IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI. LAC No. 58/12 New No. LAC - 241/16 Area: Mundka Award No.: 02/DC(W)/2008-09 dated 01.01.2009 1. Sh. [ENTITY] 2. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] R/o Pocket,G-5/6 ( 48 meter) Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-85 Petitioner(s) versus 1. UNION OF INDIA & THROUGH Land Acquisition Collector District. West) Rampura, Delhi-35. 2. [ENTITY] Through its Director H.O. : (NBCC) Building, Bishan Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar, Delhi- 1[SECTION]003 Respondents Date of institution of the case : 24.08.2012 Date of reserving of judgment : 26.12.2016 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.01.2017 (Reference under [SECTION] of [ACT]) JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 143 Bigha and 02 Biswa under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 1/12 Act') vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/3291 dated 07.06.2007 also under [SECTION] vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/[SECTION]635 dated 23.[SECTION].2003. The land was notified under [SECTION] vide notification no. F.7 (17)/2005/L&B/LA/MRTS (W)/[SECTION]636 dated 23.[SECTION].2007. The land was acquired for the purpose of Construction of Depot, Staff Quarters and TSS of Inderlok- Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II near Senior Secondary School, Mundka and North of NH-[SECTION] (Mundka Depot).
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector (West)') passed award no. 2/DC(W)/2008-09 under [SECTION] of the Act. The Collector determined the market value of the agriculture land under acquisition @ Rs.17,58,400/- per acre.
3. According to statement of [SECTION] of the Act filed by the Collector petitioners were shown as recorded owner of the acquired land. No objections filed by petitioner.
Name of Field No. Total Kind of Details of petitioner Area in soil trees/ & share Bigha- Buildings/ Biswa Crops Shri [ENTITY] 56 19 min 0-12 As per [ENTITY] S/o 22/1 min 0-8 award [ENTITY], 1/1 1-0 share [ENTITY] 56 22/1 1-0 - do - [ENTITY] S/o share [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 2/12
4. The petitioner filed the reference under [SECTION] of the Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Land Acquisition Collector, West has been referred to the reference court.
5. In brief the facts stated are that the land of the petitioners comprise Lal-Dora Abadi land/ in Khasa No. 56 22/1 min (1-00), 56 22/1 (0-8), 56 19 (0-12) land measuring 2 bigha 0 biswas having full share situated at Mundka was acquired vide award in question. The notice under [SECTION] & [SECTION] of the [ACT] were issued to the petitioner by the Collector. Except the petitioner no other person has any right, title or interest in the aforesaid land. The petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of Award and the petitioner has not received any notice under [SECTION] of the Act and the present petition is within limitation as per law.
6. It is stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector does not represent true and correct market value of the land as well as Lal Dora land (village abadi) as on date of notification under [SECTION] of the Act on dated 07.06.2007 and the compensation assessed by the Collector is much below to the actual market value of the acquired land and same is assailed, interalia, on the following grounds:
7. It is stated that the market value of the land is not less than Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. The Collector failed to appreciate or apply his mind to determine the proper market value of the acquired land. The Collector failed to consider [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 3/12 that the acquired land is adjacent to industrial area situated between main Rohtak Road, National Highway No.[SECTION] and Railway Line at Revenue Estate of village Mundka. The Collector further failed to consider 12% appreciation on the compensation from the date of announcement of policy dated 30.08.2005 to 07.06.2007.
8. It is stated that the Collector failed to consider the important fact that Government of NCT of Delhi has increased the minimum rate of agricultural land @ Rs.53 lacs per acre vide notification dated 18.12.2007, whereby there is a increase of minimum rate of land up to three times. The Collector also failed to consider that the land situated within the Lal Dora is not having value less than Rs.6900/- per sq. yard. The circle rate as fixed by government does not imply correct and actual market value of the acquired land. It is stated that petitioner's land has great potential and higher value which is supported the fact that on 30.06.2007, DDA had invited the bid in Rohini Vicinity which is situated in vicinity of the acquired land and reserve price was fixed at Rs.85,000/- per sq. yards, whereas the Government has fixed the circle rate in vicinity of the land acquired @ Rs.18,000/- per sq. yards. The Collector failed to appreciate and does not consider the fact that only 34 days prior to the notification under [SECTION] of the Act, government announced the policy of fixing the minimum rate of the land acquired and method adopted for assessing the award No. 2/DCW/1999-2000 has not been adopted in the present award. Further, the Collector has misinterpreted the notification no. RNZ/173 of MCD Delhi dated 24.08.1963, which was published in Gazette on 12.09.1963. According to which factories, warehouses are [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 4/12 permissible at the Lal Dora land but Building Bye-laws are applicable. The Collector wrongly interpreted that the boundary wall and structure existing at the Lal Dora (Residential area) land are unauthorized but infact all the structures are legal and boundaries are entitled to structure as well as awarded by the Collector while passing the award no. 2/DCW/1999-2000.
