IN THE COURT OF [ENTITY], ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT, DELHI. [CASE NUMBER] New No. LAC - 186/16 CNR No. DLWT01-000399-2011 Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Late Sh. Phool Singh R/o H.No. 306, Krishan Kuti, VPO Mundka, Delhi-110041. Petitioner versus 1. [ENTITY], Through Land Acquisition Collector (West) Office of DC (West) Rampura, Delhi-110035. 2. [ENTITY] through its Chairperson Room No. 306, Varunalaya Ph-II, Jhandewalan, Karol Bagh, New delhi-110006. Respondents Appearance: Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the petitioner Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the respondent no.1/ UOI Ms. [ENTITY], Counsel for the respondent no.2/ DJB Date of institution of the case : 20.08.2011 Date of conclusion of arguments : 16.11.2018 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 12.12.2018 Reference under [SECTION] of [ACT] 1984 Award No.: 04/DC(W)/2006-07 dated 04.12.2006 JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi had acquired total land measuring 20 Bigha and 02 Biswa u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') vide notification no. F-10(35)/04/L&B/LA/786 dated 27.04.2006 and vide declaration made u/[SECTION] vide notification no. F.10 (35)/2004/L&B/LA/11519 dated [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 1/20 23.10.2006. The purpose and objective of acquisition was setting up Underground Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station at Village Mundka.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'Collector') passed Award no. 04/DC(W)/2006-07 dated 04.12.2006 under [SECTION] of said Act while determining the market value of the agriculture land under acquisition @ Rs. 17,58,400/- per acre for 'A' Category and @ Rs.14,31,670/- for 'B' Category land.
3. The petitioner, whose land was also part of such acquisition, has filed the instant reference under [SECTION] of said Act against the findings of the Collector and the determination made by him of the market value of the land/property.
4. Such reference has forwarded to this court by the Collector
5. As per the statement u/[SECTION] of said Act, the petitioner is recorded owner of land comprised in Khasra No. 109 16/1 (3-12) total area measuring 3 Bigha 12 Biswa situated at Village Mundka. Such land was also admittedly part of the area acquired under the notification in question.
6. According to the petitioner, neither he was present at the time of announcement of Award nor had he received any notice under [SECTION] of said Act and, therefore, the present petition has been filed by him within the period of limitation.
7. The petitioner has challenged the Award, inter alia, on the ground that the market value of the acquired land should have been assessed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per sq. yards. According to him, the collector failed to consider that the acquired land was situated [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 2/20 adjoining the main Rohtak Road, NH-10, Railway Station Mundka, Metro Station Mundka and such area had been declared by Government of Delhi as Industrial area. He has averred that the collector also failed to consider the factual facts, rulings, authorities, principles and failed to apply proper method for determination of market value and also did not consider the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [CASE NUMBER] in the case of '[PRECEDENT]' dated 19.09.2001 on solatium.
8. Petitioner has also claimed that the collector failed to consider that various amenities and facilities such as banks, namely, SBI, OBC, Syndicate Bank, Corporation Bank etc. were situated in the vicinity of the acquired land. There were Farm Houses and Vatikas such as Abhinandan Vatika, Silver Oak Motel, Indraprastha Motel and many other approved farm houses near the acquired land which fact has also been overlooked.
9. It has also been agitated that the collector did not even consider that MTNL Exchange, biggest Timber Mark, DMRC Corridor, educational facilities, government and private hospitals, Sport complex were situated near the acquired land and determined the market value of the structures illegally and contrary to land use. It has been asserted that DDA was planning to set up a new urban township, namely, Lok Nayak Puram near village Bakkarwala and there was a District Sports School at Ghevra, Bottling Plant of Indian Oil Corporation and Azad Hind Gram had already developed as tourist complex and all such aspects were never considered.
