-: 1 :- [CASE NUMBER] IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R.NAVAL: ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI [CASE NUMBER] Award No.: 24/1988-89 Village : Bedusarai IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Shri [ENTITY] son of Shri [ENTITY] dead by LRs a) Shri [ENTITY], b) Shri Jai Bhagwan, c) Shri Chaman Lal d) Shri Khem Chand, sons e) Smt. Shanti f) Smt. Indira @ Lal, daughters 2. Shri [ENTITY] s/o Shri G. Ram dead by LRs: a) Shri [ENTITY], R/o Vill. Bedu Sarai, Delhi. Petitioners VERSUS 1. [ENTITY], through Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. 2. Irrigation & Flood Control Department, ISBT, Delhi. Respondents
AWARD Vide notification no. F-7(10)/83 L & B (i) & (ii) (iii) dated 24.9.87 and 29.9.87 under [SECTION], [SECTION], & [SECTION] respectively, of the [ACT] (herein after referred to as the Act), land measuring 104 bigha (including the land of the petitioners as detailed in the statement under [SECTION] of the Act), situated in the revenue estate of village Bedu Sarai, Delhi, was acquired by the Government for increase the capacity of Najafgarh drain. The Land Acquisition Collector after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act, announced the Award bearing No. 24 of 1988-89 and awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.4000/- per bigha for the entire acquired land, in addition to proportionate solatium, etc.
2. The above mentioned petitioners, were dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition collector, and filed a reference petition under the provisions of [SECTION] of the Act for proper determination of the market value which were sent to this court for adjudication. In his reference petition, the petitioners sought enhancement of compensation stating that he was the bhumidar in possession of the land bearing Khasra nos. 22/21/1, 31/5 and 32/1 total measuring 7 bigha[SECTION] biswas, situated in revenue estate of Village Bedu Sarai, New Delhi. It was stated that awarded compensation was too low, unreasonable, inadequate, arbitrary and without considering the relevant evidence available with the ld. LAC. It was further stated that LAC did not take into consideration all the documents filed by petitioners and ignored the potentiality of the land and the fact that the land could be used for Industrial purposes and the rate of the land was at Rs.400/- per square yard if sold in the open market. It was also stated that all facilities, like transportation, electricity, water, were available there. The land of petitioners was very fertile and leveled land. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the market value of the land and compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square yard for the land; and Rs. 50000/- for loss of standing crops; Rs.2,00,000/- for damages from compulsory acquisition; Rs.2,00,000/- for damages from diminution of profits; besides solatium @ 30%, interest @ 15% as per the Act.
3. In the statement under [SECTION], it was recorded that Shri [ENTITY] son of Shri [ENTITY], to the extent of one third share, was recorded owners in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 22/21/1, 31/5 and 32/1 total measuring 7 bigha[SECTION] biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Bedu Sarai, Delhi. This statement was admitted as correct.
4. The [ENTITY] contested this case on the grounds that the [ACT] was applicable to the land in dispute. The UOI further pleaded that compensation was correctly assessed and prayed for dismissal of the claim.
5. The I&FCD was impleaded as party to the present proceedings as it was the beneficiary of the acquisition but no separate written statement was filed.
[SECTION]. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(i) What was the fair market value of the land in dispute at the time of issuing notification u/[SECTION] of the Act and what amount of enhanced compensation if any, the petitioner is entitled to receive?
(ii) Relief.
7. In order to prove his case, the counsel for the petitioners examined Shri [ENTITY] as PW1 and Shri [ENTITY] as PW 2 and also tendered in evidence documents Ex.P-1 to P-3. Evidence of the petitioners was closed vide order dated 21.2.2007 because no sufficient ground for adjournment was shown particularly when they availed more than 12 years to adduce evidence.
In support of its case, counsel for the U. O. I. and FCD tendered in evidence copy of Award no. 24/88-89 as Ex. R 1.