9. It is stated that the Collector has failed to consider that the amenities and facilities of daily life are available on and near the acquired land such a banks, namely, State Bank of India, Corporation Bank, Delhi Cooperative Bank, Punjab National Bank are situated at main Rohtak Road. Therefore, are in and around the acquired land is much developed and has good potential value and petitioner is entitled to market value of the acquired land not less than Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. Not only this, under notification, the part of the area under notification is also for the purpose of industrial area in Mundka Udyog Nagar, South of Rohtak Road, Mundka. Same is notified by government vide notification no. F1/C1/Policy/Institu/Firni Road Mundka and Mundka Udyog Nagar/ 2007/20 in Delhi Gazette Notification dated 17.09.2007.
[SECTION]. The petitioner also referred to the sale deeds i.e.
(i) [ENTITY] in favour of Relaxo Footwear Limited for the sum of Rs.60,00,000/- dated 12.12.2000 for the area of [SECTION] Biswas only situated in the revenue estate of village Mundka, Delhi, which is duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sub Distt. IX Janakpuri, Delhi as documents No. 7016 in additional Book No. 1 Volume No.246 on pages No. 31 to 50 [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 5/12 dated 12.12.2005; (ii) sale deed of Rs.2 Crore for land measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas situated in Khasra No. 815 in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna, in favour of MEK Developers Pvt. Ltd. by Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sushil Kumar [ENTITY] executed on 24.11.2006 which is duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division West Distt. Delhi as document No. 6[SECTION]8 in additional Book No. 1, Volume no. 519 at page No. 42 to [SECTION]5 on dated 24.11.2006; (iii) Sale deed of Rs.5 Crore and 35 lacs for land measuring 16 bighas 11 biswas situated in Khasra no. 663, 667, 773, 813, 780/1 in the village of Hiran Kudna in favour of Mek Developers Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] executed on 14.11.2006 duly registered with Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh Sub-Division West Distt. Delhi as document no. 6113 in additional Book no.1 volume no. 521 at page Nos. 1-198 dated 14.11.2006;
(iv) sale deed for Rs.5 Crore for land measuring 11 bighas 9 biswas situated in Khasra no. 576 min, 586, 597, 602, 616, 617, 624, 625, 765 min, 766, 769, 770, 772 and 771 in the revenue estate of village of Hiran Kudna in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] executed on 31.05.2007; (v) sale deed of Rs.3 crores for land measuring 7 bighas 1-1/3 biswas situated in the village Hiran Kudna, in favour of Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Gordhan executed on 22.07.2007 duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division West Distt. Delhi as documents No. 2746 in additional Book No.1, Volume no. 691 at page no. 1-80 dated 22.07.2007; (vi) sale deed for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 12.12.2005 for the area of [SECTION] Biswas only situated in Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi executed by [ENTITY] in favour of M/s. Marvel Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Which is [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 6/12 registered as document no. 7017 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 246 on pages 51 to 66 dated 12.12.2005 for the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 12.12.2005; (vii) sale deed for Rs.43,75,000/- for land measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Hiran Kudna in favour of Mek Developers Pvt. Ltd. By Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] executed on 31.05.2007 registered as document No. 2938 in additional Book No.1 volume No. 699 at page no. 36 to 74 on dated 31.05.2007 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Sub Division, West Distt. Delhi.
11. It is stated that the acquired land is quite leveled one and fit for residential, commercial and industrial purpose and petitioners are also entitled for alternative business site as per policy of [ENTITY]. As per consistent policy of the government, it does not acquire built up lands and various notifications have been lapsed.
12. The petitioner seeks compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards along with statutory benefit as solatium @ 30%, additional amount at the rate of 12% and interest there on at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the enhanced amount is paid. Interest on the compensation amount till payment and compensation amount in respect of structure existed on the land of petitioner.
