Delhi District Court
Bhupender Kumar Jain vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2015
In The Court of Virender Kumar Goyal
Additional District Judge01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
LAC (New) No.13/1/08/06 (Old) No.410/1/2006
Unique Case ID No.02402C0 74144 2006
In the matter of :
Bhupender Kumar Jain
S/o Late Sh. Sumit Prakash Jain
R/o 5/100, Katra Gajju,
Shahdara, Delhi .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
District East.
2. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Dy. Commissioner
Shahdara (East Zone)
Karkardooma, Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution : 29.04.2006
LAC (New) No.28/1/08/06 (Old) No.411/1/2006
Unique Case ID No.02402C0 74145 2006
In the matter of :
Anand Prakash
S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram Gupta
R/o 3/466, Thakurdwara,
Shahdara, Delhi .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
Page No.1 of 24
LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08
District East.
2. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Dy. Commissioner
Shahdara (East Zone)
Karkardooma, Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution : 29.04.2006
LAC (New) No.19/1/08/06 (Old) No.412/1/2006
Unique Case ID No.02402C0 74141 2006
In the matter of :
Chander Prakash
S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram Gupta
R/o 3/250, Anaj Mandi,
Shahdara, Delhi32 .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
District East.
2. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Dy. Commissioner
Shahdara (East Zone)
Karkardooma, Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution : 29.04.2006
LAC (New) No.18/1/08/06 (Old) No.409/1/2006
Unique Case ID No.02402C0 74140 2006
In the matter of :
Mahender Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Shri Ram Gupta
R/o 10/387388, Char Toti Wali Gali,
Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi .....Petitioner
Page No.2 of 24
LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
District East.
2. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Dy. Commissioner
Shahdara (East Zone)
Karkardooma, Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution : 29.04.2006
LAC (New) No.16/1/08/06 (Old) No.438/1/2006
Unique Case ID No.02402C0 74143 2006
In the matter of :
Farzand Ali
S/o Late Sh. Aflatoon
R/o 252, Khureji Khas,
Delhi51 .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
District East.
2. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Dy. Commissioner
Shahdara (East Zone)
Karkardooma, Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution : 04.09.2006
Arguments heard on : 17.07.2015
Judgment announced on : 28.08.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this single judgment, I shall dispose of five reference Page No.3 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 petitions bearing LAC Numbers (New) 13/1/08/06 (Old) 410/1/06, (New) 28/1/08/06 (Old) 411/1/06, (New) 19/1/08/06 (Old) 412/1/06, (New) 18/1/08/06 (Old) 409/1/06 & (New) 16/1/08/06 (Old) 438/1/06, filed U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the above mentioned five petitioners for enhancement of compensation amount, which were consolidated vide order dated 05.03.2008, passed by their lordship of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM(M) No.291/2008 and LAC No.410/1/06 was treated as leading matter.
2. Brief facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of the present references, are that the petitioners have filed the reference petitions U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Land Acquisition Collector, East, Delhi, against Award No.15/DC (East) 200405, which was approved by Secretary (Revenue) on 26.08.2004 and was announced by the LAC, East on 06.09.2004 and the same was assigned to this court for adjudication.
3. It is averred that above mentioned petitioners are owners of land measuring 1937.17 sq. meters (2 bighas 6 biswas) each in khasra No.10/16 min Khurejee Khas and are interested persons. Petitioners are 1/8th & 1/4th owners of land under acquisition and deserves their rights to challenge the legality and validity of the acquisition proceedings. Petitioners have not accepted the findings and determination of LAC, who grossly erred in Page No.4 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 awarding compensation @ Rs.3395/ per sq. meter, which is on lowest side in the area. The market value of the land was not less than Rs.30000/ per sq. meter in the year 200203. The land is commercial being surrounded by road and commercial shops. The petitioners are further entitled for payment of interest on solatium, which has not been awarded by the LAC and prayed for referring the reference to the competent court of jurisdiction.
4. Notices of the petitions were issued to the respondents and on completion of service, both the respondents in above mentioned five references had filed their separate written statements.
5. It is averred by respondent No.1 / Union of India in its written statement that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The land was acquired at the instance of MCD, which has to make the payment. MCD is a necessary and proper party for adjudication of the proceedings and it be impleaded as party in the case. It is denied that the petitioners are entitled for any compensation or enhancement, as petitioners are not recorded owner in revenue record. The correctness of khasra numbers, their area and extent of share of the petitioners admitted only to the extent, as specified by LAC in his statement U/s 19 of LA Act. In response to notice issued by LAC U/s 9&10 of LA Act, petitioners preferred their claims. The land in Page No.5 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 question is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and can only be used for agricultural purposes. There was no structure, tree, well or tube well on the land in question at the time of publication of notification U/s 4 of LA Act. In reply on merits, it is averred that the compensation has been legally and correctly assessed by the LAC and same is adequate and just. The petitioners are not entitled for any enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the reference petitions.
6. It is averred by the respondent No.2 / MCD in the reply that application U/s 18 of LA Act is not maintainable. There is no legal infirmity, perversity or illegality in the award No. 15/DC(East)200405 land measuring 1937.12 (2 bighas 6 biswas) each in khasra No.10/16 Khurejee Khas in the present application. Respondent no.1 / Union of India vested with the powers under the provisions of LA Act to determine the compensation. Therefore, the amount of compensation determined by the LAC @ Rs.3395/ after considering the matter in its entirety, is legally perfect and is in accordance with law. The judicial pronouncement vests on distinguishable facts, as such, same are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no order / directions are to be passed against MCD. In reply on merits, it is averred that applicants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation, once amount determined by Page No.6 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 LAC, is accepted. Hence, award passed is in consonance with the provisions of LA Act. The applicants are not entitled for compensation @ Rs.30000/ sq. yds., as alleged and after denying other averments, it has sought dismissal of applications.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in the reference petitions vide orders dated 16.03.2007 & 09.07.2007 :
(a) What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act ? Onus on parties.
(b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount ? OPP
(c) Relief.
8. In order to prove their cases, the petitioners have examined one of the petitioner Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta, as PW1, vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has reiterated the contents of petitions, in his affidavit. He has relied upon the documents from Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/41. At length, he was cross examined by the ld. counsels for respondents.
9. Petitioners have also examined PW2 Sh. Narottam Sharma, Assistant, Commercial Land Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan, Near INA, New Delhi, who has proved perpetual lease deed dated 01.09.2005 Ex.PW1/8 executed by President of India in favour of Parmesh Construction Co. Ltd. He has been jointly cross Page No.7 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 examined by the ld. counsels for the respondents.
10. The petitioners have also examined PW3 Sh. Pooran Chand, Assistant, Old Scheme Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, Delhi, who has produced the original records of plot No.33,34&35, Block No.8, measuring 91.20 sq. meters each situated in the colony commonly name Geeta Colony, Delhi.
11. The petitioners have also examined PW4 Sh. Raj Kumar Rana, Assistant, LAB Residential, CBlock, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, Delhi, who has produced the records of plot No.C160A & D272, ad measuring 135.58 and 174.78 sq. meters respectively situated in the colony commonly name Vivek Vihar, Delhi. No other witness is examined by the petitioner.
12. Whereas, the counsel for respondent no.1 / Union of India has tendered the award No.15/DC(East)/200405, passed by the LAC, which was announced on 06.09.2004, as Ex.R1 and photocopy of sale deed executed on 17.02.2003 mark A. Ld. counsel for respondent no.2 has adopted the same evidence. No other witness is examined by the respondents.
13. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record. My issue wise findings are as under : Findings on issues no.1&2 Issue No.1 : What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act ? Page No.8 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 Onus on parties.
Issue No.2 : Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount ? OPP
13. According to issue no.1, both the parties have to prove as to what was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of LA Act.