8. After closing of evidence by the parties, I heard arguments of counsels for the parties and perused file.
9. After going through the pleadings of the parties; examination of evidence on record; and considering the arguments of the counsels for the parties, I formed my view on the issues and same are discussed herein below issue-wise:
10. The Supreme Court in case of [PRECEDENT] propounded the principles for determination of the compensation as under:
"The principles for determination of the compensation payable to the owner of the land is the market value which is determined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser, but as this may not be possible to ascertain with any amount of precision, the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. The land acquired has therefore, to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration under [SECTION] of the Act but its potential value also must be taken into account. The sale deeds of the lands situated in the vicinity and the comparable benefits and advantages which they have, furnish a rought and ready method of computing the market value. This, however, is . AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 14[SECTION] not the only method. The rent which an owner was actually receiving at the relevant point of time or the rent which the neighbouring lands of similar nature are fetching can be taken into account by capitalising the rent which according to the present prevailing rate of interest is 20 times the annual rent. But this also is not a conclusive method. The methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land on the date of the notification under [SECTION] are: (I) Opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transaction of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; (iii) a number of year's purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. These methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive as near as possible at an estimate of the market value. In arriving at a reasonably correct market value, it may be necessary to take even two or all of those methods into account inasmuch as the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentially nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from"
11. The Apex Court in case of [PRECEDENT] held that:
"An assessment of the compensation payable for land acquired must take into account several factors, including the nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighbouring land has been put and the impact of such use on the land acquired and so on."
12. In case of [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court observed:
"In estimating the market value of the land all of the capabilities of the land, and all its legitimate purposes to which it may be applied or for which it may be adapted are to be considered and not merely the condition it is in and the use to which it is at the time applied by the owner. The proper principle is to ascertain the market value of the land taking into consideration the special value which ought to be attached to the special advantage possessed by the land; namely, its proximity to developed urbanised areas. The Court has to ascertain as best as possible from the materials before it what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser, for the land in that particular position and with that particular potentiality. The value of the potentiality has to be . AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1870 . AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 1222 determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in fits of the imagination."
13. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that he has proved on records three documents, namely, a judgment dated 31.01.1984 in case of [CASE NUMBER] titled Nihal Vs. [ENTITY] passed by Shri [ENTITY], Addl. District Judge, Delhi, as His Lordship then was; copy of sale deed dated 19.10.1981 of Village Jhatikara; and copy of another sale deed dated 20.[SECTION].1988 of Village NanaKheri. These are the judgment and sale deeds of adjoining villages and he submitted that petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation on the basis of these documents.
14. I perused all these documents. I find that only photocopies of these documents have been filed. These documents have not been proved as per requirement of [ACT], so no reliance can be placed on these documents. Even if for the sake of arguments, these are considered, then also these will not provide any benefit to the petitioners because firstly, none of these documents is related to village Bedusarai. Judgment is related to village Kangan Heri and sale deeds are related to village Jhatikra and Nana Kheri. Secondly, the statements of PW1 and PW2 are not admissible in evidence because their statements remained incomplete. The respondent could not get opportunity to cross examine them because the petitioners failed to produce them for cross examination.
15. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that he has filed on record some sale deeds and therefore, petitioners should be given compensation on the basis of market value as established vide these sale deeds. I examined copies of two sale deeds filed by the counsel for the petitioners. First sale deed is dated 19.10.1981 and is related to the village Jatikra. Second sale deed is dated 20.0[SECTION].1988 and it is related to village Nanakheri. The land subject matter of present dispute was acquired vide notifications of September, 1987. These sale deeds will not provide any benefit to the petitioners because, firstly, these have not been proved on record as per requirement of [ACT].
1[SECTION]. In case of [PRECEDENT] held that:
"Moreover contents of a document are required to be proved by adducing necessary evidence. Mere production of a copy of sale deed . AIR 199[SECTION] GUJARAT 1[SECTION] would not prove its contents. Further, from the sale deed, it could not be decided by the Court that the said document is between the bona fide purchaser and seller or it is between the willing buyer and the willing seller. In such a case, it could not be said that as the documents were admitted and exhibited by Court, it would mean that the proof of the said document was dispensed with".
The findings of this case are squarely applicable to the facts of present case. Thus the Photostat copies of sale deeds are not admissible in evidence and consequently these will not provide any help to the petitioners.
[SECTION]. Second reason for discarding these sale deeds are that these are not related to the village Bedusarai.
18. I have examined the evidence and material produced on record on different angles in order to find out whether after applying the principles as discussed in the award some enhancement of compensation could be made? I came to the conclusion that petitioners could not establish on record that either potentiality or market value or the advantages attached to the land subject matter of this case was more than the adjoining villages. It could not be established that market value as on the date of notification for acquisition of land was more than what the Land Acquisition Collector assessed in his award. Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are not entitled for enhancement of compensation and accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.
RELIEF : ORDER Resultants upon the decision of Issue No 1 in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners it is held that petitioners are not entitled for enhancement of compensation. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Reference is accordingly answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.
A copy of award be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector for his information.
Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (DR. [ENTITY]) ON THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2007. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE.
DELHI