13. Written statement filed by respondent no.1/ [ENTITY] and taken the preliminary objection that petition is not maintainable as [ACT] is applicable to the land in dispute. The petition is not maintainable as the [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 7/12 land in question was not surrounded by any developed or under developed colonies and was used for agricultural purpose only. There was no structure, treewell or tubewell on the land in question at the time of publication of notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
14. On merits, all the averments made in the reference petition are denied. The grounds taken by the petitioner are also denied. It is stated that petitioner is not entitled to any relief and reference is liable to be dismissed.
15. Respondent no.2/[ENTITY] also filed written statement and taken preliminary objection that reference petition is liable to be rejected under [SECTION] [ACT] and the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question. It is stated that the petition is barred under [SECTION] [ACT].
16. On merits, again all the averments and contents of the grounds are denied and it is reiterated that the Collector has assessed the correct market value of the land in question and petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement. The entitlement of the petitioner to the alternative property/land is subject to the Policy of the Respondent in this respect. It is stated that reference petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to written statements filed by respondents.
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 8/12
18. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 06.03.2013 by Ld. Predecessor:
1. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of Notification u/[SECTION] of the [ACT]? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any enhancement of the compensation in respect of the land and, if so, at what rate? OPP
3. Relief
19. In support of his case, petitioners got examined PW-1 Sh. [ENTITY], Patwari from the office of SDM/SDO; PW2 Sh. [ENTITY], Kanoongo, L & B Department, PW-3 Sh. [ENTITY], Naib Tehsildar, Shamnath Marg; PW-4 Sh. [ENTITY], UDC, Industries Department; PW-5 Sh. [ENTITY], Kanoongo for LAC, PW-6 Sh. [ENTITY], Record Keeper from Sub- Registrar, and PW-7 Sh. [ENTITY] (petitioner no. 1). Vide separate statement of petitioner No. 1, evidence on behalf of petitioner no. 1 was closed on 05.11.2015.
Vide separate statement of Sh. [ENTITY], counsel for petitioner no. 2 adopt the evidence led by petitioner no. 1 in the present matter on behalf of petitioner no. 2 on 05.11.2015.
20. From the side of respondent no.1/ [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 tendered copy of award No. 02/DC (W)/2008-2009 pertaining [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 9/12 to Village Mundka as Ex. R1 and photocopies of sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of respondent no.1 on [SECTION].11.2015.
21. On behalf of respondent no. 2/ [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Law Officer for respondent no. 2/ [ENTITY], adopt the evidence led on behalf of respondent no. 1/ [ENTITY] and closed evidence on behalf of respondent no. 2/ [ENTITY] on [SECTION].11.2015.
22. I have heard Sh. [ENTITY], counsel for petitioner no. 1, Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the petitioner no. 2; Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the respondent no.1/ [ENTITY]; and Sh. [ENTITY], Law Officer for respondent no.2/ [ENTITY] and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
23. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1/ [ENTITY] Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], Law officer, on behalf of respondent no.2/[ENTITY] submitted that the fair market value of the land in question has already been determined by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] titled as 'Smt. Anjali Garg vs. [ENTITY] & Others' decided on 03.[SECTION].2016. They further referred the judgment of Apex Court titled '[ENTITY] vs. State of Haryana' 1988 (4) JT 260 and '[PRECEDENT]. It is further submitted that the Apex Court has laid down the principle that lands acquired under the same notification, the compensation shall be awarded to the land owners who are similarly situated under the same notification. Applying the same principle, the petitioners are entitled to the same fair market value i.e. Rs.21,31,277/- per acre after enhancement [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. [SECTION]/12 @ Rs.3,72,877/- per acre. I have considered the respective contentions of both the parties and gone through the judgments of Apex Court, the present case is covered by the principles laid down in [ENTITY] (Supra), therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the same market value and enhancement as determined in [CASE NUMBER] titled as 'Smt. Anjali Garg vs. [ENTITY] & Others' decided on 03.[SECTION].2016. Both the issues are decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
24. In view of my findings on Issue nos. 1 & 2, the fair market value of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.21,31,277/- per acre after enhancement @ Rs.3,72,877/- per acre. Besides this the petitioners are also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
25. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/[SECTION] of [ACT] @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
26. The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/[SECTION] of the Act from the date of notification under [SECTION] of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
27. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 11/12 Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus [ENTITY] DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
28. The interest on compensation for the period of delay due to impleading of LRs or stay of High Court or any other court may also be deducted.
29. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
30. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) for information and necessary action.
31. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 6th January, 2017 ([ENTITY]) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 06.01.2017 [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 12/12