Delhi District Court
Subhash Chander Vij vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2016
In The Court of Virender Kumar Goyal
Additional District Judge01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
LAC No.39/16/08
Unique Case ID No.02402C0817942008
In the matter of :
1. Subhash Chander Vij
S/o Late Sh. Desh Raj Vij
R/o B215, Second Floor,
Ramprastha Colony,
Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P.201101
2. Suresh Chander Vij
S/o Late Sh. Desh Raj Vij
R/o D242, Second Floor,
Anand Vihar, Delhi110092
3. Sh. Satish Chander Vij (deceased)
S/o late Sh. Desh Raj Vij
Through legal representatives
3A) Sangeeta Vij
W/o late Sh. Satish Chander Vij
3B) Sumit Vij
S/o late Sh. Satish Chander Vij
3C) Amit Vij
S/o late Sh. Satish Chander Vij
LR's No.1 to 3 are residents of :
C19, 2nd Floor, Surajmal Vihar,
Delhi110092
3D) Smt. Anju Khera
W/o Sh. Tarun Khera
D/o late Sh. Satish Chander Vij
R/o 150, Old Tejab Mill,
Shahdara, Delhi110032 .....Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary
Land And Building
Nirman Bhawan
Through D.C.
Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
2. D.M.R.C.
LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.1 of 27
( Delhi Metro Railway Corporation )
New Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution : 01.09.2008
Reserved for order on : 03.09.2016
Judgment announced on : 08.09.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that LAC had referred the reference U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before this court in respect of award No.1/19992000 of Village Chandrawali, Delhi pronounced on 20.07.1999. It is averred therein that petitioner was an interested person being owner and in possession of 387.72 sq. meters share of lands situated at Village Chandrawali, known as Railway Road, Shahdara vide award No.1/19992000. The aforesaid lands of the petitioner and lands of others were situated in Village Chandrawal, which are fully described in the award itself dated 20.07.1999 village Chandrawali passed by the LAC, Shahdara, Delhi. The LAC has wrongly considered the land to be residential, which infact was being used for commercial purposes for last about 45 years and various authorities and various government undertakings have granted licenses to run the factory and there were numbers of shops. On the land of the petitioner, a factory was running and government has granted license to it since 1952 and thus did injustice with the land owners. Not only they were deprived off their lands but also their livelihood. The compensation granted by the LAC is very low and is not commensurate with the market value of the land U/s 23 of LA Act, as such, same is not acceptable to the petitioner / claimant. The petitioner was owner of the premises being legal heir of LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.2 of 27 original owner Sh. Desraj Vij, who was father of the petitioner and died on 24.08.1998. The petitioner/claimant being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award has filed the present reference on the following grounds :
a) The land of the petitioner / claimants has been greatly under valued and its market value ought to have been determined not less than Rs.25000/ sq. yards on the date of notification U/s 4 of LA Act.
b) The petitioner / claimants have not been given the land value for their residence and even the construction cost was less than the market value and for residential purposes.
c) The land of the petitioner was situated at Shahdara in the main market known as Railway Road and all the area was being used as commercial since 1952, which was a recognized Bazar and people were having various licenses granted by various government agencies to run the shops and factory etc.
d) The land was situated in the main bazar, where a factory was running on the disputed land of the petitioner, who was earning his livelihood from the same.
e) The LAC had not given any time to adduce the evidence and thus passed the award without evidence. Even otherwise, LAC who had passed the award was given additional charge of the case only for few days.
f) The value of similar land situated in nearby area, given on lease by DDA during these years was Rs.25000/ per sq. meters, as such, the land in dispute was to be assessed on residential purposes on first floor and value of the land was to be fixed on the basis of LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.3 of 27 nearby lands.
g) The land was centrally located and there were now colonies nearby, where price is very high and a plot in Dilshad Garden had been auctioned at Rs.25000/ per meter.
k) The value of cost of construction was also wrongly fixed by the LAC and infact it is not less than Rs.50 lacs, being market cost.
l) LAC has wrongly fixed price of land at a lower rate and infact same should have been fixed much more than Rs.25000/ per meter.
It is prayed that cost of land be awarded at Rs.25000/ per meter, cost of construction be awarded at Rs.50 lacs and payment with other benefits be made as per LA Act alongwith a residential plot.
2. Notices of the reference petition were issued to the respondents and on completion of service, respondents had filed their separate written statements.
