[ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District, Saket Courts Complex, Room No. 602, 6th Floor, New Delhi In the matter of : [CASE NUMBER] Unique ID No. 02406C0003432012 Senior Citizen Case 1. [ENTITY] (deceased) through LRs a. Shri [ENTITY] b. Shri [ENTITY] (deceased) through LRs i. [ENTITY] ii. [ENTITY] iii. [ENTITY] iv. [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] c. Shri [ENTITY] d. Sri Chand All sons of [ENTITY] e. Shri [ENTITY] f. Shri [ENTITY] Both sons of Late [ENTITY] (predeceased son of Shri [ENTITY]) g. Smt. [ENTITY] h. Smt. [ENTITY] Both daughters of Late [ENTITY] j. [ENTITY], S/o Late Dharambir (predeceased son of [ENTITY]) k. Smt. Sumitra, Wd/o Late Dharambir l. Smt. Tasvir Devi, Wd/o Late [ENTITY] (predeceased son of [ENTITY]) m. Surender Kumar, S/o Late [ENTITY] n. Smt. Anju o. Smt. Sangeeta [CASE NUMBER] Page 1 of 15 [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. p. Smt. [ENTITY] All daughters of Late [ENTITY] q. Smt. [ENTITY], Wd/o Late [ENTITY] (predeceased son of [ENTITY]) r. Shri [ENTITY] s. Shri [ENTITY] Both sons of Late [ENTITY] t. Smt. [ENTITY], Wd/o Late [ENTITY] (predeceased son of [ENTITY]) u. Shri [PRECEDENT] Both sons of Late [ENTITY] w. Smt. [ENTITY] x. Smt. [ENTITY] Both daughters of [ENTITY] All R/o 211A, VPO Maidangarhi, New Delhi110068. 2. [ENTITY] (deceased) through LRs a. Shri [ENTITY], S/o Late [ENTITY] b. Smt. [ENTITY], D/o Late [ENTITY] c. Smt. [ENTITY], D/o Late [ENTITY] d. Smt. [ENTITY], D/o Late [ENTITY] All R/o H. No. 39, VPO Maidangarhi, New Delhi110068. Petitioners Versus 1. [ENTITY], through Land Acquisition Collector, Office at D.C. Office, M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi. 2. Delhi Development Authority, through its Vice Chairman, INA, [ENTITY], New Delhi. Respondents
[ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
Reference Received from LAC on : 06.01.2012 Date of Institution : 10.01.2012 Decision reserved on : 19.01.2016 Date of decision : 21.01.2016 AWARD
(by the Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT] on reference petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT]) 1.1. (Introduction) The petitioners are seeking enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of land acquired, while dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Whereas, respondents stand by the Award that amount determined is correct and it represents fair market price.
1.2 In order to decide the petitioners' reference petition u/s 18 of the [ACT] 1894 (in brief the [ACT]) read with statement u/[SECTION] of the Act referred by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below :
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act 25.11.1980
(ii) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act 18.06.1985
(iii) for Project Planned Development of Delhi
(iv) Location/Name of Village Maidangarhi (va)Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC 23/198788 & date of award & 17.6.1987 [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
(vb) Area under acquisition 4508 & 0716=(5304) (vc) Date of possession taken 16.07.1987
[except possession of khasra nos. 109 (0202), 99min(012), 124min(010)] (via) Date of reference petition to LAC 27.07.1987 (vib) Petition referred to Court on 06.01.2012 (ivc) Date of statement U/[SECTION] of the Act 1894 30.12.2011 1.3 Pursuant to preliminary notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] followed by declaration vide notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT], and then by award no. 23/198788. The petitioners' land as detailed in statement under [SECTION] of the Act, was acquired and on 11.09.1987 they were paid the compensation from the office. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief the Collector or LAC) by considering the locations of land, it was put into BlockA, BockB, BlockC, Block D and BlockE visavis the other factors standing trees crops, wells and other structure, gave its Award No. 23. The Collector determined compensation @ Rs. 16,000/ per bigha for BlockA; @ Rs 14,000/ per bigha for BlockB; @ Rs 12,000/ per bigha for BlockC; @ Rs 10,000/ per bigha for BlockD and @ Rs 3,500/ per bigha for BlockE . The petitioners' land was put to block C and D. Then, the petitioners while not accepting the Award, preferred a reference petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] against respondent no. [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
1 before Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The said petition along with statement under [SECTION] of the Act, 1984 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector to decide the reference, by giving details of acquired area, date of possession and rates of compensation, the shares that each petitioner in the land, date and details of payment made to them. It is necessary to mention that [ENTITY] was summoned as respondent no. 2, then written statement was filed.
Petitioners' case 2.1 The Petitioners have not accepted the offer made in the said Award, they filed a reference petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] before Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petitioners have sought enhanced compensation of the land acquired.
