-:1:- [CASE NUMBER] IN THE COURT OF S.S.HANDA ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI [CASE NUMBER] Award No.: 6/2004-05 Village : Ghevra IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Sh. [ENTITY] 2. Sh. [ENTITY] 3. Sh. [ENTITY] of Sh. [ENTITY] R/o Village & PO Ghevra, Delhi. Petitioners VERSUS 1. [ENTITY], through Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. 2. [ENTITY], Department of [ENTITY] & JJ Respondents Date of Institution : 18.05.2005 Date of Arguments : 10.10.2008 Date of Decision : 10.10.2008 Appearances : Shri [ENTITY], Ld.counsel for petitioners. Shri [ENTITY], Ld. counsel for UOI. Shri [ENTITY], Ld. counsel for MCD, [ENTITY] & J.J.Department. -:2:- [CASE NUMBER] AWARD Vide notification no. F-11(81)/2000/ L&B/LA 18032 dated 6.2.2003 under [SECTION] F.11(81)/2000/L&B/LA/1317-18 dated 30.4.2003 under [SECTION] respectively, of the [ACT] (herein after referred to as the Act), land measuring 943 bighas and 18 biswas (including the land of the petitioner as detailed in the statement under [SECTION] of the Act), situated in the revenue estate of village Ghevra, Delhi, was acquired by the Government for public purposes namely for rehabilitation of J.J.Clusters. The Land Acquisition Collector after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act, announced the Award bearing No. 6 of 2004-05 of village Ghevra and awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre 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 petition under the provisions of [SECTION] of the Act for proper determination of the market value which was sent to this court for adjudication. In the reference petition, the petitioners sought enhancement of compensation stating -:3:- [CASE NUMBER] that petitioners were co-owners/co-bhumidars of having 1/3rd share each in the land bearing Khasra nos. 30/1(4- 09), 10/1(0-04) and also having 1/12th share each in the land bearing Khasra nos. 26/11(1-12), 12/1/2(0-12) situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, New Delhi, here in after referred to as the land in dispute. 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 petitioner and ignored the potentiality of the land and the fact that the land could be used for Industrial, commercial and residential purposes and the rate of the land was at Rs. 2000/- per square yard if sold in the open market. He also adopted the incorrect formula in assessing the market value of the land. It was also stated that all facilities, like transportation, electricity, water, hospital, railway line, school, colleges, and restaurants were available there. It was in proximity of PVC market and National Highways. The land of petitioner was leveled and required only little development. It was near the Abhor-Fazilka via Rohtak Road. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Depot and Tikri border were near to it. He was deprived of right of his property as envisaged under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the -:4:- [CASE NUMBER] market value of the land and compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per sq. yard for the land; Rs.[SECTION],000/- per acre for loss and damages sustained by the petitioner for standing crops; Rs. 950/- per quintal for timber; Rs.50,000/- for boring besides solatium and interest with cost of petition and other benefits as per Act. 3. In the statement under [SECTION] of the Act dated 12.05.2005, it was recorded that Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] all sons of Sh. [ENTITY] were the recorded owners having 1/3rd share each in the land comprised in Khasra No.30/1(4-09), 10/1(0-04) situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, New Delhi. This statement was admitted as correct. 4. The [ENTITY] filed its written statement contending that the [ACT] was applicable to the land in dispute. The land was not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and could only be used for agricultural. There was no ground to enhance the market value as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The UOI further pleaded that compensation was correctly assessed and prayed for dismissal of the claim. 5. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] & J.J. -:5:- [CASE NUMBER] Department denied the material averments made in the petition and pleaded that fair and reasonable compensation was assessed by the land acquisition collector after considering all the relevant factors for determination of market value at the time of acquisition of land in dispute. It admitted that land of petitioner was acquired. It was further contended that there was no grounds for enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 11.07.2007, following issues were framed: (1) Whether the [ACT] is applicable to the land in dispute, if so to what effect? OPD (2) To what enhancement of compensation the petitioner is entitled to? OPP (3) Relief. 7. In support of their case, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner tendered the award in [CASE NUMBER] titled as Sh. [PRECEDENT] and the judgment passed therein. In support of its case, counsel for the respondent/UOI tendered in evidence copy of Award No. 6/2004-05 of village Ghevra as Ex. R 1. Counsel for MCD, [ENTITY] & J.J. Department did not lead any evidence and relied on the evidence led on behalf of UOI. -:6:- [CASE NUMBER] 8. After closing of evidence by the parties, I heard arguments of counsels for the respondents and perused file. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon (i) Jasrath Vs. [ENTITY] 130 (2006) DLT 700; (ii) [PRECEDENT]; (iii) [PRECEDENT]; (iv) [ENTITY] and others, v. Assistant Commis- sioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another AIR 1996 SC 2886; and (v) Shri [ENTITY] Vs UOI & Ors., LAA No.866/2005 etc. Shri [ENTITY], Ld. counsel for the UOI has placed reliance upon [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. He also relied on [PRECEDENT]. 9. After going through the pleadings of the parties; examination of evidence on record; and considering the arguments of the counsels for the respondents, my findings on the issues are follows: FINDINGS OF ISSUE NO.1 10. The burden to prove this issue was on the -:7:- [CASE NUMBER] respondents and they had to prove as to how applicability of the Act affected the market value of the land in dispute. But both the respondents have failed to adduce any evidence on this issue. However, as per statement under [SECTION] of the Act which is admitted by the petitioner; it is evident that the land in question was agricultural land and subject to [ACT]. Irrespective of that it is not shown as to how it basically affected the market value of the compensation to be awarded. The issue, thus is, answered to the effect that the land was subject to [ACT] but without prejudice to the reasons to be taken up under issue no.2; it no way affects the market value of the awarded land for the purposes of compensation under the [ACT]. FINDINGS OF ISSUE NO. 2 11. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for respondent/UOI, Shri [ENTITY] that as the award was assailed by the petitioner; the burden to prove that they be awarded compensation at the enhanced rate lay upon him. To discharge the burden as recorded above, counsel for petitioners has relied upon the evidence led in [CASE NUMBER] titled as Sh. [PRECEDENT] and the judgment passed therein. 12. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners summarised his contentions in two propositions. It is submitted that either of his propositions be accepted. (1) The first proposition propounded by him was that relying upon the sale deeds Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/2 (certified copy of which have been filed in [CASE NUMBER] and attested copy of certified copy has been filed and proved on record and Ex.P.11 and P.12) ) the petitioners be given enhancement. (ii) Secondly, his proposition is that petitioners be awarded the higher compensation i.e. @ 12% flat or 11.5% compounded on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble High court in case of Shri [ENTITY] Vs [ENTITY]. On the other hand, Shri [ENTITY], Ld. counsel for the [ENTITY] has argued that no reliance can be placed on sale deeds Ex.PW1/F to O because these are either much prior to date of acquisition or much later from the date of acquisition Secondly, these are for small pieces of land and thirdly, these lands were purchased for commercial purposes. -:9:- [CASE NUMBER] 13. Shri [ENTITY], Ld. counsel for the UOI has placed referred to [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] (in short the Act) the Act and submitted that propositions for enhancement raised by Ld. counsel for petitioners do not hold good. [SECTION] of the [ACT] being relevant is reproduced as under : "Matters to be considered in determining compensation - (1) in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration - First, the market value of the land at the time of publication of the [notification under [SECTION], [SECTION]]; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earning; fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and -:10:- [CASE NUMBER] sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under [SECTION] and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land." [SECTION] of [ACT] lays that: Matters to be neglected in determining compensation- But the Court shall not take into consideration- first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any distinction of the person interested to part with the land acquired; thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit; fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under [SECTION], by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put; fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired. sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put; seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of, the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without -:11:- [CASE NUMBER] the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the [notification under [SECTION], [SECTION]; eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its being part to any use which is forbidden by land or opposed to public policy]. Shri [ENTITY] emphasised that the compensation awarded by LAC vide Ex.R-1 was legal and justified being based upon legal provisions of the Act and as per settled judicial pronouncements. 