14. The total land under the ownership of petitioners was 2 bighas and 6 biswas each in Khasra No.10/16 Min. The award is Ex.R1, vide which, land measuring 2 bigha 6 biswa (1937.17 sq. meters) each of Village Khureji Khas was acquired. Notification was issued by the Land & Building Department on 10.06.2002. Whereas, the award has been passed and was announced on 06.09.2004. The Land Acquisition Collector has calculated market value of the land, as per schedule of rates, as circulated by Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi vide notification dated 15.04.1999 for period 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000, wherein the indicated prices of land in the nearby area of Geeta Colony were notified @ Rs.2805/ per sq. meter for residential use. As the rate was applicable to the year 2000 only, so, it was to be increased by 10% for every two years without cumulative effect and rates at the Page No.9 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 time of notification U/s 4 of LA Act in the year 2004 was fixed @ Rs.3395/ per sq. meter and further compensation for structure, solatium, additional benefits and interest were awarded. In the said award Ex.R1, all these petitioners have been shown as owners/occupants/interested persons, who have filed their claims before the LAC.
15. Now during the evidence, several sale deeds and other documents have been placed on record, exhibited and proved, showing the rates of land at a higher range in comparison to the rates, as fixed by the LAC in the year 2002 at the time of issuing the notification U/s 4 of LA Act. These are of nearby localities. PW1 have been cross examined on behalf of Union of India, wherein the petitioner Anand Prakash Gupta has stated that MCD was in possession of land since 1970 and land was being used as Park since 2002. He has denied the suggestion that land measuring 1937.17 sq. meter was neither developed nor any amenities and facilities were available in the year 2002. Photographs have been placed on record showing various types of constructions surrounding the land in question.
16. It is contended by the ld. counsel for the petitioners that the rate, which was taken up by the LAC of Rs.2805/ for the year 2000 was required to be increased 10% every Page No.10 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 two year till 2002 with cumulative effect, but, he has not done so. Various sale deeds/perpetual lease deeds i.e. Ex.PW1/1 is of the area of Vivek Vihar, Ex.PW1/2 of the year 2004 of area Geeta Colony, Ex.PW1/3 of the area of Geeta Colony of the year 2005, Ex.PW1/4 agreement to sell and purchase of the area of Jheel Khuranja of the year 2006, Ex.PW1/5 i.e. perpetual lease deed of the year 2005 of area of Geeta Colony, Ex.PW1/6 i.e. another lease deed of the year 2002 of the area of Vivek Vihar, Ex.PW1/7 of the year 2005 of area of Dayanand Vihar, Ex.PW1/8 i.e. perpetual lease deed of the year 2005 of Community Centre, E11, Karkardooma, Ex.PW1/14 of the year 2005 of area Anand Vihar, Ex.PW1/15 i.e. Sale deed of the year of 2005 of the area of Vivek Vihar, Ex.PW1/16 of the year 2005 of area of Preet Vihar, Ex.PW1/17 is of the year 2005 of area East Azad Nagar, Ex.PW1/18 of the year 2004 of Preet Vihar, Ex.PW1/19 of the year 2005 of District Centre Laxmi Nagar, have been placed on the record. So, not even single sale deed or perpetual lease deed has been placed on record by the petitioners for the relevant year of 2002 of the area of Chander Nagar to show that rate of land prevailing at the time of acquisition of suit land, higher to the rate fixed by LAC.
Page No.11 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08
17. The ld. counsel for the petitioners have also filed certified copy of the reference in respect of some other award of Village Kondli Ex.PW1/11 and further judgment of reference U/s 18 of LA Act given by the court of Ld. ADJ regarding land of Village Kondli, wherein Ld. ADJ fixed the rate of land as Rs.8553/ per sq. meter as on 13.02.2004. Certified copy of Kabja Karwahi has also been filed, which is Ex.PW1/13. It is of 2004. At that time, one mother dairy booth was found to be constructed and land was found to be on road. In Ex.PW1/13, it is mentioned that the land in question was already under the maintenance of MCD.
