IN THE COURT OF MS.[ENTITY], ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WAKF TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI Suit LAC Number : 02/08. Unique Case ID Number : 02403C0975742008. Reference under [SECTION] of [ACT] Ms.[ENTITY], wife of Mr. Dinesh Khanna (through her father and General attorney) Mr.Surender Nath Kapur, Son of late Mr. Devi Chand Kapur, Resident of G-2, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. Petitioner/Claimant. Versus 1. [ENTITY] (Service to be effected through its Secretary) Ministry of Urban Development Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. [ENTITY] Land & Building Department Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. [ENTITY] Respondents. Award Number : 02/2004-2005. Award announced on : 08.10.2004. Purpose of acquisition : For station facility of MRTS project on Connaught Place -Dwarka Corridor of DMRC Ltd. Name of Village/Locality : Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Date of institution : 06.02.2006. Date of conclusion of arguments : 22.02.2012. Date of judgment : 22.02.2012. [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 1 of 14 - Appearances: Mr.[ENTITY], counsel for all the petitioners. Mr.[ENTITY], counsel for the respondent number 1. Mr.[ENTITY], counsel for the respondent number 2. Mr.[ENTITY], counsel for the respondent number 3. JUDGMENT
1. This is a reference petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by Ms.[ENTITY], the petitioner, against [ENTITY], the respondent number 1 (hereinafter referred to as the UOI) and [ENTITY] the respondent number 2 for apportionment and enhancement of the compensation in respect of flat measuring 1000 square feet bearing number B-10, Kanchanjunga Building, situated in the basement out of total area measuring 592 square meters situated at Kanchanjunga Building 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of this property, got her petition under [SECTION] of the Act referred to the Court for enhancement of compensation awarded in respect of the acquired land.
2. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Indraprakash Apartment Occupants Association (Regd.) had filed a letter/application/ reference dated 14.07.2004 to the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as the LAC) who declined vide order dated 24.04.2006 to make a reference for enhancement of compensation under [SECTION] of the Act. The said order had been challenged and vide order dated 16.01.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the letter dated 14.07.2004 was ordered to be treated as a request for a reference under [SECTION] of the Act and for [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 2 of 14 -
referring the same to the Court. A letter/application, which is dated 17.09.2005, was also submitted by the petitioner to the LAC for enhancement of compensation.
PETITION
3. It is averred by the petitioner that a notification under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] vide notification no. F.7(9) /2004/L & B/ LA/ MRTS New Delhi dated 27.04.2004 followed by notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] vide notification no.F.7(9)/2004-2005 dated 08.10.2004 for the public purposes namely Bara Khamba Road-Connaught Place-Dwarka MRTS Corridor by which 592 square meters in Kanchanjunga Building, 18, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi was acquired by the respondent. Claimant is the owner of said flat bearing No. B-10, Basement Kanchanjunga 18, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Initially the said flat was purchased by the mother of the claimant i.e. Mrs. [ENTITY] from M/s Kailash Nath & Associates. Unfortunately Ms. [ENTITY] expired on 14.10.2000 leaving behind her last Will and Testament dated 05.05.2000. Claimant submits that it was the statutory duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to make payment of 80 % of the estimated amount of compensation. It is prayed that reference be awarded to the court for apportionment of the compensation assessed in the award bearing number 02/2004-2005 in favour of the claimants and also for enhancement of the compensation so as to allow the claimants the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.1 lac per square meter and the market value of the flat in addition to the solatium, interest under the law and costs. The claimant is also entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum as 80% of the amount of compensation was never tendered to the claimants and the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 3 of 14 -
claimants have never refused to accept it. Request for enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land is made. In the present reference, the petitioner has claimed enhanced compensation of proportionate land as well as some other losses occurred to her due to acquisition proceedings.
SERVICE AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS
4. Both the respondents i.e. UOI and L & DO were served with the notice of the reference petition and pursuant there to, they had appeared and filed their respective written statements contesting the case wherein they have controverted and rebutted all the averments made in the petition submitting that the compensation award is justified ,correct and reasonable.
5. During the pendency of the matter, vide order dated 08.05.2006 of the learned predecessor of this Court, the DMRC was impleaded as a necessary party and was served with the notice of the reference petition. The DMRC filed its written statement contesting the case wherein it has controverted and rebutted all the averments made in the petition submitting that the compensation award is justified,correct and reasonable.