10. Petitioner has also asserted that collector failed to take note of various sale transactions of the land in vicinity i.e. sale deed of Rs. 4,75,000/- executed by [ENTITY] s/o Sh. [ENTITY] in favour of M/s. Nirmal Overseas Ltd. through its Directors Sh. Nirmala Aggarwal dated 05.08.1996 measuring 1 Bigha and 3 Biswas; sale [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 3/20 deed of Rs. 4,80,000/- executed by Dharampal S/o Late Sh. Shodan in favour of Smt. Nirmal Aggarwal dated 12.11.1999 measuring 1 Bigha 4 Biswas; sale deed of Rs.10 lacs executed by Smt. Anita Dhingra w/o Sh. Ravinder Dhingra in favour of Sh. Amarjeet [ENTITY] and Sh. Surender Singh dated 05.10.2004 in respect of land measuring 1 bigha and 17 Biwas; sale deed executed by Sh. Jai Lal s/o Sh. [ENTITY] in favour of MEK Developers Pvt. Ltd. Of 16 Bighas and 11 Biswas for a sum of Rs. 5,30,00,000/-.
11. Petitioner also claimed that even the loss of goodwill and business was not assessed by the collector.
12. Thus, he sought the determination of market value of the acquired land @ Rs.20,000/- per square yards; Rs.4 lacs on account of damages sustained by the petitioner on account of acquisition injuriously affecting his other property and towards loss of his earnings; Rs.20 lacs on account of damages as he was compelled to change his residence and place of living and livelihood; Rs.2 lacs on account of damages sustained on account of loss of his standing crops at the time of taking possession; Rs.50 lacs on account of damages sustained by the petitioner at the time of taking possession of the land by the reason of severing his land from his other land.
13. The respondent no.1/ [ENTITY] filed written statement and in the preliminary objections, it is stated that petition is not maintainable as it is based on false and fictitious grounds. It has been claimed that the Collector assessed the correct market value of the land in question at the time of publication of notification under [SECTION] of the act. The correctness of Khasra numbers, their area and the extent of the share of the petition therein were admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in the statement under [SECTION] of the Act furnished by the revenue authorities. It is further stated that petition is not maintainable as the land in question was not [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 4/20 surrounded by any developed colonies and was rather used for agricultural purpose. It is also claimed that there was no standing tree, boundary, well etc. on the day of notification under [SECTION] of the Act and that the LAC had correctly assessed the market value and, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. Initially, the reference was filed impleading DDA as beneficiary party. However, during the proceedings, an application under [SECTION] [ACT] was filed by DDA disclosing that MCD was the beneficiary party. Later on, it was revealed that [ENTITY] was the actual beneficiary department and accordingly its impleadment was prayed by the petitioner. DDA was eventually deleted from the array of the parties and [ENTITY] was impleaded as respondent no.2 vide order dated 05.10.2012.
15. Respondent no. 2/[ENTITY] filed written statement and took preliminary objection that present reference against them was barred by limitation claiming that the petitioner had knowledge that [ENTITY] was the beneficiary department and despite that, it was not impleaded in the reference and, therefore, petition is not maintainable against the [ENTITY]. It further claimed that the land in question had been acquired for public purpose i.e. for Underground Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station and to achieve such objective, [ENTITY] spent huge amount and did not earn anything and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. On merits also, all the averments made in the reference petition are denied. It is stated in written statement that in the Award, the collector has given specific observation that the land was not even-leveled one and soil/earth to the extent of 2.5 feet had been taken out which meant that beneficiary was required to spend huge amount in making it leveled before taking up the construction of Booster Pumping Station. It is denied that the acquired land had amenities and facilities such like hospitals, schools, banks, highways etc. It is further stated that the [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 5/20 possession was taken without any hindrance and obstacle and plea of regularization scheme of the colony in the year 1993 is not tenable. It is claimed that the collector has considered all the facts and surrounding circumstances while determining the market value and correctly determined the fair market value and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. No replication was filed by the petitioner.
17. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Court on 14.12.2012:
1. What was the market value of the land on the date of notification u/[SECTION] of the [ACT]?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
3. Relief.
18. Petitioner examined five witnesses. PW1 Sh. [ENTITY], Halka Patwari, Village Mundka proved [ENTITY] of village Mundka as Ex. PW1/1. Petitioner entered into witness box as PW2 and relied on judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi in LA Appeal No. 784/05 titled [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Others and proved the same as Mark D. PW3 Sh. [ENTITY], LDC from the office of Land and Building proved minimum price of agricultural land fixed by government of Delhi as Ex. PW3/A (colly). PW4 Sh. [ENTITY], LDC from the office of Sub- Registrar, Basai Darapur, proved the sale deed executed by Sh. [ENTITY] in favour of Smt. [ENTITY] pertaining to agricultural land comprising Khasra No. 815 (4-16) vide registration dated 08.08.2003 as Ex. PW4/1. PW5 Sh. [ENTITY], UDC from the Department of Industries, Govt. of NCT of Delhi proved notification No. F.1/C.1/Policy/INSITU/Phirni road, Mundka and Mundka Udyog Nagar/2007/20 dated 17.09.2007 along with site plan [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 6/20 as Ex. PW5/1(colly). The petitioner closed his evidence on 28.04.2016.