18. The ld. counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the various judgments, as to how the rate of land is to be calculated and has relied upon Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. 176 (2011) DLT 361, wherein it has been held that "increase in land price is dependent on situation of land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in area and demand for land". It has been further held in the said judgment that "what is relevant for court to see is better use to which land is reasonably capable of being put in immediate or near futurein absence of any evidence to contrary, potentiality and advantages of subject land situated Page No.12 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 in Pocket A and parcels of land situated in Pocket C can be safely concluded to be similar in nature".
19. It is further contended by the ld. counsel for the petitioners that even according to Kabja Karwahi, there was mother dairy booth, being run commercially at the site at that time and photographs have been placed on record Ex.PW1/9 (colly) and Ex.PW1/10(colly). According to which, there are Park, Colony, Mother Dairy Booth, Shops, Community Centre, being run in the adjoining of land in question, which shows the potentiality of the land. There is a temple also namely Shiv Sai Dham Mandir and Community Centre is also being run from there in the adjoining, so, the land in question was having huge potentiality for commercial use and was situated on the road. These photographs have been filed in the year 2008. Whereas, at the time of Kabja Karwahi Ex.PW1/13, no such building was found in the area adjoining to the land in question except mother dairy booth, which shows that all these buildings came into existence later on.
20. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that even before acquisition, land in question was being used and maintained for the Park for the residents of the area, so, it was not having any commercial potentiality Page No.13 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 in any manner, as claimed by the petitioners. It has also been contended by the respondents that rates of other colonies like Vivek Vihar, East Azad Nagar, Geeta Colony, Jheel Khuranja, Dayanand Vihar, Preet Vihar, Anand Vihar are not applicable to compare and enhance the rate of land in question of Chander Nagar. It is further contended that land was undeveloped, hence, it could not be compared with the developed land, for which, sale deeds have been placed on record and in support of the same, ld. counsel for respondents has relied upon Lal Chand v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2010 S.C. 170, wherein it has been held that "(E) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1897) Ss.51A, 23Compensation Determination of market valuecontemporaneous transactioncertified copy of sale deed may be received in evidence by courthowever court have discretion to rely upon it or reject it as unacceptable for reasons to be recorded".
21. It is further contended that the locality of Chander Nagar cannot be compared with the locality of Vivek Vihar, East Azad Nagar, Geeta Colony, Jheel Khuranja, Dayanand Vihar, Preet Vihar, Anand Vihar and also about nature of land, whether developed or undeveloped, shape, size are to be considered and in this respect, he has relied upon judgment Valliyammal and Anr. v. Special Tehsildar (Land Page No.14 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 Acquisition) and Anr. (2011) 10SCR 293, wherein it has been held that "1.1 in fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired(para 17)(309FG)".
22. Regarding potentiality of the land in question, again the petitioner has relied upon judgment Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, 2011 IV AD (SC) 382, wherein it has been held that "if the compensation proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the potential of the land acquired from him must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near future alone. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and emphasize that this broad principle would be applicable where the possession of the land has been taken pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land is already in Page No.15 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 possession of the Government and is subsequently acquired."
23. In the second written submissions, judgment passed by Sh. Reetesh Singh, Ld. ADJ01, North East, KKD Courts, Delhi in case Chandra Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Anr. has been filed alongwith Master Plan for Delhi 2021.
24. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondents have contended that various photographs and materials are to be considered, while deciding the value of the land i.e. enlargeness of the area, acquisition, category, nature of area etc. and again reiterated that land in question was already under the possession of the MCD and was being used and maintained as a Park, so, it was not having any building, potentiality of commercial viability, so, the rate as fixed by the LAC, was according to the law, after considering all the facts and circumstances and in this respect, he has relied upon judgment UOI v. Pramod Gupta 2005(12) SCC 1.