3. It is averred in the WS filed on behalf of Union of India/respondent No.1 that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The land was acquired at the instance of DMRC, which has to make the payment and it is a necessary party for complete adjudication of the proceedings, as such, it be impleaded as party. The title of the petitioners(s) to claim any compensation or enhancement thereof has been denied, as they were not recorded owner in the revenue record. The correctness of khasra number, their area and extent of share of petitioner therein admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished U/s 19 of LA Act. In response to notice issued by the LAC U/s 9&10 of LA Act, the petitioner has LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.4 of 27 preferred the claim. The land in question was not surrounded by any developed or under developed colony and same can only be used for agricultural purposes. There was no standing tree and boundary wall on the land in question at the time of publication of notification U/s 4 of LA Act. The compensation has been legally and correctly assessed by the LAC and same is adequate and just and petitioner is not entitled for enhancement of the compensation and after denying other averments, it has prayed for dismissal of the reference petition with costs.
4. It is averred in the WS filed, on behalf of DMRC Ltd. i.e. respondent No.2 that an area admeasuring 39 bigha 10 biswas situated in village Chandrawali was acquired by LAC (Shahdara), as per provisions of LA Act for the purpose of Mass Rapid Transit System Project. In response to notices U/s 9&10 of LA Act, the petitioner had filed claim, which was duly considered by the LAC. The LAC had assessed the rates of property / land after considering the existing market value, locality, situation of area, quality, potentiality, use of area and of land in question. The market value of the land has been determined as per rates fixed by the Ministry of Urban Development for urbanized properties and in the light of date of publication of notification U/s 4 of LA Act. The value of the structures on the acquired land has been assessed by PWD and compensation has been paid accordingly. In addition to it, solatium and other benefits with interest were also awarded by the LAC, as per LA Act. Therefore, compensation awarded was correct, fair and adequate and nothing more is payable by enhancing the compensation. The correctness of LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.5 of 27 khasra number, area, extent of property acquired and share of petitioner therein, are admitted only to the extent as specified in the statement of LAC U/s 19 of LA Act and after denying other averments, it is prayed that reference be dismissed with costs.
5. Separate rejoinders to the written statements of respondents have also been filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein facts of the petition have been reiterated and averments made in the written statements have been denied.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 06.12.2010, as under : (1) Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation at the enhanced rate as claimed ? OPP (2) Relief.
7. In order to prove their case, the petitioners have examined three witnesses including petitioner No.2 Sh. Suresh Chander Vij, as PW1, who has tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A in evidence and has stated that he has relied upon the documents, as relied him by examining himself as PW1 in connected matter bearing LAC No.24/16/08 titled as Suresh Chander Vij v. Union of India & An.r, wherein he has stated as under that : "He has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A, wherein he has reiterated the contents of the petition therein. He has relied upon the documents viz. Photocopy of certificate of sale issued by Managing Officer, Acquired Evacuee Property dated 31.08.1961 Ex.PW1/1(OSR), photocopy of Appendix XXII of this certificate of sale mark A, photocopy of agreement dated 20.06.1964 Ex.PW1/2(OSR), photocopy of agreement to sell dated 07.05.1960 LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.6 of 27 Ex.PW1/3(OSR), photocopy of deed of surety dated 07.05.1960 Ex.PW1/4(OSR), photocopy of general power of attorney dated 09.05.1960 Ex.PW1/5(OSR), photocopy of certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.02.1968 Ex.PW1/6, photocopy of receipt of Rs.11629.48p Ex.PW1/7(OSR), photocopy of site plan of property bearing No.1/11/2241(new), Ward No.1, Opposite Railway Station, Teliwara, Shahdara Ex.PW1/8(OSR), photocopy of letter dated 21.06.61 issued by Assistant Settlement Officer to the Chief Settlement Officer Ex.PW1/9(OSR), photocopy of letter dated 18.05.1977 written by Assistant Assessor & Collector, Shahdara Zone, MCD to the father of petitioner Ex.PW1/10(OSR), photocopy of letter dated 17.02.2000 written by Managing Officer(EP) to LAC Ex.PW1/11(OSR), photocopy of relinquishment deed dated 07.09.1998 