6. It is also submitted that the compensation has been awarded on the higher side as MNCs etc. have shifted from Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place to the satellite towns of Gurgaon and Noida and market value of the property has diminished. Prayer for the dismissal of the reference petition is made.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 4 of 14 -
ISSUES
7. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 02.08.2006 of the learned predecessor, the following issues were framed:
1. What was the market value of the property in question at the time of issuance of notice u/[SECTION] of the [ACT]? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation, if so,to what amount? OPP.
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
8. In order to prove their case, the petitioners have examined as many as three witnesses namely Mr.[ENTITY], General Power of Attorney, as PW1; Mr.[ENTITY] as PW2; and the petitioner herself as PW3.
9. The petitioner's evidence had been closed on 21.05.2009 and thereafter the petitioner had been examined subsequently after an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for leading additional evidence had been allowed vide order dated 27.01.2012.
10. On behalf of the respondents, Mr.[ENTITY], Deputy Land Building Officer, was examined as RW1. The counsel for the UOI also tendered in evidence the copy of award, schedule of market rates and five sale deeds were only tendered in evidence. The other counsel for the respondents adopted his evidence.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 5 of 14 -
ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the arguments at length and have given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provision of law and the precedents on the point.
12. After due consideration, the issues are decided as follows:
ISSUE NUMBERS 1 AND 2
13. Issue number 1 is What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification u/[SECTION] of the [ACT]? OPP.
14. Issue number 2 is Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP.
15. Before deciding these issues, let us examine whether the reference petition has been filed by the petitioner within the limitation period. The award in question was announced on 30.06.2004 and the Indraprakash Apartment Occupants Association (Regd.) had filed a letter/application/ reference dated 14.07.2004 to the LAC who declined vide order dated 24.04.2006. Vide order dated 16.01.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the letter dated 14.07.2004 was ordered to be treated as a request for a reference under [SECTION] of the Act and for referring the same to the Court.
16. In this context, a reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as [PRECEDENT] wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that bare knowledge of the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 6 of 14 -
award is not enough. Parties must have knowledge of the contents of the award. Further in [PRECEDENT], it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that Collector has not merely to intimate parties about passing of award but he has to communicate essential contents of award, if not copy of award. The counsel for the respondents have not led any evidence on record that the essential contents of the award were communicated and the petitioners had constructive or actual knowledge of the award at the time of announcement of the award by the LAC and the reference petition is barred by limitation. Therefore, as there is nothing on record which shows that petition is barred by limitation, I hold that the reference petition has been filed within the period of limitation.
17. The crucial and relevant date to find out and assess the quantum of compensation is the date of notification under [SECTION] of the Act i.e. 28.03.2003. The evidence relied upon or led by parties has already been discussed and considered in detail in another case titled as [CASE NUMBER]; [CASE NUMBER]; [ENTITY] and others v. [ENTITY] and others decided on 27.01.2012 by this Court under the same Award. There is no additional ground or evidence on record in this case which gave any other special concession to the petitioners or to make their land superior to other's land acquired under the same notification and award. Infact, this case cannot be distinguished in any manner from [CASE NUMBER]; [CASE NUMBER]; [ENTITY] and others v. [ENTITY] and others decided on 27.01.2012. Also, in the case [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and another, [CASE NUMBER];
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 7 of 14 -
[CASE NUMBER], decided on 06.07.2011 in respect of award number 1/2004-2005 similar enhancement has been made.
18. It has been held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which is sought to be acquired by the government, situation, nature, potential/ user and neighbouring land, etc, is to be considered. In this context, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] and it was held that :
The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes.
19. In [PRECEDENT], it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 8 of 14 -
piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.
20. In the case of [PRECEDENT], it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when on record there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself, then it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalfof the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.
21. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have held in catena of judgments that same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimants for similarly situated land, same date of notification and same purpose of acquisition of the land.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 9 of 14 -
22. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the selfsame notification for Housing Scheme it seems to us proper that the same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimant herein as was awarded by the High Court in [CASE NUMBER]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted to the claimant by Rs. 2 per sq. yard. with consequential increase in solatium and interest.
23. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as [PRECEDENT] has held that if a compensation amount is already fixed for a land then the same amount of compensation has to be given to other land owners whose similarly placed and situated adjacent is acquired under the same notification. The state cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date.
24. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as given in [CASE NUMBER]; [CASE NUMBER]; [ENTITY] and others v. [ENTITY] and others decided on 27.01.2012 under the same Award and [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and another, [CASE NUMBER]; [CASE NUMBER], decided on 06.07.2011 by this Court, wherein the reference was disposed off by [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 10 of 14 -
holding that compensation awarded to the petitioner at Rs.57,960/- per square meter by the LAC was inadequate and unreasonable. The petitioner was required to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.81,429/- per square meter. Paragraph number 50 of [ENTITY]'s judgment containing paragraphs number[SECTION]2, 43 and 63 of [ENTITY]'s judgment are reproduced as under:
42. Hence, after giving yearly compounded appreciation at the rate of 12% per year on the Government approved rates, the market value of the acquired land in question is assessed as follows:
Ist year appreciation = Rs.57,960/- x 12% = Rs. 6,955.20 (01.04.2000 to [SECTION].03.2001) (Base market price as on [SECTION].03.2001 = Rs.57,960/- + Rs. 6,955.20 =Rs. 64,915.20 paisa 2nd year appreciation = Rs.64,915.20 x 12% = Rs. 7789.824 (01.04.2001 to [SECTION].03.2002) (Base market price as on [SECTION].03.2002 = Rs.64,915.20+ Rs. 7789.824 =Rs. 72,705.024 paisa 3rd year appreciation = Rs.72,705.024 x 12% =Rs. 8724.60 (01.04.2002 to 28.03.2003) (Market price as on 28.03.2003 = Rs.72,705.024 + Rs. 8724.60 =Rs.81,429.62 paisa
43. Since three days are taken extra, so the round figure of compensation according to the market value of the acquired land in question should have been assessed at Rs.81,429/- per square meter.
The compensation awarded to petitioner by LAC at the rate of Rs. 57,960/- per square meter is inadequate and unreasonable. The petitioner is, accordingly, entitled to enhancement at Rs.23,469/- (Rs.81,429 - Rs.57,960) per square meter in respect of his acquired [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 11 of 14 -
land.
63. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,469/- per square meter along with 30% solatium. He is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification till the date of possession i.e. 28.03.2003 to 22.07.2003 as per provisions of [SECTION] of the Act. The petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per [SECTION] of the Act. The claims of the petitioner regarding the other different type of losses are rejected.
25. The petitioner, in the present matter is, in terms of [ENTITY]'s and [ENTITY]'s cases, therefore, entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,469/- per square meter (Rs.81,429/- minus Rs.57,960/- totals to Rs.23,469/-) along with 30% solatium. She is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification till the date of possession i.e. 28.03.2003 to 22.07.2003 as per provisions of [SECTION] of the Act. The petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per [SECTION] of the Act.
26. The claims of the petitioner regarding the other different types of losses are rejected due to lack of evidence.
27. Accordingly, these two issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Petitioner is required to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.81,429/- per square meter only as allowed [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 12 of 14 -
in [ENTITY]'s and [ENTITY]'s cases in respect of land.
ISSUE NUMBER 3
28. Issue number 3 is the relief.
29. In view of above discussions, reference is disposed off by holding that compensation awarded to petitioner at the rate of Rs.57,960/- per square meter by LAC was inadequate and unreasonable. Petitioner was required to be paid compensation for her proportionate share at the rate of Rs.81,429/- per square meter for land. Petitioner is, thus, entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,469/- per square meter along with 30% solatium. As possession of the acquired land was not taken till the date of award so petitioner is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification till the date of award i.e. 28.03.2003 to 22.07.2003 as per provisions of [SECTION] of the Act. Petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking of possession of land in question and 15% for subsequent years till the entire payment of compensation is made as per [SECTION] of the Act.
30. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation to which the petitioner, as per her proportionate share, is entitled, shall be released to her subject to the outcome in the petition for apportionment under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act.
[SECTION]. Copy of this order be sent to LAC for information and deposit of balance amount immediately to avoid further burden upon the Government exchequer.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 13 of 14 -
32. After the completion of all formalities, the file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ([ENTITY]) on this 22nd day of February, 2012. ADJ-02, Wakf Tribunal, New Delhi.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] and others. - Page 14 of 14 -