2.2 The market value of the land has not been correctly assessed and it is at a very low rate without appreciating that petitioners' land ought to have been put in Block A in terms of law laid down and reported in 1978 14 DLT 83 that land acquired for planned development of Delhi, it is unnecessary to consider whether the land was chabi, abi or rasoli, hence the award is not acceptable and binding to the petitioners. Paragraph 7 to 9 of petition narrates plea of petitioner alleging malafide of respondents and rights of [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
petitioners under law. Paragraph 10 to 13 narrates facts about of nature of land, its location, surroundings and compensation awarded of other adjacent lands, also explaining that Lal Dora was formed in 1908 but government never acquired the extended Lal Dora land in other area, however, acquired in Maidangarhi by discrimination. Further, as per Award no. 12/198788 and 19/198788, the market value of land in Village Devli was determined @ Rs. 21,000/ per bigha and of [ENTITY] @ Rs. 20,000/ per bigha as on 05.11.1980. Para 14 of petition also specifies rates of Rs. 1,45,350/ per bigha on 08.08.1980 and of Rs. 1,45,487/ per bigha on 08.08.1980 and Rs. 50,562/ per bigha on 07.10.1980 in other sale transactions of the area. The acquired land is surrounded by big farms houses of Village Chhattarpur, Satbari, Khanpur, Devli. Moreover, it is at short distance of Saket, Malviya Nagar, vis a vis near main road of Mehrauli via Chhattarpur, Maidangarhi to Satbari, Maidgarhi to Saket, therefore, it has great potentiality. The land sold in this locality was Rs. 3000/ to Rs. 4000/ per square yards before the date of notification under [SECTION] of the Act.
However, the Land Acquisition Collector failed to appreciate all these features, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs. 5,000/ per sq. yds besides other compensation Rs 5 lacs for tube [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
well with a well with three rooms in Khasra No. 362, Rs. 7 lacs for four rooms, gates, boundary wall and one double storey house in Khasra No. 109 & 124 (as elaborated in prayer clause after paragraph no. 23 of the petition) visavis additional amount, which they have been wrongly denied for 973 days (from 18.03.1981 to 15.11.1983) of period of stay. 2.3 In addition, the petitioners no. 1 and 2 had expired during pending of petition, their LRs were impleaded and their names have been reflected in the array of parties.
Respondents' case
3. The respondents no. 1 did not file any formal written statement, whereas respondent no. 2 filed formal reply. They opposed the reference petition that the findings given by Collector in his Award is based on market value of the land, the compensation was just, adequate, sufficient and it was rightly assessed in accordance with the conditions prevailing at relevant time. The sale deeds made available were also considered by the Collector. Paragraph 1 of written statement of respondent no. 2 narrates that some of land measuring 11 bigha 19 biswas (given to [ENTITY]) has been handed over to SAARC University on 22.2.2010 and remaining land has not been transferred to any scheme. The land is [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
governed by [ACT]. The reference petition is also barred by law and it deserves dismissal.
Issues 4.1 On 06.05.2014, the following issues were framed for determination :
1. Whether Reference Petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is within prescribed period of limitation ? Onus on Parties
2. Whether the Reference is without cause of action, as the Award No. 23/19871988 dated 17.06.1987 reflects the actual and assessed market value of the land acquired ? OPR1&2
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed ? OPP
4. Relief.
Evidence 5.1 In order to prove the issues, the petitioner no. 1's LR (a) Shri [ENTITY] (PW1) appeared in the witnesses box for petitioners' evidence and he tendered judgment (Ex. PW1/1 LAC No. 261/2011 [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & [ENTITY]) of Ld. Predecessor to prove rate of land under same notification of village Maidangarhi, then the petitioners' evidence was closed. PW1 was cross examined thoroughly on behalf of respondents. [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
5.2 Then, respondents were also given opportunity to lead evidence, Shri [ENTITY], Ld Counsel for [ENTITY] and Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for [ENTITY] tendered copy of Award No. 23/198788 (as Ex. R1), then evidence was closed by them.
Final Hearing
6. At the juncture of final hearing, Shri [ENTITY], Counsel for petitioners and Shri [ENTITY], Counsel for [ENTITY] / respondent no. 1 and Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for [ENTITY] / respondent no. 2 advanced their respective submissions.
FINDINGS The rival submission are considered and analyzed in the light of record, statutory provisions of law, precedent and findings arrived & rate determined in other case. Now, the issues are taken. 7.1 Issue No. 1 Whether Reference Petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is within prescribed period of limitation ? Onus on Parties The petitioners claim that reference was filed within limitation period and whereas Issue No. 1 is not pressed for by the respondents, thus it is [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
held that reference petition filed on 27.07.1987 in respect of Award dated 17.06.1987 was filed within period of limitation prescribed under [SECTION] of the Act 1894.
7.2 Issues No. 2 and 3
2. Whether the Reference is without cause of action, as the Award No. 23/19871988 dated 17.06.1987 reflects the actual and assessed market value of the land acquired ? OPR1&2
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, as prayed ? OPP Both the issues are taken together, since they are interrelated. Issue No. 2 is with regard to the cause of action and market value of land acquired on the date of preliminary notification, the onus lies on the respondents and Issue No. 3 is in respect of enhanced compensation, onus to prove it lies on the petitioners.
7.2. So far Issue No. 2 to the extend of cause of action is concerned, in fact the Collector had sent reference petition to adjudicate the issue of market value of land on the date of notification. Moreover, there is no evidence by the respondents or from cross examination of PW1 that petition is without cause of action, in fact the reference sent to Court is to adjudicate the issues raised, therefore, there exists cause of action. To that [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
extend the respondent could not establish Issue No. 2. 7.3 The reference petition under [SECTION] of the Act, is pursuant to dis satisfaction of petitioners to the amount offered as market value of land as compensation on the date of acquisition of land. [SECTION] of the [ACT] lays down the matters to be considered by court in determining the compensation and [SECTION] of the [ACT] talks about the matters to be neglected in determining the compensation. In [PRECEDENT], it was held the court has to consider nature of land, present use and its capacity for higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighbouring land has been put and impact of such use on land acquired, while assessing the compensation. In [PRECEDENT], it was held that the principles for determination of compensation payable to owner of 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. In Suresh Kumar vs. Town Improvement Trust AIR 1989 [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
SC 1222 it was held that in estimating the market value of land, the proper way to ascertaining the market value of land is by taking into consideration the special value of land, which ought to be attached to the special advantage possessed by the land like its proximity to developed urbanized areas. Further, the Court has to ascertain as best as possible from the materials before it what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser for the land in that particular position and with that particular potentiality. The value of the potentiality has to be determined on such material as a available and without indulgence in fits of imagination.
7.4 On comparison of entire submission of parties, although the petitioners stake their claims on many aspects on amount of compensation but they rely upon the findings given in [ENTITY] & Ors. case (Ex. PW1/1, [ENTITY]), which determines market value of land @ Rs. 59,770/ per bigha as on 25.11.1980 in the same preliminary notification village Maidangarhi, which is also not disputed by the respondents. However, PW1 was cross examined on various aspects. It is settled law, that two equals are to be treated equally. The petitioners cannot be treated differently among equals, they are entitled for compensation at the same [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
rate as others were held entitled. Hence, on the date of preliminary notification, the market value of land was Rs. 59,770/ per bigha. The petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation to Rs. 59,770/ per bigha from rates determined/awarded by the Collector.
However, the petitioners have made other claims of well etc., the same have not been whispered in evidence nor proved vis a vis possession of land of Khasra Nos. 123min(010), 109(22) and 99min(012) was not taken by the Collector. Therefore, such claim has not been established by the petitioners.
Accordingly, Issues No. 2 and 3 stand disposed off in the favour of petitioners and against the respondent nos. 1 and 2, the respondent no. 2 is beneficiary of land acquired.
7.5 Ld counsel for petitioners requests that interest for the period 18.3.1981 to 15.11.1983 was not allowed by LAC and they were declined interest because of stay by court (as mentioned in page 72 of the Award) in terms of explanation appended to [SECTION] of the [ACT]. However, without disturbing this aspect, the petitioners shall not be deprived of interest on enhanced amount of compensation by court, since the chapter of stay has been over when proceedings of acquisition were [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
pending before the Collector.
Issue No. 4 - Relief
8. In view of the findings given on Issues No. 1, 2 and 3 above, the petitioners are held entitled for enhanced compensation Rs. 59,770/ per bigha from the amount awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, in respect of petitioners' land acquired, also detailed in the statement under [SECTION] of the [ACT], besides 30% solatium under [SECTION] of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land, interest @ 12% per annum under [SECTION] from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC or date of taking of possession whichever is earlier, 9% interest on excess amount awarded by court from the date of possession of land to payment of excess amount in the court, for one year and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in court. They will also be entitled for other benefits allowed in the Award by Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The compensation will be disbursed to petitioners/LR as per their shares in the land as detailed in statement U/[SECTION] of the Act. However, interest declined by Collector (for period of 18.3.1981 to 15.11.1983 of stay by court as per page 72 of Award), while making award and paying compensation, would not be construed as [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
allowed by court.
9. The reference petition stand answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance on his part for remitting of amount payable to the petitioners.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today ([ENTITY]) st Thursday, 01 Magha, Saka 1937 Addl. District Judge02 (South) Saket, New Delhi / 21.01.2016 [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.
21.01.2016 Present : Proxy Counsel for Shri [ENTITY], Counsel for petitioners / LRs.
Proxy Counsel for Shri [ENTITY], Counsel for [ENTITY] / respondent no. 1.
Proxy Counsel for Shri [ENTITY], Counsel for [ENTITY] / respondent no. 2.
Vide separate judgment announced today, the reference petition stands answered. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, for necessary information, action and immediate compliance on his part for remitting of amount payable to the petitioners.
File be consigned to record room.
([ENTITY]) ADJ02 (South), Saket N New Delhi / 21.01.2016