union Of India on 20 January, 2023
BEFORE Dr. AJAY GULATI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 64/2013
New No. 16/2016
1. Sh. Bhagat Ram
S/o Late Sh. Jai Lal
R/o V.P.O. Mundka,
Delhi-41
.....Petitioner
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
through Land Acquisition Collector,
(District West) Office at D.C office
Rampura, Delhi-35
2. Delhi Development Authority,
through Vice-Chairman
Vikas Bhawan, I.N.A Market,
New Delhi-23
.....Respondents
Village: Mundka
Award No.: 01/DC (W)/2012-13
Date of Award: 16.10.2012
Date of institution of the case :04.10.2013
Date on which reserved for judgment :12.12.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment :20.01.2023
(Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act)
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired land LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 1/15 parcel measuring 12 Biswas under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification no. F.7(10)/08/2011/L&B/LA/15672 dated 10.02.2012 and followed it up with the relevant notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act vide notification no. F.10(8)/2011/L&B/LA/2433 dated 11/05/2012. The land was notified under Section 17 vide notification no. F.10(8)/2011/L&B/LA/2434 also dated 11.05.2012. The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Urban Extension Road-II Village Mundka.
2. After considering the respective claims, the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 01/DC (W)/2012-2013 dated 16.10.2012 under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.53,00,000/- per acre, alongwith statutory benefits.
3. According to the statement under Section 19 of the L.A. Act filed by the Collector, petitioner was shown as recorded owner of the acquired land which is the subject matter of this reference. The brief description of the acquired land holding of the petitioner as culled out from the Award under challenge is as under:-
Name of recorded Khasra Total Area Detail of trees owner & share No. Bigha- Building/Crops Biswa
1.Bhagat Ram S/o 91//20 2/1 0-12 As per Award Jai Lal ½ share LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 2/15 Date of taking Possession is 01.06.2012
4. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the concerned LAC, the petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Act against re-determination of the fair market value of the acquired land/property and requested for a Reference to this Court, for seeking enhancement of the assessed market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act.
5. Brief factual recapitulation would be relevant before proceeding to the merits of the Reference claim. The petitioner is Bhumidhar in Khasra No. 91//20/2/1 (0-12) having 1/2 share in land measuring area 0 Bigha 12 Biswas situated in Village Mundka.
6. It has been averred in the petition that the land in question has been much under valued by the ld. LAC who should have assessed the market value of the land acquired @ not less than Rs. 50,000/- per sq. yds. The LAC has failed to appreciate and to take into account the factors which are necessary for determining the market value. It has also been averred that the acquired land is just adjacent to existing Industrial Area situated between Main Rohtak Road, National Highway No. 10 and Railway Station Mundka, having all amenities/facilities of daily life such as Banks, branches of MTNL and schools.
LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 3/15
7. The ld. LAC has also failed to give appreciations @ 12% from the date of policy regarding acquisition of agricultural land to the date of notification as the policy was announced in the year of 18.12.2007 whereas the notification u/s 4 of L.A. Act has been published on 10.02.2012.
8. The petitioner has thus claimed Rs.50,000/- per sq. yard for the value of land alongwith loss of business/livelihood, loss of Goodwill and all other statutory benefits.
9. Respondent no.1/ Union of India filed its written statement in which it controverted the averments made in the petition. It has been asserted that the Collector while passing the award had taken into consideration all the relevant factors including the location and potentiality of the land in dispute while arriving at the fair market value of the land. Thus, the compensation assessed and awarded by the Collector is just, legal, proper, sufficient and reasonable. The claim of the petitioner was consequently opposed as being excessive and unjustified. It has also been averred that the present reference is barred by limitation.
10. Respondent no. 2/DDA also filed a detailed reply and took preliminary objections to the effect that Ld. LAC has passed award as per norms and provision of LA Act, 1894. The ld. LAC had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of sale deeds of the adjoining lands of the area as well as all other documents which were made available and produced before LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 4/15 him. The amount awarded by the LAC in the present case is adequate, sufficient, just and legal. It has further been claimed that the present reference petition is barred by law of limitation.
It was thus jointly prayed by the respondents that the present reference be dismissed with cost.