Ex.PW1/12(OSR), photocopy of general power of attorney dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/13(OSR), photocopy of WILL dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/14(OSR), photocopy of affidavit dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/15(OSR), photocopy of general power of attorney dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/16(OSR), photocopy of another WILL dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/17(OSR), photocopy of another affidavit dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/18(OSR), photocopy of general power of attorney dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/19(OSR), photocopy of third WILL dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/20(OSR), photocopy of third affidavit dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/21(OSR), photocopy of general power of attorney dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/22(OSR), photocopy of fourth WILL dated 13.05.1996 Ex.PW1/23(OSR), photocopy of fourth affidavit Ex.PW1/24(OSR), photocopy of letter dated 17.04.1952 written by Chief Inspector of Factories, Delhi to The LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.7 of 27 Occupier, General Steel Works Ex.PW1/25(OSR), photocopy of letter dated 21.04.1952 written by Statistics Authority, Delhi to the father of petitioner Ex.PW1/26(OSR), photocopy of circular dated 17.01.1953 issued by Director of Industries and Labour, Delhi Ex.PW1/27(OSR), photocopy of letter dated 14.11.57 written by Sales Tax Officer, Ward No.1 to General Steel Works Ex.PW1/28(OSR), photocopy of letter dated 31.05.1997 written by Dy. Director of Industries (Planning), Delhi to General Steel Works Ex.PW1/29(OSR), photocopy of letter dated 21.04.1956 written by Chief Inspector of Factories, Delhi to General Steel Works Ex.PW1/30(OSR), photocopy of letter dated 22.03.1957 written by Chief Inspector of Factories, Delhi to General Steel Works Ex.PW1/31(OSR), photocopies of letters No.FD682/8825, FD682/2050, FD682/10371, FD682/2292, FD682/10685 & FD682/6545 Ex.PW1/32(OSR)(colly), photocopy of letter dated 13.12.66 written By Sr. Divisional Manager (LIC) to General Steel Works Ex.PW1/33(OSR), photocopy of Insurance policy issued by LIC in favour of General Steel Works Ex.PW1/34(OSR), photocopy of license No.52050 renewed by MCD dated 22.07.76 Ex.PW1/35(OSR), photocopies of sixteen receipts vide which license fee was paid by General Steel Works to MCD Ex.PW1/36(OSR)(colly), photocopy of license No.234 issued to General Steel Works by MCD Ex.PW1/37, carbon copy of license issued by MCD mark B, photocopies of licenses No.234 dated 16.09.1952, No.50 dated 21.05.1953 and No.56 dated 02.07.1952 to the father of the petitioner by Municipal Committe, Shahdara Ex.PW1/38(OSR)(colly), photocopy of letter dated 10.05.1957 LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.8 of 27 written by Magistrate Ist Class & Presiding Officer, Delhi to the father of petitioner Ex.PW1/39(OSR), photocopy of letter dated 20.05.1957 written by Magistrate Ist Class & Presiding Officer, Delhi to the father of petitioner Ex.PW1/40(OSR), photocopy of application form for registration of firm namely Vij Sales Corporation alongwith form A i.e. register of firms and form B Ex.PW1/41(OSR)(colly), photocopy of list of commercial / shops united affected by DMRC (Chandrawali), Shahdara, Delhi issued by SDM/LAC, Shahdara mark A and certified copy of judgment dated 24.07.2007 passed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.283/2007 Ex.PW1/1. He has been cross examined at length by the ld. counsels for the respondents."
Petitioner No.2 Sh. Suresh Chander Vij has also relied upon certified copy of judgment dated 24.07.2007 passed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.283/2007 Ex.PW1/1. He has been cross examined at length by the ld. counsels for the respondents.
8. Another witness Dr. Jitender Maan, Certifying Surgeon from Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi has been examined as PW2, who has proved that General Steel Works was registered with Labour Department at Page No.114 at S.No.682 in the register of firms, as Ex.PW2/A(OSR) and deposed that now said firm is not registered.
9. Third & last witness Sh. R P Verma, Patwari from the office of LAC, Shahdara has also been examined as PW3, who has proved certified copy of letter dated 14.06.2000 alongwith list of commercial/shops units affected by DMRC(Chandrawali) LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.9 of 27 Shahdara as Ex.PW3/1(OSR).
10. No other witness has been examined by the petitioners.
11. Ld. counsel for Union of India/R1 has tendered the copy of award No.1/19992000 pertaining to Village Chandrawali as Ex.R1 in evidence.
12. No other witness has been examined on behalf of respondent No.1/UOI.
13. The aforementioned evidence, as adduced by ld. Counsel for respondent No.1/UOI, has been adopted by Sh. Manish Kumar, Legal Assistant of DMRC i.e. respondent No.2.