25. In support of his contention, ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 has relied upon following judgments, as under : (1) UOI v. Pramod Gupta 2005(12) SCC 1 (2) ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 454 (3) R P SIngh v. UOI 2005 (7) SCC 24 (4) Gafar & Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority 2007 (7) Page No.16 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 SCC 614 (5) Ranvir Singh & Ors. v. UOI 2005 (12) SCC 59 (6) UP Jal Nigam v. M/s. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 1170 (7) Land Acquisition Officer v. Morisetty Satyanarayana 2002 (10) SCC 570 (8) Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Cold Storage & Food Products & Ors. 1994 (2) SCC 134 (9) Topandas Kundamal v. State 1995 (5) SCC 336 (10) Shakuntala Bai & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 1996 (2) SCC 152 (11) Kanwar Singh & Ors. v. UOI 1998 (8) SCC 136 (12) M B Gopal Krishna & Ors. v. The Special Duty Collector AIR 1996 SC 3149 (13) Lal Chand v. UOI 163 (2009) DLT 299 (SC) (14) Bule v. UOI 170 (2010) DLT 371 (15) Revenue Division Officer, Kurnool District v. M. Ramakrishna Reddy (D) by LRs (2011) SCC 648
26. In support of his contention, Ld. counsel for the petitioners has relied upon following judgments, as under : (1) Om Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors.
(2) Satish & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.
(3) Valliyammal and Another v. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Another etc. (4) Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. v. Union of India & Another (5) Lal Chand v. Union of India (6) Madishetti v. LAO (7) Judgment dated 24.05.2014 passed by ADJ Karkardooma Court (8) Subhash Batra v. Union of India and Another
27. It is an admitted fact that even before acquisition of Page No.17 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 land in question, the same was being used by MCD under its control, as Park. From the photographs placed on record, it is clear that nearby there is a temple, community centre and small temporary shops. The park is surrounded by certain shops, as visible from the photographs. A mother dairy booth is also there near land in question but it cannot be treated as commercial establishments, being public service and long back before acquisition, the land in question was being used as park for residents of the area, so, it cannot be said that the land in question was having any potential of commercial use or was having any high value of commercial rates, as prevailing at that time in the area. The sale deeds as produced by the petitioners are of area nearby to the colony and strangely no sale deed of the Chander Nagar area has been produced and brought in evidence to prove the rate of land, which was prevailing at that time, so, it has to be seen, as to how the value of the land is to be determined at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of LA Act. No nearby land has been acquired adjoining to the land in question or any proceedings have been filed to consider the rate.
28. It has also been contended by the ld. counsel for the petitioners that Community Centre nearby the suit land is being let out by the MCD @ Rs.10000/. In my view, the Page No.18 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 Community Centre cannot be treated as commercial establishment, as the same is being run by the MCD for the larger public interest. More so, the Community Centres are not receiving rent, as prescribed on day to day basis and are being used occasionally by the public at large, so, the same cannot be treated as commercial activity to consider the letting rate of the Community Centre per day, as contended.
29. The Ld. LAC relied upon the rates circulated by Ministry of Urban Affairs, Government of India vide order dated 15.04.1999 for the period 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2000 and in view of the non availability of new rates on 01.04.2000, LAC considered 10% enhancement on the notified rates of Rs.2805/ per sq. meter for every two years without cumulative effect. However, for Delhi, Delhi Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 2007 were introduced. This deals with the circle rates of various colonies according to their categories and the facts which are to be considered under each category in case of non agricultural land, are area of land in sq. meter, minimum price fixed by the Government, if any, land use etc.
30. According to the section 4(2) of the Act, which runs as under : "As far as possible, once in two years in the Page No.19 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 month of April, the Deputy Commissioner of each District shall undertake the exercise of valuation of the following categories of immovable properties, in consultation with MCD, NDMC, Cantonment Board, DDA, L&DO etc. (as appropriate) and such other land owning authorities of the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi."
31. Hence, it shows that valuation of the categories of the immovable property are to be made in consultation with the MCD/NDMC/Cantonment Board, DDA, L&DO etc., so, the circle rates as prescribed are having certain guidelines, on which, the market value has been arrived at. According to the Written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioners, the land in question falling in the area of Chander Nagar F category, having circle rates of Rs.16100/ in the year 2007. Even otherwise, after 2000, L&DO has not revised the rates in any manner, so, LAC could not have taken 10% enhancement on the last notified rates after every two years without cumulative effect.
32. So, taking the circle rates, as were prevailing in the year 2007, is the best method to reach at the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act.