14. In the award Ex.R1 Ld. LAC while ascertaining the market value of the land held that : "In a policy announcement which came into effect from the financial year 2001-2002, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi fixed the indicative prices of agricultural land @ Rs.15,70,000.00 per acre for the acquisition of agricultural land vide their order No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 dated 9.8.2001 which are applicable with effect from 1.4.2001. In view of the absence of any documentary evidences produced by the interested persons, the copy of sale deed in possession of this office as referred to above, and in the light of the above discussion, I find Rs.15,70,000.00 per acre to be the most reasonable price for the agricultural land as on 6.2.2003. The notification under [SECTION] was issued on 6.2.2003 and the price of the land is to be determined as on the date of notification under [SECTION] of [ACT] itself. Hence, in view of the above facts I find Rs. 15,70,000.00 per acre to be the most reasonable price for the land as on 6.2.2003. I, accordingly, determine the market value of the land @ Rs.15,70,00.00 per acre. -:12:- [CASE NUMBER] 15. The market value admittedly has to be fixed on the date of issuance of notification under [SECTION] of the Act and land u/[SECTION] of the Act; In this case notification under [SECTION] was issued on 6.2.2003. (ii) And as per [SECTION] of the Act it can not be less than the amount awarded by the LAC under [SECTION] of the Act. The sale deed filed and proved on record Ex.P.11 and P.12 (certified copy of which have been proved as Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2) do not provide any benefit to petitioners for the reasons firstly, same are not for the relevant period. 16. Secondly reason for discarding these sale deeds are that market value of large track of land comprising of 943 bighas 18 biswas of land in the present case can not be decided on the basis of sale deeds only for a small pieces of land i.e., for one to two and half bighas of land. My decision finds support by a decision of Apex Court in case of [PRECEDENT] wherein it was held that: "In determining compensation, the value fetched for small plot of land cannot be applied to lands covering a very large extent. The large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold." This principle was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in cases of Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Gadwal, Supra wherein it set aside the order of High Court that had relied on sale deed relating to small piece of land and determined compensation per sq. yard and [ENTITY] and others, Supra, wherein it was held that a Sale deed of small piece of land relied on by claimants cannot form basis for determining compensation for large extent of land. Third reason for discarding valuation on the basis of Ex. P.11 and Ex.P.12 is that situation of particular land plays an important role in fetching the value of it. For example, if the land is situated just near the metal led road on a developed place it may fetch more value than the land which is situated far away from the metal led road and near the less developed area. In the present case no evidence has been adduced to prove existence of favorable factors to fetch more value of the land in dispute. The arguments of counsel for the [ENTITY] is convincing that purchaser paid higher side of -:14:- [CASE NUMBER] price of land as lands were purchased for commercial purposes. The counsel for the petitioners further failed to prove on record that there was similarity of situation, position and advantages attached to the land purchased by purchaser and land in dispute and acquired in the present case. I have examined the evidence and material produced on record from different angles in order to find out whether after applying the principles as discussed in cases Smt. [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; and [PRECEDENT], etc., some enhancement of compensation could be made? And I have come 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 could fetch more value than the land acquisition collector awarded for the land in dispute and referred to in the award. In other words, 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 on the basis of the sale deeds Ex.P.11 and Ex.P12. -:15:- [CASE NUMBER] 17. From the above discussions, and the documents above referred proved by parties, it emerges as below : (i) The land falling in village Ghevra is surrounded by Kanjawala, Hirankudna, Tikra, Mundaka, Rasulpur, Sawda and Tikri Kalan and is connected by road and civic amenities. (ii) The awarded land was fertile agricultural land. (iii) That there was considerable jump in the minimum compensation fixed by the Government of NCT, Delhi each time. (iv) There has been continuous and consistent increase in agricultural land prices in the NCT, Delhi. 18. The above factors, thus, support the claim of the petitioners for higher compensation than what was awarded by Ld. LAC at the minimum acquisition rate as there was gap of 22 months when the minimum acquisition rate of the agricultural and was notified. The land rates steadily increased as emerges from the letters of Dy Secretary (LA) to the Secretary (Revenue) Divisional Commissioner which being relevant is reproduced as under: "No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 Dated 9.8.2001 The Secretary(Revenue)/ Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi -:16:- [CASE NUMBER] Delhi. Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land situated in river bed between forward bunds. Sir, In supersession of this office letter NO.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/12358 dt. 21.11.2000, the Government has approved the following rates to be the minimum rates in the National Capital Territory of Delhi effective from 1.4.2001 for the purpose of acquisition of land under the [ACT] 1. Rs.15,70,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs seventy thousand only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
"F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA 6720 Dated: 30.8.2005 The Secretary(Revenue)/ Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land situated in river bed between forward bunds.