14. I have heard ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record. Issue wise findings are as under : Findings on issue No.1
15. To prove the case, the petitioners have examined petitioner No.2 Sh. Suresh Chander Vij , as PW1. The land in question was acquired vide award No.1/19992000 of Village Chandrawali Ex.R1. According to this award Ex.R1 announced by the LAC, Shahdara on 20.07.1999, compensation for the land was fixed @ Rs.2805/ per sq. meter, for residential. In the petition, the petitioners have claimed that it should have been assessed @ Rs.25000/ per sq. meter. Rs.50 lacs have also been claimed on account of cost of construction.
16. The nature of the land claimed by the petitioners was commercial, according to which, the value of the land was not less than Rs.25000/ per sq. meter. In the prayer, the petitioners have claimed enhancement of the compensation of land to the tune of Rs.25000/ per sq. meter alongwith Rs.50 lacs on account LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.10 of 27 of cost of construction with other benefits.
17. To prove these facts, the petitioners have examined Sh. Suresh Chander Vij, petitioner No.2, as PW1, who has relied upon the documents, as exhibited by him in connected matter bearing LAC No.24/16/08 titled as Suresh Chander Vij v. Union of India & Anr. in his evidence.
18. In his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner No.2 Sh. Suresh Chander Vij has stated that he was one of the claimants/coowner of property No.1/1122 to 1132, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi110032. The claimants property was acquired vide award No.1/19992000 dated 20.07.1999, passed by LAC, Shahdara, to which, they filed petition for compensation of acquired lands. Father late Sh. Desh Raj Vij of petitioner was owner of abovesaid property. One part of property admeasuring 175 sq. yards was conveyed to him by Custodian vide conveyance deed. Another part admeasuring 525 meters was purchased by him from Smt. Mahinder Kaur vide sale deed dated 05.02.1968 and rest part of property admeasuring 532 meters was in possession of father of claimants since 1950, who died on 24.08.1998 leaving behind LR's namely Smt. Sumitra Vij (wife (since deceased), Sh. Satish Chander Vij (son (since deceased), Smt. Asha Bindra (daughter), Sh. Subhash Chander Vij (son), Smt. Usha Magon (daughter) and Sh. Suresh Chander Vij (son). Sisters Smt. Asha Bindra and Smt. Usha Magon had relinquished their shares in the property vide relinquishment deed dated 07.09.1998 in favour of the claimants, who became absolute owner of property admeasuring 1232 meters. The portion LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.11 of 27 admeasuring 1180 meters was acquired by DMRC and rest 45 meters was left with the claimants, who are in possession of the same since 1950, being its owner. They were running the business under the name and style Vij Sales Corporation, which was partnership concern of the claimants. The said firm was doing the business of manufacturing readymade garments and its annual turnover was more than Rs.20 lacs per year and income tax was paid by it and acquisition proceedings affected the claimants.
19. It is further stated in the affidavit by PW1 that property in question was double storey building, built up with pucca structure of 'A' grade material, which was well maintained and claimants claim cost of structures of property at Rs.40 lacs, being reasonable amount. Whereas, the amount assessed on this account by PWD was Rs.22,41,643/. The property was situated in a commercial area and claimant's land falls in category of commercial property and as per MPD2021 the land falls under commercial street. The claimants were running a factory since 1950 in the part of premises and were having documents like factory license, PF, ESI, showing that land was being as commercial till its acquisition. In the record of MCD, the land of the claimant is situated in a commercial street, hence, compensation be assessed on commercial basis. The property falls in a fully developed area, as it was situated on the main road where most of the properties were being used under commercial activities and the area has developed a big commercial market. The petitioner claims LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.12 of 27 compensation on various counts 1) commercial nature of property
2) value of land 3) value of structure and fixtures etc. 4) loss of business and goodwill 5) loss due to shifting of place of business, residence, trade and future earnings and 6) statutory payments including solatium and interest. The property was situated in a commercial area and was being used for business purposes. The rates of land etc. should be charged on commercial basis and not on residential basis. The acquired properties includes shops at Railway Road, land of Subzi Mandi, Shahdara, Motiram Market and of Makki Sarai, thus, the land was commercial in nature. The value of land at the time of acquisition was not less than Rs.5000/ per sq. feet, whereas, authority has calculated the same at Rs.2805/ per sq. feet, which is less than actual price prevailing in the area. At present commercial rate of the area fixed by Delhi Government is Rs.64400/ per sq. meter. Following factors be looked into for enhancing the rate of land as under :
1) it was situated adjacent to main roads including GT Road, Railway Road and road leading to Babu Ram School.
2) It was built up and fully developed.
3) It was adjacent to approved and developed colony like Naveen Shahdara.
4) It was at stone's throw to Shahdara Railway Station and Shahdara Bus Terminal.
5) The area is located adjacent to Shahdara Railway Station. The train services to UP, Bihar and other Eastern parts of country are available from Shahdara station, which caters the need of about lacs of passengers and customers who visited the market for purchasing everyday.
6) Apart from Shahdara Station, Main Delhi Railway Junction and ISBT's i.e. Kashmere Gate and Anand Vihar are also in the vicinity. The area where property was situated is well connected with other parts of city and country.
LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.13 of 277) The property situates abutting on main GT Road and there are two nationalized banks i.e. Syndicate Bank and Central Bank and two hospitals i.e. Chandiwala and Civil Hospital.
8) The area situates at road link which is directly linked with adjoining states of UP and other parts of NCT of Delhi. The road and railway facilities and prominent location of property has provided greater advantages to the area in comparison to other market places of the city.
9) The property was situated in one of the oldest markets in Trans Yamuna Area. The advantage and potential in the area had resulted in the increased value of the property.
20. In his affidavit, he has further stated that value of the land at the time of acquisition was not less than Rs.5000/ per sq. feet and claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.5,31,00,000/, being cost of land. The claimants had fixed fixtures and fittings which were not less than Rs.7 lacs. The claimants claim cost of structures at the rate of Rs.40 lacs, being reasonable amount. All amenities like road, electricity, water supply and telephone were available in the area. The area has emerged into a main business and trading centre. The claimants were running business in the property for last 30 years under name and style M/s. Vij Sales Corporation, which was a partnership concern, wherein manufacturing of readymade garments work was done. The said business had earned reputation and goodwill and due to acquisition same got ruined and on this account Rs.75 lacs has been claimed. The claimants took premises on rent at Rs.25000/ per month and they claimed Rs.5 lacs on account of change of place of business and residence and other incidental expenses.
21. In the cross examination, PW1, i.e. petitioner No.2, has stated that M/s. General Steel Works was a factory, which was owned by LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.14 of 27 his father and same was run in the acquired land, wherein auto parts were manufactured and his father was sole proprietor of the same. He has admitted that he has placed on record documents pertaining to running of factory till 1972 in the name of General Steel Works and thereafter the name of firm was changed and it was known as Vij Sales Corporation, which was a partnership firm of his and his brothers and he has placed on record documents with respect to same being Ex.PW1/41 in LAC No.24/16/08. He has placed on record document mark C (colly) in LAC No.24/16/08 showing that his premises was a commercial unit. In the Vij Sales Corporation, garments were being exported. The income tax return was also filed by the Vij Sales Corporation. He can produce the proof regarding running of factory in the acquired land even at the time of acquisition of land. There were about 1415 employees in the Vij Sales Corporation and muster roll was also maintained, but, he has not filed the same.
22. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he does not want to produce the said record for the reason that no factory was running at the time of acquisition of land. They used to maintain the record of sale of the articles. All the record pertaining to sale even for year 1997 are there, but, the same has not been placed on record. He does not remember the exact income from the said business of Vij Sales Corporation in 1997. They used to do export to London. They used to receive demand letter from London. They have not placed on record any demand letter. He has denied the suggestion that he has not placed on record any demand letter for the relevant period for the reason that no LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.15 of 27 business was running in the said factory at the time of acquisition of land. There was no sale or purchase of land, adjacent to the acquired land, near the period of acquisition of his land. In his neighbourhood, there were shops of clothes, electronic gadgets, Railway Station and Central Bank of India. He has admitted that Subzi Market was there, but, it was behind their property. He has denied the suggestion that all the constructions in Subzi Mandi was constructed in a haphazard manner. He has denied the suggestion that all the construction was raised by the person on the land after encroaching the same. He has denied the suggestion that due to Subzi Mandi, there was heavy traffic jam on the road. He has voluntarily deposed that his factory was not on the same road, where earlier there was Shahdara court. He has denied the suggestion that construction raised was Kachcha and was in haphazard manner. He has denied the suggestion that he has not placed on record the sale transaction / sale deeds of the area, as same fetches lesser amount, as awarded by the LAC. He has denied the suggestion that he has not placed on record any document to show market value of the land. He has denied the suggestion that LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the land in question after going through all the factors prevailing at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of LA Act. He has denied the suggestion that his claim is exorbitant.