19. Respondent no.1/ [ENTITY] tendered copy of the Award as Ex. R-1 and sale deeds as Ex. R-2 to R-6 and closed evidence on 05.05.2016. On behalf of respondent no.2/ [ENTITY] Sh. [ENTITY], Assistant Engineer (Project) adopted the evidence tendered by [ENTITY] and closed evidence vide statement dated 07.06.2016.
20. I have heard Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the respondent no.1/ UOI and Ms. [ENTITY], Counsel for the respondent no.2/ DJB and perused the record. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no. 2. My findings on issues are as under:
21. Both these issues are being taken up together as these are inter-connected. Onus to prove both these issues is also upon the petitioner.
22. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Government of NCT of Delhi fixed the minimum rate of agricultural land @ Rs.53 lacs per acre on [SECTION].01.2008. The notification under [SECTION] of the Act in the present case was issued on 27.04.2006 and LAC (West) fixed the minimum rate @ Rs.17,58,400/- per acre. It has been argued that if said minimum rate is taken basis of calculation and interest for the previous period of 637 days is offloaded and deducted @ 10% p.a., the actual minimum rate as on date of notification would come to Rs. 43,75,041/- and the collector should have taken the said value as the correct market value. This contention is fallacious as the award proceedings culminated on [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 7/20 04.12.2006 when the award was passed and in such a situation, it was neither possible for petitioner nor the collector to know beforehand the minimum rate fixed in the year 2008.
23. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] in the matter of '[PRECEDENT]' pertaining to notification dated 21.03.2003 of village Mundka. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also hugely relied on judgment dated 07.07.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [CASE NUMBER] titled '[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY]', wherein market value with regard to notification dated 17.06.2005 under [SECTION] of the Act was determined by Hon'ble High Court as Rs.23,93,227/- per acre. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for 10% appreciation from 17.06.2005 to 27.04.2006 which makes the market value as 25,99,114/- per acre. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that DDA has undertaken development of a township in the name of Lok Nayak Puram in the adjoining village Bakkarwala and has also relied on sale deed Ex. PW4/1 of village Hiran Kudna and notification of Department of Industries of Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated 17.09.2007 Ex. PW5/1. It is further submitted that the sale deeds of the respondent Ex. R-2 to R-6 pertain to very small piece of land and cannot be used for comparison in the present case. He has also relied on (i) Bedi Ram vs. [ENTITY] and Another (2001) 93 DLT 150; (ii) Delhi Shimla Catholic Archdiocese vs. [ENTITY] (1991) 45 DLT 76; and The [PRECEDENT].
[SECTION]. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents have argued that as per the discussion appearing in Award, the land of the petitioner is category 'B' land as there was excavation of earth of about 2.5 feet deep and huge quantity of soil had already been taken [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 8/20 out. Ld. Counsel for [ENTITY] highlighted that massive amount had to be spent by [ENTITY] to level the land. Ld. Counsel for DJB reiterates that the court should consider that the acquisition was purely for public purpose to set up Underground Reservoir and Booster Pumping Station at Village Mundka. Both the learned Counsel for respondents have submitted that the LAC (West) has correctly determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 14,31,670/-. Ld. Counsel for the respondents also referred to the sale deeds relied and proved by them as Ex. R-2 to R-6 and contended that the correct value needs to be taken from said transactions and not from the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner.
25. Before examining the issue of determination of market value of the acquired land, let me refer to [SECTION] and [SECTION] of said Act which are reproduced hereunder: -
[SECTION]. 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 date of the 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 earnings; 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 [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 9/20 reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and 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]. 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 disinclination 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 the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the notification under [SECTION] sub-section 1;
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.
26. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in [PRECEDENT] held that for determining the compensation in a compulsory acquisition the best method would be the amount what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser. The function of the Court in awarding compensation under the said Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of notification under [SECTION] of the Act and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], the methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 10/20 purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired.
27. In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held as under: -
" for determining compensation payable to the owner of the land, the market value is to be determined by reference to the price which may be reasonable obtained from willing purchasers but since it may not be possible to ascertain this 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. While reiterating the three tests laid down in S.L.A. Officer's case, it was further emphasized that these methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive at as nearly as possible at an estimate of the market value. In arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may be necessary to take even two or all these methods into account inasmuch as the exact evaluation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which the valuation can be accurately determined.
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 11/20
28. In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held as under:
" It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under [SECTION] of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under [SECTION] of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 12/20 for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land that what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land."
29. In [PRECEDENT] the Supreme Court observed that one of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It was also observed that it will be beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. It observed that market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase supplementing further that where definite material either in the shape of sale of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under [SECTION] or otherwise was not available, the other sale instances as well as other evidences are to be considered. It also highlighted that for determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
30. It is also important to note here that normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 13/20 where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. Reference in this regard be made to The [PRECEDENT] and Lal Chand vs [ENTITY] & Anr (2009) 15 SCC 769.
31. In [ENTITY] Versus Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Supreme Court considered the two methods laying down the principles for determining the market value. Firstly, what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser. Secondly, comparison of sale deeds. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. The area of land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the land. Evidence admissible therefore, inter alia, would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages.
32. Thus, the aforesaid statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements are to be kept in mind while determining the correct market value.
33. Coming to the present case, the acquisition of the land in question is primarily for public purposes whereby [ENTITY] is required to set up Underground Reservoir and Booster Pumping [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 14/20 Station at Village Mundka. The nature of the acquired land is purely agricultural. The respondents have merely submitted the sale deeds on record through counsel. Such tendering, in itself, cannot be equated with substantially compelling evidence. I must add here that as per The [PRECEDENT], the sale deed pertaining to small area cannot be always used for determining the market value of large area. The respondents have furnished sale-deeds for the year 2007 i.e. just after the award in question and these all are for relatively for very small areas, maximum being of 1 Bigha and 4 Biswas. Such deeds immediately after the award cannot be said to be representative measure of fair market value. It can be speculative in nature and kind of distress sale as well. Moreover, sale of such small pieces of land cannot be used for real reference as sample should bear intelligible proportion to the whole.
34. Moreover, this court cannot be oblivious of the fact that similar type of land of same village was acquired earlier as well. Reference be made to judgment of [ENTITY] (Supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court had fixed the compensation qua agricultural land of the village Mundka covered under notification dated 17.06.2005 issued under [SECTION] of said Act as Rs.23,93,227/- per acre. Such order eventually attained finality as Apex Court also upheld the same. Said judgment also approves that the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land.
35 Notification in the present case is of 27.04.2006 i.e. within a year and is of same village Mundka. The land type is also same i.e. agricultural. In such a situation, the fair market value assessed in the most contemporaneous notification of 17.06.2005 should serve as the best yardstick for the present case, of course [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 15/20 while keeping in mind the often-followed principle of grant of increase @ 10% per annum for the intervening period.
36 Thus, if the base market value as on 17.06.2005 is taken as Rs.23,93,227/- per acre even for the present case, the 10% progressive enhancement for the period 17.06.2005 till 27.04.2006 (date of notification in the present case) i.e. of 314 days would be Rs.2,05,883/-. The aforesaid value of Rs.23,93,227/- + Rs.2,05,883/- = Rs.25,99,110/- is, therefore, liable to be determined as fair market value for land of 'A' Category. Similarly, as regards land of Category 'B', by applying the judgment of [ENTITY] (Supra), the market value would come to Rs.21,16,118/-. Land in question falls in Khasra No. 109 which seems to be of 'A' Category as per award.
37 Award in question has been proved as Ex. R-1 and it bears signatures of concerned LAC to the effect that he had announced the award in the open Court on 27.12.2006. In the forwarding letter also, same date has been mentioned. It seems that due to oversight or inadvertence error, petitioner has claimed the date of the award as 04.12.2006 instead of 27.12.2006.
38 Right here, I would also like to highlight other two contentions coming from the side of the respondents. It has been claimed that petition is not liable to be entertained as it was not filed within the stipulated period. Period of limitation has been provided under [SECTION] of [ACT]. In case any such petitioner was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, reference petition under [SECTION] of said Act can be filed within six weeks from the date of the award. In other cases, such application can be made within six weeks of receipt of notice under [SECTION] of said Act or within six months from the date of the award, whichever period shall first expire. In the present case, there is nothing brought on record from the side of respondents which [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 16/20 may even remotely indicate that the petitioner was present or represented at the time when award was made. There is also nothing on record which may show that any notice under [SECTION] of said Act was sent by the Office of LAC (West) or for that matter received by the petitioner. Period of six months would also commence from the date of knowledge. In [PRECEDENT], Apex Court has held that the expression "the date of the award" used in [SECTION] of the Act must be understood to mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. It was further held that it will be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of the Collector's award" used in the proviso to [SECTION] in a literal or mechanical way.
39 Petitioner has claimed in his petition that he learnt about the award only on 07.09.2007 when he visited office of LAC (West). He has filed petition on 10.09.2007 and thus if averments made in the petition are to be believed then the petition is well within time. His deposition to said effect remains virtually unimpeached. No evidence to the contrary has been led by respondents particularly respondent no. 2. Be that as it may, nothing has been shown or substantiated from the side of respondents to indicate that the reference is time- barred. Bald assertion from their side cannot take place of proof.
40 Learned counsel for [ENTITY] has taken another objection that since the name of [ENTITY] was added subsequently, the present reference petition qua [ENTITY] should be treated as time-barred. I have seen order dated 05.10.2012 whereby the [ENTITY] was added as respondent no. 2 in the present reference petition. It was observed by the court that being the beneficiary department, it was necessary party for the purpose of factual and complete adjudication and to settle the question involved in the petition. Keeping in mind the nature of the present case, provision [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 17/20 of [SECTION] [ACT] is required to be read along with proviso attached to [SECTION] of [ACT]. The omission to include the name of [ENTITY] in the reference petition apparently seems to be on account of mistake made in the good faith and, therefore, [ENTITY] cannot be permitted to dig out any advantage out of the aforesaid fact.
41 It is undoubtedly not understandable as to why so much time was taken by the office of Land Acquisition Collector (West) to send reference to this Court. Reference petition was registered in the record of LAC on 10.09.2007 but it was received by this Court on 20.08.2011 i.e. after approximately four years. In such type of matters, it is expected that office of LAC (West) acts with swiftness and alacrity in future.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
42. In view of my findings on Issue nos. 1 and 2, the fair market value of the acquired land under Category 'A' is determined @ Rs. 25,99,110/- (Rupees twenty five lacs ninety nine thousand one hundred ten only) per acre after enhancement @ Rs. 8,40,710/- (Rupees eight lacs fourty thousands seven hundred ten only) per acre. The fair market value of the acquired land under Category 'B' is determined @ Rs.21,16,118/- (Rupees twenty one lacs sixteen thousand one hundred eighteen only) after enhancement @ Rs. 6,84,448/- (Rupees six lacs eighty four thousand four hundred forty eight only). Besides this the petitioner is also entitled to 30 % solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
43. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/[SECTION] of said Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 18/20 whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment. I would, however, like to add that after the petition was received by this Court on 20.08.2011, we are in the year 2018 and the petitioner should not be held entitled to the interest for the period for which he is responsible for causing any delay. This be deciphered from the various proceedings/ order-sheets of this case and accordingly the calculation regarding the interest would be made by the Nazir after deducting the period for which the petitioner is found accountable for causing delay in the proceedings.
44. The petitioner 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.
45. The petitioner is further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
46. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioner 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. Petitioner has also prayed for further damages on several counts but has not been able to substantiate the same and, therefore, his such request stands declined, being not proved.
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 19/20
47. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) and [ENTITY] for information and necessary action.
48. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on this 12th day of December 2018 ([ENTITY]) Addl. District Judge-02 West Distt: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi Digitally signed by [ENTITY] Date: JAIN 2018.12.12 15:38:59 +0530 [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 20/20