Page No.20 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08
33. In this respect, I am relying upon the judgment of Ld. ADJ01, North East, KKD, Delhi passed in the year 2014 in LAC No.1/2009 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Anr. of the area of Jhilmil Tahirpur, another judgment of which area has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 19.12.2014 titled as Subhash Batra v. Union of India and the method of calculating the valuation of the land on the basis of circle rates has been upheld.
34. It has been held by the Higher Courts at times that in the absence of any other evidence, firstly the sale deeds and thereafter the judgments and awards in respect of the similar land acquired of the same village or other village shall be taken into consideration and reasonable increase or decrease depending upon the date of notification can be applied.
35. Now it is to be seen as to how decrease in percentage is to be made in the circle rates as the circle rates are of 2007, whereas, the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act was issued on 10.06.2002.
36. The Ld. ADJ01 in the judgment titled as Chandra Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Anr. has relied upon one another judgment as Seema Grover v. Government of NCT of Delhi, writ petition (C) 13122/09 decided on 08.11.2011, wherein Page No.21 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that act of the registry in dealing the reduction in 20% per year, which was notified on 18.07.2007 was proper as such mode of valuation was not unknown.
37. Under such circumstances, the reduction by such percentage in circle rates is arrived at the market value keeping in view the time difference between issuance of notification U/s 4 of LA Act and notification issued about the circle rates was reasonable and it has been upheld.
38. In view of above, the circle rates of suit land, which is falling in the area of Chander Nagar having category F was Rs.16100/ in the year 2007. Whereas, notification U/s 4 of LA Act was issued on 10.06.2002, so, by reducing 20% circle rates per year, in the year 2002, it comes to Rs.6594/. Under such circumstances, after considering the evidence brought on record and submissions of the ld. counsels for the parties, the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of LA Act, is fixed @ Rs. 6594/ per sq. meter.
39. According to the award No.15/DC(East) 200405 announced on dated 06.09.2004, the rate of land was fixed at Rs.3395/ per sq. meter and in view of above findings, the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation in Page No.22 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 respect of rate of land to the extent of Rs.6594/ per sq. meter, being reasonable market value at that time. Accordingly, issues no.1&2 are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
40. Relief : Accordingly, in view of the findings on issues no.1&2, the above mentioned five consolidated petitions / references, filed U/s 18 of LA Act, are allowed. The petitioners have claimed compensation @ Rs.30,000/ per sq. meter, which is now fixed and allowed @ Rs.6594/ per sq. meter.
41. According to the award, solatium was allowed @ 30%.
Accordingly, the solatium is also allowed @ 30% on the market value, as determined above, as per provisions of LA Act, 1894.
42. The petitioners have also claimed interest, as per law.
According to the award, 12% interest was allowed on the market value, fixed by the LAC U/s 23(1)A of LA Act, 1894 from the date of notification U/s 4 of Act (10.06.2002) till the date of possession i.e. 12.03.2004. Accordingly, the same is also allowed on the present market value, fixed as above.
43. According to the award, interest U/s 34 of LA Act, 1894 was also allowed observing that MCD had taken the land on 12.03.2004 and as such petitioner is entitled to Page No.23 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08 interest on the balance amount, as per section 34 of LA Act, 1894 @ 9% per annum from the date of possession i.e. 12.03.2004 to the date of payment. The same is also allowed on the enhanced market value of the land in question, as determined above.
44. The above reliefs are subject to the deductions of compensation / solatium / additional benefits / interest U/s 34 of LA Act, 1894, which have already been received by the petitioners, as were fixed by the LAC vide Award No. 15/DC(East)/200405/East announced on dated 06.09.2004.
45. File be consigned to record room.
46. Copy of this judgment be sent to the LAC, East for compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 28.08.2015 ( Virender Kumar Goyal ) Additional District Judge01 (East)/KKD/Delhi / 28.08.15 Page No.24 of 24 LAC Nos.13/1/08/06, 28/1/08/06, 19/1/08/06, 18/1/08/06 & 16/1/08/08