23. PW2 is Dr. Jitender Maan, Certifying Surgeon from Labour Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He has proved that General Steel Works was registered with Labour Department at Page No.114 at S.No.682 in the register of firms, as LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.16 of 27 Ex.PW2/A(OSR) and deposed that now said firm is not registered. Ex.PW2/A nowhere mention the name of General Steel Works. So, this witness does not seem to be helpful for the petitioner.
24. PW3 is Sh. R P Verma, Patwari from the office of LAC, Shahdara. He has proved certified copy of the letter dated 14.06.2000 with list of commercial/shops units affected by DMRC(Chandrawali), Shahdara as Ex.PW3/1. This letter dated 14.06.2000 written by LAC to Director (Land), DDA shows that 31 properties i.e. shops/commercial shops were affected through acquisition by DMRC at Railway Road and Makki Sarai, Shahdara, Delhi and list attached to this letter shows the name of petitioner at S. No.26 alongwith other persons, who are his real brothers. So, this witness is helpful for the petitioner, which clearly proves his case that property of the petitioner was commercial in nature.
25. As per Ex.PW1/1 i.e. judgment dated 24.07.2007 passed by the court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, the then Ld. ADJ(LAC), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the present petitioners i.e. Sh. Subhash Chand Vij, Sh. Satish Chand Vij and Sh. Suresh Chand Vij all Sons of late Sh. Des Raj Vij have been shown as IP Nos.562, 563, 564, 565 and 566 and vide said judgment, the matter was resolved in respect of claim of the claimants, as was settled between the parties.
26. Documents i.e. Ex.PW1/1 to PW1/41 and mark A to C, relied upon by Sh. Suresh Chander Vij in connected matter LAC No.24/16/08, have been relied upon by the petitioner No.2 Sh. Suresh Chander Vij herein, which are discussed herein. As per LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.17 of 27 Ex.PW1/1 i.e. certificate of sale, the property No.1/112241 (New), Shahdara, Delhi was taken in auction by Sh. R L Tandon for Rs.44000/ on 31.01.1960, in which, Smt. Mohinder Kaur and Sh. Desh Raj were his associates. Ex.PW1/2 is agreement, which shows that Sh. R L Tandon and Sh. Desh Raj Vij had contributed equal amount of Rs.22000/ each in purchasing the above said property. Ex.PW1/3, PW1/4, PW1/5, PW1/6, PW1/7, PW1/8 are documents of above said property in respect of sale, purchase, receipt of payment and site plan respectively. Ex.PW1/9 is a letter dated 21.06.61 demanding remaining amount from Sh. Desh Raj by Ministry of Rehabilitation in respect of above said property. Ex.PW1/10 is letter dated 18.05.77 issued by MCD to Sh. Desh Raj showing no dues against the said property. Ex.PW1/11 is NOC dated 17.02.2000 issued by Land & Building Department, Evacuee Property Cell, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in respect of compensation of property to be given to Sh. R L Tandon, Smt. Mohinder Kaur and Sh. Desh Raj.
27. Ex.PW1/12 is relinquishment deed dated 07.09.1998 whereby Smt. Asha Bindra and Smt. Usha Magon had relinquished their shares in favour of their three brothers namely Sh. Satish Chander Vij, Subhash Chander Vij and Suresh Chander Vij, as their father Sh. Desh Raj expired, who had executed his WILL dated 13.05.1996. Ex.PW1/13, PW1/14, PW1/15, PW1/16, PW1/17, PW1/18, PW1/19, PW1/20, PW1/21, PW1/22, PW1/23, PW1/23 are general power of attorney, WILL, affidavit, general power of attorney, WILL, affidavit, general power of attorney, WILL, affidavit, general power of attorney, WILL, affidavit respectively.
LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.18 of 2728. Ex.PW1/25 is a letter dated 17.04.1952 regarding issuance of license to General Steel Works by Chief Inspector of Factories. Ex.PW1/26 is a letter dated 21.04.1952 issued to General Steel Works by Statistics Authority, demanding number of workers employed in the said factory at the end of every month. Ex.PW1/27 is a letter dated 17.01.1953 issued by Director of Industries & Labour, Rajpur Road, Delhi requesting all factories and Industrial undertakings in Delhi State to declare 26 th January, 1953 as an additional paid holiday and not a substituted holiday. Ex.PW1/28 is a letter dated 14.11.57 written to General Steel Works by Sales Tax Officer with respect to issuance of its registration certificate under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Ex.PW1/29 is letter dated 31.05.1957 written to General Steel Works by Director of Industries & Labour demanding steel etc. Ex.PW1/30 is letter dated 21.04.1956 issued by Inspector of Boilers, Factories & Electric Inspector, States of Delhi & Ajmer, Rajpur Road, Delhi regarding issuance of license to General Steel Works. Ex.PW1/31 & PW1/32 are letters dated 22.03.57 & 06.05.60 issued by Inspector of Factories, Rajpur Road, Delhi regarding issuance of license to General Steel Works.
