IN THE COURT OF [ENTITY], ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT, DELHI. LAC No. 56/13 New No. LAC - 187/16 CNR No. DLWT01-001097-2013 Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o House No. 2/81, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi Petitioner versus 1. [ENTITY], Through Land Acquisition Collector (District West) Office at D.C. Office, Rampura, Delhi-110035. 2. [ENTITY] through its Chairperson 306, Varunalaya Building, Jhandewalan II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Respondents Date of institution of the case : 01.08.2013 Date of reserving of judgment : 17.12.2018 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.12.2018 (Reference under [SECTION] of [ACT]) Award No.: 04/DC(W)/2006-07 dated 04.12.2006 Area: Mundka Appearances: Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the petitioner Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the respondent no.1/ UOI Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the respondent no.2/ DJB JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi had acquired total land measuring 20 Bigha and 02 [ENTITY] u/[SECTION] of the [ACT], LAC No. 56/13 (New [SECTION] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 1/10 1894 (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 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. According to statement of [SECTION] of the Act filed by the Collector, the petitioner is shown as recorded owner of the acquired land.
Item Name of recorded Khasra Total Details of No. of owner & share No. Area in trees/ NM Bigha- Buildings/ [ENTITY] Crops 2 [ENTITY] S/o 108/11/2 2-6 As per Award [ENTITY] (Full share) 108/20/2 4-8 Total 6-14 Note: Date of Possession is 04.03.2009
4. The petitioner has filed the reference under [SECTION] of the said Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by the Collector.
5. In brief, the facts stated in the petition are that the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No.108 20/2 (4-8) and 108 11/2 (2-6) having full share and total area measuring 6 Bigha 14 [ENTITY] situated at Village Mundka was acquired vide notification in question.
LAC No. 56/13 (New [SECTION] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 2/10 The petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of Award and the petitioner did not receive any notice under [SECTION] of the said Act and, therefore, the present petition is within limitation as per law.
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 LAC No. 56/13 (New [SECTION] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 3/10 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.
9. 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. Sher Singh in favour of M/s. Nirmal Overseas Ltd. through its Directors Sh. Nirmala Aggarwal dated 05.08.1996 measuring 1 Bigha and 3 [ENTITY]s; sale 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 [ENTITY]s; sale deed of Rs.10 lacs executed by Smt. Anita Dhingra w/o Sh. Ravinder Dhingra in favour of Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] dated 05.10.2004 in respect of land measuring 1 bigha and 17 Biwas; sale deed executed by Sh. [ENTITY] s/o Sh. [ENTITY] in favour of MEK Developers Pvt. Ltd. Of 16 Bighas and 11 [ENTITY]s for a sum of Rs. 5,30,00,000/-.
10. The petitioners has also claimed that collector has wrongly shown his land as "B" category.
11. Thus, he has sought the determination of market value of the acquired land @ Rs.20,000/- per square yards and also that his land be treated as "A" category of land.
12. 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 LAC No. 56/13 (New [SECTION] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 4/10 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 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.
13. 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 [ENTITY] was the beneficiary party. DDA was eventually deleted from the array of the parties and [ENTITY] was impleaded as respondent no.2 vide order dated 28.03.2014.
14. Respondent no. 2/[ENTITY] filed written statement and claimed that the Collector while making the Award had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of sale deed of the adjoining land of the area as well as other documents which were made available/produced before the Collector. The area of the land and other amenities/facilities were also taken into consideration while assessing the compensation by the Collector and, therefore, reference is not justified and not maintainable. It has been asserted that the amount awarded by the Collector is adequate, sufficient, just and legal and the same is based on cogent and reliable evidence. It has also been claimed that reference petition is barred by limitation. According to DJB, the land in question is agricultural and is not surrounded by any developed colonies and the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and proper. On merits, all the averments made in the reference petition have been denied and it has been reiterated that the Collector has correctly assessed the market value of the land and thus petition be dismissed with costs.
LAC No. 56/13 (New [SECTION] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 5/10
15. The petitioner has not filed any replication to the written statements of the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2.
16. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the court:-:
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.
17. Petitioner Sh. [ENTITY] got examined himself as PW1 and relied on judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi in [PRECEDENT]' decided on 08.07.2011 as Ex. PW1/1. No other witness was examined by him and the petitioner's evidence was closed on 09.01.2015.
18. 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 16.12.2015.
19. On behalf of respondent no.2/ [ENTITY] Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the respondents no.2 adopted the evidence tendered by [ENTITY] and closed evidence vide statement dated 14.01.2016.
20. I have heard Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the petitioners; Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the respondent no.1/ UOI; and Sh. [ENTITY], Counsel for the respondent no.2/ DJB and perused the record. My findings on issues are as under:
LAC No. 56/13 (New [SECTION] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 6/10
21. I have taken both these issues together as these are inter connected and onus to prove both these issues is upon the petitioner.
22. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the fair market value of the land in question has already been determined by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] titled as 'Randhir Singh vs. [ENTITY] & Anr.' decided on 12.12.2018 pertaining to the same notification and same Award as in the present case. He has 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 for the land acquired under the same notification, same compensation shall be awarded to the land owners who are similarly situated under the same notification. Applying the same principle, he has argued that the petitioner is also entitled to the same fair market value of the acquired land i.e. Rs.25,99,110/- per acre for under Category 'A' and Rs.21,16,118/- for category B land.
23. I have considered the respective contentions of both the parties and gone through the afore-referred judgments of Apex Court. It is very evident and manifest that the present case is covered by the same award qua which a reference was received by this court and which was decided by this court on 12.12. 2018 in [CASE NUMBER] titled as 'Randhir Singh vs. [ENTITY] & Anr.' Therefore, applying the principles laid down in [ENTITY] (Supra), the petitioner seems entitled to the same compensation.
24. As regards aspect related to limitation, it has been claimed by the respondents that petition is not liable to be entertained LAC No. 56/13 (New [SECTION] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 7/10 as it was not filed within the required period. No issue in this regard was framed by the Court and it seems that therefore, the petitioner did not take this issue seriously. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the date of knowledge happens to be the date of dispossession and, therefore, present petition is within the time.
25. 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 to 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. Petitioner has filed the petition on 08.04.2009. The award in question is dated 04.12.2006. Statement of u/[SECTION] of said act would clearly indicate that the possession of the land in question was taken on 04.03.2009 and the compensation amount was paid on 14.09.2009. Since date of possession was 04.03.2009, date of constructive knowledge is assumed to be 04.03.209 and, therefore, the present LAC No. 56/13 (New [SECTION] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 8/10 petition is within time.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
26. 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 forty 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.
27. 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 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 01.08.2013, 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.
28. 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] (New [SECTION] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 9/10 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (West) and [ENTITY] for information and necessary action.
32. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on this 17th day of December 2018 ([ENTITY]) Addl. District Judge-02 West Distt: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi MANOJ by [ENTITY] JAIN 2018.12.18 13:10:10 +0530 LAC No. 56/13 (New [SECTION] [ENTITY] vs. UOI & Anr. 10/10