Sir, In supersession of this office letter NO.F.9(20)/80/L&BLA6696 dated 9.8.2001, the Government has approved the following rates to be the minimum rates in the National Capital Territory of Delhi effective from 30.8.2005 for the purpose of acquisition of land under the [ACT]
1. Rs.17,58,400/- (Rupees seventeen fifty eight thousand four hundred only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
"No.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/15065 Dated :
[SECTION].01.2008 The Secretary(Revenue)/Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Sub :- Fixation of minimum price of agricultural land/land situated in river bed between forward bunds.
Sir, In supersession of this office letter NO.F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/12358 dated 30.8.2005, the Govt. has approved the following rates to be the minimum rates in the National Capital Territory of Delhi effective from 18.12.2007 i.e. the date of decision of the cabinet, for the purpose of acquisition of land under the [ACT]
1. Rs.53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty three lacs only) per acre for all agricultural land (excluding lands situated in river bed between the forward bunds).
It is also emphasized that the above rates are the minimum rates for compensation. The actual rates for compensation will be determined by the Land Acquisition collector in accordance with the provisions of the [ACT] and the prevalent case law"
In all the above letters, it was emphasized that the rates notified as minimum rates and accordingly rates can not be lowered and rather implied to be higher in accordance with the provisions of the [ACT] and the prevalent case law.
19. In case of Shri [ENTITY] Vs UOI & Ors., Supra of the Hon'ble Division Bench of His lordship Hon'ble Mr Justice [ENTITY] and Mr. Justice [ENTITY] dated 11th May, 2006 held that :
"the Court while granting very limited enhancement again because of non-availability of proper and cogent evidence, it specifically granted the relief of interest on solatium and the benefit for a period of 7 to 8 months in computation of market value of the land on the basis of the Government Policy. It again may not be necessary for this Court to reiterate the entire discussion on this aspect of the case. In fact the learned counsel appearing for the respondents did fairly state that these two reliefs, the petitioners would be entitled to and more particularly in view of the judgment of this court in [ENTITY] case.
It was for the claimants to produce on record the relevant and cogent evidence by sale instances, judicial pronouncements, which would considerably support their case for enhancement of compensation. The claimants have failed to completely discharge their onus on this issue and claim on the basis of agricultural produce having been given up, there is hardly any basis for the claimants to claim enhancement in compensation for acquisition of their land, on their own strength. The policy of the Government in relation to grant of minimum price payable for acquisition of agricultural land would continue to be relevant factor on the basis of which, the Court would have to determine the compensation payable to the claimants."
It was further held by their lordships :
"We hold that the claimants are entitled to the following reliefs:-
(a) The order maintaining the categorisation of the acquired land into grounds A and B is set aside. All claimants, whose lands have been acquired vide notification dated 15th November, 1996 in the revenue estate of Village Bawana would be entitled to uniform rate of compensation.
(b) The claimants would be entitled to increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November 1996 (the date of notification under [SECTION] under the Act) @11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the reference Court/Collector that would roughly given them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68p. per Bigha."
(ii) This proposition was reaffirmed and followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of their lordships Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] and Ms. Justice [ENTITY] in the latest judgment in case [CASE NUMBER] titled Shri [PRECEDENT] dated 17.9.2007. These were latest judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble High Court and have to be followed.
(iii) Having dealt with all the plausible propositions;
in the light of relevant provisions; in my considered opinion the latest case law above referred lays the best possible proposition to be applied to the case in hand for ascertaining the market value of awarded land on the date of notification under [SECTION] of the Act. Accordingly, enhancement on Govt. policy of minimum acquisition rate is applied herein. I am, therefore, of the view that petitioners are entitled for appreciation of 22 months over and above the value fixed by LAC. On calculation the amount of interest for 22 months @ 11.5% compounded annually on 96,875/- comes to Rs. 1,18,367.122 i.e. Rs. 1,18,367/-.
RELIEF
20. As settled in [ENTITY]'s case, petitioners are entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,18,367/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand three hundred sixty seven only) per bigha having 1/3rd share each in the land comprised in Khasra nos. 30/1(4-09), 10/1(0-04) situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, New Delhi as mentioned in the statement under [SECTION] of [ACT] dated 12.05.2005. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the solatium of 30% on market value and 12% additional amount from the date of publication of notification under [SECTION] till the date of Award/taking of possession under [SECTION] whichever is earlier. The petitioner would also be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking of possession and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter till the enhanced compensation is paid.
21. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector for his information The parties are left to bear their own costs.
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 ON ( S.S.HANDA ) THIS 10th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI