Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Petitioner has stated that the Collector could not have assessed the market value of his godown on the basis of minimum rates of agricultural land as land in question was used as a commercial site with the prior permission and approval of the Chief Fire Officer, Delhi Administration and Chief Controller of Explosives, Govt. of India. Gas cylinder godown was constructed as per specifications of the above authorities.

9. For enhancement of market value, petitioner has also relied upon the fact that the land in question was urbanised in the year 1963 when notification under Section 507 of DMC Act was issued and the land had become urban land and had ceased to be rural area.

47. In the first written synopsis, petitioner has stated that the land was built up as a commercial property with prior permission of concerned authorities. Petitioner relied upon license dated 11.01.2000 to store compressed gas in cylinders issued by the Chief Controller of Explosives which is Ex. PW10/1 and NOC issued by Chief Fire Officer, Delhi Administration dated 15.06.1999 as Ex. PW3/1. Petitioner has relied on evidence of PW8 Shri Hari Kishan, Divisional Officer of Delhi Fire Services where he stated that NOC dated 15.06.1999 was not revoked as the question of revoking the NOC was kept in abeyance. Petitioner has relied upon license given by Dy. Controller of Explosives to contend that as per the license the premises cannot be used for any purpose other than for keeping compressed gas filled in cylinders. On the basis of this condition, petitioner has contended that land use of petitioners land on the date of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act was commercial in nature. Petitioner has also relied on evidence of PW10 where he has stated that sanctioned plan of the gas godown is part of license to contend that gas godown was as per sanctioned plan. Petitioner has contended that once a license was obtained from Chief Controller of Explosives, it is deemed to be a complete sanction itself to authorize the petitioner to use the land for said purpose alone. Petitioner has also stated that the judgment in the case of Suresh Prashad passed by this Court is distinguishable because the land was used by Shri Suresh Prashad for agricultural purposes but the land of the petitioner was not being used for cultivation but used for commercial purposes. Therefore, the petitioner claimed that the market value of the land in question be determined on the basis of a commercial site.

51. After considering the pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and judgments cited by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the market value of the land in question can be determined treating the same as a commercial land.

52. Permission by Chief Fire Officer and Chief Controller of Explosives to use the land as gas godown does not change the user of the land from agricultural to commercial.

53. Chief Fire Officer by granting permission considers only Fire Safety requirements and not user of the land. Similarly, relying upon NOC of Chief Fire Officer, Controller of Explosives also cleared the site. However, the same does not show that user of the land was changed from agricultural to commercial.