11. After perusing the pleadings, Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13.03.2014 framed the following issues:
1. Whether present reference u/s 18 of LA Act is barred by limitation? OPR-2
2. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
4. Relief.
12. Petitioner in support of his case examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari from the office of SDM, Mundka, who appeared as PW-1 who brought the original "Aks Sajra" of Village Mundka in two parts. The attested copy of the Aks Sajra of agricultural land of Village Mundka was proved as Ex. PW-1/1 and attested copy of Aks Sajra of extended Abadi of Village Mundka as Ex.PW-1/2.
In cross-examination, he deposed that the land comprising in Khasra No. 91/20/2/1 of Village Mundka is at a distance of 5 acre from Phirni road of the Village. As per their LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 5/15 record, the land in question is surrounded by the agricultural land of the other people of the Village Mundka.
13. Sh. P.C. Tiwari UDC from the office of Land & Building appeared as PW-2 who brought and proved the circulars of fixation of minimum price of agricultural land in the Union Territory of Delhi as Ex. PW-2/1 (Colly).
14. Petitioner in support of his case further examined Sh. Dhanveer Sharma, UDC from the office of Registrar-II-A as PW- 3 who brought the record pertaining to registration of the sale deed which is registered as document no. 3414 in additional book no. 1, Vol. no. 1263 on pages 39 to 47 dated 01.09.2009 and proved the same as Ex. PW-3/1, certified copy of sale deed registered as document no. 6108 in additional book no. 1, Vol. no. 519 on pages 42 to 105 dated 24.11.2006 and proved the same as Ex. PW-3/2, certified copy of sale deed registered as document no. 6113 in additional book no. 1, Vol. no. 521 on pages 1 to 198 dated 14.11.2006 and proved the same as Ex. PW-3/3, certified copy of sale deed, registered as document no. 2746, in additional book no. 1, Vol. no. 691 on pages 1 to 180 dated 22.05.2007 as Ex. PW-3/4, certified copy of sale deed, registered as document no. 7017 in additional book no. 1, Vol. no. 246 on pages 51 to 66 dated 12.12.2005 and proved the same as Ex. PW-3/5 and certified copy of sale deed registered as document no. 2938 in additional book no. 1, Vol. no. 699 on pages 36 to 74 dated 31.05.2007 and proved the same as Ex. PW-3/6.
LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 6/15
15. In his further examination-in-chief recorded on 01.04.2016 PW-3 brought and proved the certified copy of sale deed dated 13.07.2007, registered as document no. 3831, in additional book no. 1, Vol. No. 741, at pages 1 to 142 as Ex. PW- 3/7 and certified copy of sale deed dated 06.02.2008, registered as document no. 672, in additional book no. 1, Vol. No. 888, at pages 91 to 111 as Ex. PW-3/8.
16. Sh. K.K. Jha, UDC from the office of Public Grievance Commission, I.P. Estate appeared as PW-4 and brought the complete certified copy of the file of complaint case titled Jitender Vats Vs Deputy Commissioner (West) bearing Grievance No. Pgc/2011/DC/W/Rev./118 filed on 04.02.2011 and proved the same as Ex. PW-4/1 (Colly) and copy of order dated 12.07.2011 as Ex. PW-4/2 (OSR).
17. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Halka Patwari appeared as PW-5 who brought and proved the summoned record i.e. pertaining to Award No. 13 DC(W)/13/2006-2007 of Village Mundka as Ex. PW-5/1 (Colly), the certified copy of possession proceedings of Award No. 13 DC(W)2006-2007 dated 12.12.2007 as Ex. PW-5/2, of Award No. 01/DC(W)/2012-13 of Village Mundka as PW-5/3, and the copy of possession proceedings dated 30.05.2012 as Ex. PW-5/4.
18. Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, PW-6 proved the notification No. F-1/C.1/Police/INSITU/Phirni Road, Mundka and Mundka, Udyog Nagar.2007/20 dated 17.09.2007 as Ex. PW-6/1.
LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 7/15
19. Sh. Bhagat Ram, the petitioner appeared as PW-7 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-7/A. He relied and proved the photographs and CDs of industrial unit near the acquired land as Ex. PW-7/1 to Ex. PW-7/40 and as Ex. PW- 7/41 respectively.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that Village Mundka is a rural area and there exists no government college and government hospital. He denied the suggestion that the photographs placed by him on record are not of the land and surrounding which is the subject matter of the present case. He admitted that the Mundka Udyog is situated at the distance of 500 yards from National Highway and his land falls within the boundary of Village. He denied the suggestion that his land does not fall within the industrial area of Mundka Udyog Nagar or that the acquired land in question is agricultural land. He further denied the suggestion that on the acquired land, without sanction and due permission, no one can start industry or construct building. He denied that the land in question was surrounded by agricultural land of other people of the village at time of publication notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act or that the LAC had assessed the market value of the land correctly according to its situation, location and potential value.
20. Sh. Naresh Kumar appeared as PW-8 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-8/A. He relied on the photographs and CDs of industrial unit near the acquired land already exhibited as Ex. PW-7/1 to Ex. PW-7/40 and CD as Ex. PW-7/41.
LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 8/15 In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has not mentioned in his affidavit that he had taken the relied upon photographs from his mobile. He further deposed that he had not mentioned the date, month and year of when the photographs were taken. He denied the suggestion that the photographs were not of the land and surroundings which is the subject matter of the present case.
21. On behalf of respondent no.1/ UOI, Sh. S.K. Puri, ld. counsel relied upon the copy of award No. 1/DC(W) of 2012-13 pertaining to Village Mundka and also tendered in evidence, certified copy of the Sale deed dated 01.02.2012 executed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Tek Ram in favour of Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Mal in respect of the village Mundka and proved as Ex. R-1, certified copy of the Sale deed dated 07.02.2012 executed by Dharamvir in favour of Sh. Arjun Kumar Jangid in respect of the village Mundka and proved as Ex. R-2, certified copy of the Sale deed dated 06.02.2012 executed by Neeraj in favour of Sh. Raj Kumar in respect of the village Mundka as Ex. R-3, certified copy of the Sale deed dated 03.02.2012 executed by Sh. Ramesh Chander & Others in favour of Sh. Sunil Jain & Anr. in respect of the village Mundka as Ex. R-4 and certified copy of the Sale deed dated 03.02.2012 executed by Sh. Ramesh Chander & Anr. in favour of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jindal & Anr. in respect of the village Mundka as Ex. R-5 LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 9/15
22. On behalf of respondent no.2/DDA, Ms Rashmi Srivastava, ld. counsel for DDA adopted the evidence led on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI.
23. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also perused the evidence led by either side.
Issue nos.
1. Whether the present reference petition u/s 18 of LA Act is barred by Limitation? OPR-2
24. The award in question was passed on 16.10.2012. Perusal of the Court record reveals that application for forwarding the reference under section 18 of the L.A Act by the owners/claimants of the acquired land was moved on 08.11.2012. The same bears the endorsement of the office of D.C. West of 23.11.2012 and of the office of the ADM ( West) i.e. LAC dated 26.11.2012. As per the section 18 (2) of the L.A. Act, in case the claimant/owner of the acquired land is present before the Collector at the time when the Award is made, he has six weeks to move the reference application. It is patent from the above appearance that the reference application has been moved within a period of six weeks. Consequently, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
2. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 10/15
25. Petitioner has led extensive evidence to prove that the market value of the land in question as on the date of notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act was much more than Rs. 53 lacs per acre as has been awarded by the LAC.
26. Apart from leading evidence to show that the acquired land was part of the industrial belt of Mundka Udhyog Vihar, the petitioner has also relied upon seven sale deeds to buttress his submissions that in view of the potentiality of the acquired land, market value of the acquired land was much higher than what has been assessed by the LAC. Of the seven sale deeds relied upon by the ld. counsel for the petitioner, only two sale deeds i.e. Ex. PW- 3/5 and Ex. PW-3/7 pertain to the Village Mundka i.e. where acquired land in the present reference is situated. The other six sale deeds pertain to different villages i.e. Baprola, Hiran Kundna, Bakarwala, Jaffarpur and Mundka etc. Since the sale deeds adjoining villages would have no bearing in making fair assessment of the market value of the land in the present case, the said 5 sale deeds i.e. other than those of Village Mundka cannot be considered.
27. Exhibit PW-3/5, is the sale deed of the year 2005 i.e. dated 12.12.2005 vide which the land measuring 10 Biswas, out of Khasra No. 1002 min (0-10), situated Village Mundka was sold for Rs.50 lacs. Converting the said sale amount into sale price per acre, the same comes to Rs. 4 crore 80 lacs per acre. The other sale deed pertaining to Village Mundka is dated 13.07.2007. Vide LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 11/15 this sale deed, land measuring 29 Bigha 12 Biswa, situated in revenue estate of Village Mundka was sold for Rs. 4,31,66,664/- Converting the sale price into sale per acre, the same comes to Rs. 69,99,999/- per acre. However, two years prior to the said sale deed i.e. concerning sale deed dated 12.12.2005 (Ex. PW-3/5), land of the same village had been sold at Rs. 4.80 crore per acre. Consequently, in view of the huge difference in values of the two sale deeds, these cannot be taken to be indicators of fair market value of the acquire land. Hence, even these two sale deeds are not relevant for the purpose of making a fair assessment of the market value as on 10.10.2012. Petitioner has claimed compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- per sq yards. Converting the said amount into price per acre, the same comes to Rs. 24 crores per acre. Even assuming for a moment that all the seven sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner are relevant, none of the said sale deed support the claim of the petitioner in regard to claiming compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- per sq. yards. It needs to be highlighted that one of the petitioner's witnesses i.e. PW-2 Halka Patwari deposed that the land of the petitioner is surrounded by agricultural land of the other people of the village Mundka. Thus, even accepting that the acquired land was in the vicinity of Mundka Udyog Vihar, petitioner has not been able to prove the potential of the acquired land in terms of it being fit for industrial use. However, respondents also relied on five sale deeds pertaining to Village Mundka. The said five sale deeds are dated 01.02.2012, 07.02.2012, 06.02.2012 and 03.02.20212 i.e. immediately prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 12/15 L.A. Act. Exhibit R-4 and Ex. R-5 is the same sale deed which has been exhibited twice over. Vide the said sale deed, land measuring 1 Bigha & 16 Biswani situated in revenue estate of Village Mundka was sold for Rs. 19,32,300/-. Converting the said sale price into price per acre, an amount of Rs. 89,18,307/- is arrived at. It is thus patent that in view of the evidence led by the respondent/UOI itself, the LAC grossly under valued the acquired land while passing the impugned award. Consequently, placing reliance upon the evidence led by respondent no. 1/UOI, it is fair to hold that as on 10.02.2012, fair market value of the acquired land should have been assessed as Rs. 89,18,307/- per acre, in view of the sale deed dated 03.02.2012 which is seven days prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act and which has been relied upon by respondent no.1/UOI itself. Issue no. 2 is answered accordingly.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
27. In view of the findings arrived at under issue no. 2, petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as held under issue no. 2.
ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF)
28. In view of the above observations and discussion, the reference is disposed off by holding that the compensation awarded to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 53,00,000/- per acre by LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 13/15 LAC was inadequate. Petitioner was required to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 89,18,307/- per acre. Petitioner is thus entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.36,18,307/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lac Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred Seven only) per acre above the compensation already awarded by the LAC along with 30% solatium. Petitioner is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a on enhanced compensation from the date of notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act till the date of possession or date of award which is earlier as per provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner shall be entitled to interest on enhanced compensation 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. Petitioner has also sought additional compensation @ 6% p.a from the date of actual possession till the date of notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act, since it is the contention of the petitioner that the possession of the acquired land was taken much prior to the actual date of notification. In this regard, petitioner has although has led evidence by examining PW-4 who exhibited and proved proceedings of the Public Grievance Commission in regard to the above said assertion of the petitioner, perusal of the claim petition however reveals that neither any such prayer been made nor any specific issue has been framed to this effect. Consequently, this relief is being declined.
LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 14/15
29. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
30. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
31. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 20th January, 2023 (Ajay Gulati-1) ADJ-02,West/Delhi LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 15/15