29. Ex.PW1/33 is letter dated 13.12.66 issued by LIC to M/s. General Steel Works in respect of insurance policy under Personal Injuries (Compensation Insurance) Scheme, 1965. Ex.PW1/34 is policy issued on dated 29.10.66 in the name of General Steel Works, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi by Government of India under Personal Injuries (Compensation Insurance) Act, 1963. Ex.PW1/35 is receipt with respect to renewal of license by MCD LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.19 of 27 in the name of General Steel Works. PW1/36(colly) are receipts issued by MCD in respect of license fee deposited by General Steel Works. Ex.PW1/37 is license issued by MCD to M/s. General Steel Works. Mark B is letter dated 22.07.76 with respect to renewal of license in the name of General Steel Works. Ex.PW1/38(colly) are again licenses issued by Municipal Committee, Shahdara in the name of Desh Raj on dated 16.02.1952, 21.05.1953, 02.07.1952. Ex.PW1/39 is a letter dated 10.05.1957 issued in the name of Desh Raj by Dy. Commissioner Delhi. Ex.PW1/40 is letter dated 20.05.1957 issued to Sh. Desh Raj by Magistrate Ist Class & Presiding Officer, Delhi. Ex.PW1/41 'application form for registration of firm by name' dated 06.02.1978 is in the name of Vij Sales Corporation, 1129, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi32 under partnership of Satish Chander Vij, Subhash Chander Vij and Suresh Chander Vij.
30. The evidence as adduced by the petitioner Sh. Suresh Chander Vij in connected matter LAC bearing No.24/16/08, clearly shows that on the acquired land, a factory was running under the name and style M/s. General Steel Works and as per cross examination of the petitioner No.2, the name of M/s. General Steel Works was changed to Vij Sales Corporation, which was running under the partnership firm by the petitioner with his brothers. The documents as discussed above i.e. license issued by concerned department, payment made in respect of issuance of license to the MCD from time to time, clearly shows that the acquired land was being used for commercial activities at the time of notification U/s 4 of LA Act.
LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.20 of 2731. Ld. counsel for the respondents have contended that the land in question was acquired in the year 19992000 and no document of auction or acquisition of land has been placed on record to show comparison of price of land nor any witness has been examined. Hence, there cannot be any comparison of the price of the land.
32. To decide the rate of land, I am relying upon the judgment dated 24.05.2014 passed by Ld. ADJ in LAC No.01/2009 titled as Chandra Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Anr. It was given in the award No.2/200708/LAC/NorthEast, area Jhilmil Tahirpur. While discussing the matter at length, the Ld. ADJ had relied upon the circle rates as approved by Delhi Government.
33. It is contended that property in question is falling in F category. The circle rate of 'F' category in the year 2007 for residential was Rs.16100/ and for commercial it was Rs.48300/ while multiplying the residential circle rate by 3 times, by applying the Delhi Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 2007, which was duly published by Home (PoliceII) Department in Delhi Gazette Extraordinary dated 18.07.2007 vide No.F.2/1/88HPII/Part/6520. It is contended that property of the petitioner was situated on the main GT road and was being used as commercial and there is a specific Gazette of the Delhi Government declaring GT Road to be commercial.
34. Judicial notice of Gazette notification has been taken. According to the Annexure X6 in relation to the commercial streets in Shahdara North Zone, the G.T.Road mentioned at serial number 4 has been found to be commercial from Loni Road to LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.21 of 27 Railway crossing (only regularized portion). So, Ld. counsel for the petitioner has again contended that land of the petitioner be treated as commercial.
35. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondents have contended that 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 acquired for the purposes of Mass Rapid Transport System at G.T.Road, Shahdara, 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.
36. Ld. counsel for the petitioners has contended that it is an admitted fact that even before acquisition of land in question, the same was situated on the main GT Road and large number of business establishments were also there. Sufficient documents, as discussed above, have been placed on record to show that acquired land was a industrial unit, which falls within the purview of commercial activity and there were other industrial units also and other business activities were also running near the acquired land.
37. The land in question was being used, as commercial. It cannot be said that land in question was not having any potential of commercial use or was not having any high value of commercial rates, as prevailing at that time in the area, but, 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.
LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.22 of 2738. The Ld. LAC has relied upon the rates circulated by Ministry of Urban Affairs, Government of India vide order dated 16.04.1999 w.e.f. 01.04.1996 for Zone 5 (East Delhi). In Delhi, Delhi Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 2007 were introduced for the first time on 18.07.2007, which were duly published in Delhi Gazette by Home (PoliceII) Department, GNCT of Delhi. 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, area of land in sq. meter, minimum price fixed by the Government, if any, land use etc.
39. According to the section 4(2) of the Act, which runs as under: "As far as possible, once in two years in the 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."
40. 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. It is stated that the land in question falling in the area of Shahdara 'F' category, having circle rates of Rs.48300/ of the commercial land in the year 2007.
41. So, taking the circle rates, as were prevailing in the year 2007, LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.23 of 27 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.
42. In this respect, I am relying upon the judgment of Ld. ADJ 01, 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.
43. 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.
44. 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 12.06.1997.
45. The Ld. ADJ01 in the judgment titled as Chandra Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Anr. has relied upon one another judgment of Seema Grover v. Government of NCT of Delhi, writ petition (C) 13122/09 decided on 08.11.2011, wherein 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.
LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.24 of 2746. 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.
47. In view of above, the circle rates of commercial suit land, which is falling in the area of Village Chandrawali, Shahdara, Delhi having category 'F' was Rs.48300/ in the year 2007. Whereas, notification U/s 4 of LA Act was issued on 12.06.1997, so, by reducing 20% circle rates per year, in the year 1997, the value of the suit land comes to Rs.5186/ per sq. meter.
48. The petitioners have failed to rely upon or prove any of the documents to substantiate that his land was having much value than assessed by the LAC and if circle rate is reduced from 2007 to 1997, the value of the suit land comes to Rs.5186/, if it is calculated on the rate of commercial, whereas, in the award, the LAC has given the rate to the commercial establishments as Rs.5865/ per sq. meter, which is based upon government order No.J.22011/4/95LD dated 16.04.1999 of Ministry of Urban Development. Hence, the value of the land is fixed at Rs.5865/ per sq. meter.
49. According to the award No.1/19992000 dated 20.07.1999, the rate of land was fixed at Rs.2805/ per sq. meter of residential land and in view of above findings, the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation in respect of rate of land to the extent of Rs.5865/ per sq. meter, being reasonable market value at that time on the basis of land as commercial. Accordingly, LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.25 of 27 issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
50. In respect of cost of construction, the petitioners have failed to led any evidence to show that they are entitled for the same to the tune of Rs.50 lacs, as claimed. Hence, the valuation of construction given by the LAC in the award remained unchallenged. Accordingly, same be given to the petitioners as allowed by the LAC in the award without any enhancement.
51. Relief : The petition / reference filed U/s 18 of LA Act, is allowed. According to the judgment dated 24.07.2007 Ex.PW1/1 passed by Ld. ADJ Sh. Sanjay Kumar in LAC Nos.283/07, the enhanced compensation is allowed to the petitioners to that extent as mentioned therein.
52. The petitioners have claimed compensation @ Rs.25,000/ per sq. meter, which is now fixed and allowed @ Rs.5865/ per sq. meter.
53. 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.
54. According to the award, 12% interest was allowed on the market value, fixed by the LAC U/s 23(i)(a) of LA Act, 1894 from the date of notification U/s 4 of Act (12.06.1997) till the date of possession i.e. 20.07.1999. Accordingly, the same is also allowed on the present market value, fixed as above.
55. The cost of construction be given to the petitioners as allowed by the LAC in the award without any enhancement.
56. Since the amount of compensation has been enhanced, as LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.26 of 27 discussed above and as per section 28 of Act, the Collector shall pay interest on such excess @ 9% per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into court. Accordingly, the petitioners are also allowed to get interest @ 9% per annum on the excess amount from the date of possession of the land till the payment. The petitioners are also allowed to get interest @ 15% per annum on the excess or part amount which has not been paid into the court before the date of expiry of one year, as per section 28 of Act.
57. Copy of this judgment be sent to the LAC, Shahdara, Delhi for information and necessary compliance within three months. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open
Court on 08.09.2016 ( Virender Kumar Goyal )
Additional District Judge01
(East)/KKD/Delhi / 08.09.16
LAC No.39/16/08 Page No.27 of 27