IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY], ADJ-02, SOUTH, SAKET COURT COMPLEX Land Acquisition Case No. 145/2011 (Computer ID No. 02403C0[SECTION]61482007) Petition received on 20.08.2007 1. Shri [ENTITY] (deceased), S/o Shri Ramji Lal Through his LRs: (i) Smt. Pyari Devi, W/o Late Shri [ENTITY] (ii) Shri Darshan Singh, S/o Late Shri [ENTITY] (iii) Shri Partap Singh, S/o Late Shri [ENTITY] (iv) Shri Ghanshyam, S/o Late Shri [ENTITY] (v) Shri [ENTITY], S/o Late Shri [ENTITY] (vi) Shri Badam Singh, S/o Late Shri [ENTITY] (vii) Shri Premraj, S/o Late Shri [ENTITY] (viii) Shri Gurdeep, S/o Late Shri [ENTITY] (ix) Shri Vinod Kumar, S/o Late Shri [ENTITY] (Application under [SECTION] & [SECTION] for bringing on record the LRs of Late Shri [ENTITY] was allowed on 06.08.2008 by Ld. Predecessor court.) 2. Shri [ENTITY] (deceased), S/o Shri Ho Ram Through his LRs: (i) Smt. [ENTITY], D/o Late Shri [ENTITY] (Application under [SECTION] & [SECTION] for bringing on record the LRs of Late Shri [ENTITY] was allowed on 06.08.2008 by Ld. Predecessor court.) 3. Smt. [ENTITY] (deceased), Wd/o Shri Niader Singh Through her LRs: (i) Shri Kalyan Singh (deceased), S/o Late Shri Niader Singh Through his LRs: (a) Smt. [ENTITY], W/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh (b) Smt. Manju, D/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh (ii) Shri Braham Singh (deceased), S/o Late Shri Niader Singh Through his LRs: (a) Smt. [ENTITY], W/o Late Shri Braham Singh (b) Shri [ENTITY], S/o Late Shri Braham Singh (c) Smt. [ENTITY], D/o Late Shri Braham Singh (Application under [SECTION] & [SECTION] for bringing on record the LRs of Late Smt. [ENTITY] was allowed on 06.08.2008 by Ld. [CASE NUMBER] Page no. 1/[SECTION] Predecessor court.) 4. Smt. [ENTITY], W/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh 5. Smt. [ENTITY], W/o Late Shri Braham Singh 6. Shri [ENTITY], S/o Late Shri Braham Singh 7. Ms. [ENTITY], D/o Late Shri Braham Singh All R/o H.No. 206, Village Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi. Petitioners VERSUS 1. [ENTITY] Through Land Acquisition Collector (ME) SDM (Defence Colony), New Delhi. 2. [ENTITY], Through its Vice Chairman, Vikas Sadan, INA Market, New Delhi. Respondents (DDA was impleaded as a respondent vide order dated 2[SECTION].0[SECTION].2007 passed by Ld. Predecessor court.) AWARD No. 22/1[SECTION][SECTION]2-[SECTION]3 Date of Notification U/s 4 23.06.1[SECTION]8[SECTION] Village: Chak Chilla Decided on 12.03.2013 JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners' land situated in the Village Chak Chilla was acquired for channelisation of the Yamuna River Project. Notification under Section 4 of the [ACT] was issued on 23.06.1[SECTION]8[SECTION], while those under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] were issued on 22.06.1[SECTION][SECTION]0. Compensation @ Rs. 27,344/- per bigha was announced by respondent no. 1 upon passing an Award No. 22/[SECTION]2-[SECTION]3.
2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this reference under [SECTION] of the Act. As per the averments made in the said petition, the Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the valuation of their property at an abysmally low rate, without any application of mind and without keeping the parameters to be borne in mind at the time of determining the rate of compensation. The petitioners have averred that being a part of urbanised Land and situated in the vicinity of posh colonies like New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh, Holy Family Hospital, Bharat Nagar, Okhla Indl. Area, the rate of compensation was not commensurate with the market value and its potential. It is submitted that the quality of the acquired land was fertile and had all essential amenities of road, transport etc. within reach. Its potential use on account of its proximity to the industrial town of Noida was also not taken into consideration for awarding a just and fair compensation.
3. Vide the present reference the petitioners prays for enhancement of the compensation as the same was announced mechanically and without any application of mind by the Land Acquisition Collector.
4. Vide order dated 2[SECTION].0[SECTION].2007 passed by Ld. Predecessor court DDA was impleaded as a respondent being a necessary party.
5. Written statement was filed by [ENTITY] on 07.02.2008. It has repudiated the claim of the petitioners and is perfunctory in its reply.
6. On 1[SECTION].03.2008, three applications under [SECTION] & [SECTION] have been filed on behalf of LRs of petitioner no. 1, 2 & 3.
7. Written statement was filed by DDA on 28.05.2008. It has repudiated the claim of the petitioners and is perfunctory in its reply.
8. On 06.08.2008, application under [SECTION] & [SECTION] of petitioner no. 1 ([ENTITY]) was allowed vide order of Ld. Predecessor court subject to condition that LRs will not get interest from 28.0[SECTION].1[SECTION][SECTION]4 till 15.03.2008. Application of petitioner no. 2 was also allowed and daughter [ENTITY] alone substituted subject to the condition that she will not get interest from 26.06.1[SECTION][SECTION][SECTION] to 15.03.2008. Application of petitioner no. 3 was allowed subject to the condition that LRs will not get any interest from 13.02.2004 to 15.03.2008.
[SECTION]. On 13.05.200[SECTION], for adjudicating the grievance of the petitioners, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor court:
i. Whether the petition is barred by limitation? ii. What was the market value of the acquired disputed land on the date of notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and what enhancement in market value, if any, petitioner is entitled thereto? iii. Relief.
10.Petitioners in support of their case examined one of the petitioners namely Shri [ENTITY]. He relied upon the documents i.e. site plan as Exhibit PW-1/1, photocopy of award no. 220 of 1[SECTION]86-87 of Village Kilokari is Exhibit PW-1/2, photocopy of award no. 3 of 1[SECTION][SECTION]1-[SECTION]2 of village Jaitpur & award no. 6 of 1[SECTION][SECTION]1-[SECTION]2 of Village Jaitpur are Exhibit PW-1/3 & Exhibit PW-1/4, photocopy of judgment dated 1[SECTION].10.2001 in RFA no. 416/1[SECTION]86 in the matter titled as Ram [ENTITY] vs. UOI is Exhibit PW-1/5, photocopy of judgment in C.A. Appeal no. 2[SECTION]8[SECTION]/1[SECTION][SECTION]5 in the matter titled as Karan Singh vs. UOI reported as 68 (1[SECTION][SECTION]7) DLT [SECTION]00 (SC) is Exhibit PW-1/6, photocopy of judgment in RFA no. 585/1[SECTION]87 in the matter titled as Bedi Ram vs. UOI & Anr., reported as [SECTION]3 (2001) DLT 150 (DB) is Exhibit PW-1/7, photocopy of judgment in LAC no. 12/2004 in the matter titled as [PRECEDENT] is Exhibit PW-1/8, photocopy of judgment dated 18.10.2006 in LAC no. 1/2003 is Exhibit PW-1/[SECTION], photocopy of judgment dated 2[SECTION].08.2007 in LAC no. 2/1[SECTION][SECTION]8 is Exhibit PW-1/10, copy of judgment in LAC no. 22/ 1[SECTION][SECTION]7 in the matter titled as Bharat [PRECEDENT], a copy of sale deed dated [SECTION].03.[SECTION]88 is Exhibit PW-1/12 and coy of sale deed dated 21.06.1[SECTION][SECTION]0 is Exhibit PW-1/13.
11.The respondent in their evidence have tendered the award as Exhibit R1.
12.On 05.03.2013, revised statement u/[SECTION] has been filed on behalf of LAC. Correctness of the statement under [SECTION] filed by respondent no. 1 has been admitted by the petitioners.
13.On perusal of the material on record, my findings on the issues are as under:
Whether the petition is barred by limitation?
14.There is no evidence on record as to when the award by the LAC was announced to the petitioners. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has argued out that the present reference petition has been filed within the limitation period of six months from the date of acquiring knowledge of the award. He has relied upon catena of judgments which specifically observe that limitation under [SECTION] of the Act has to be computed having regard to the date on which the claimants got knowledge, either actual or constructive. There is no evidence by the respondent that the award was communicated to the respondent, muchless having given them a copy. It is also not the respondent's case that the petitioner was present when the award was made. Admittedly, no notice under [SECTION] was served on them.
15.Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of [PRECEDENT], Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai and others vs. Dy. Collector Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation reported in AIR 1[SECTION]85 Gujarat [SECTION]0 and Gopalbhai Becharbhai vs. St. of Gujarat and another reported in AIR 1[SECTION]8[SECTION] Gujarat 56. It has specifically been observed by these judgments that limitation would start only from the date of receipt of copy of the award, since notice in law is deemed to have been served only when the copy of the contents of the reference award is served on the party concerned. There is an obligation on the part of the Collector not merely to intimate about the passing of the award, but he has to communicate about the essential contents of the award, if not the copy of the award. The Courts have even gone further to observe that delay if any in making an application under reference to the District Court can be condoned if reasons are given as the provision of [SECTION] of the Limitation Act, 1[SECTION]63 are applicable. In the matter of [PRECEDENT], it has been reiterated that filing of the reference within six months from the date of acquiring knowledge of the award is held to be within time. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Bharat Chand Dilwali vs. UOI (1[SECTION][SECTION]8), Rajdhani Law Reported 221 has stated that a bare knowledge of the award is not enough. Parties must have knowledge of the contents of the award. The Supreme Court in AIR (1[SECTION]68) SC 1604 has underlined the principal that limitation of six months under [SECTION] runs from knowledge of the contents of the award. This knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award and the limitation would run from that period.
16.In view of the Judgments cited above by the Ld. Counsel and there being no rebuttal by the respondents that reference has been made within six months on acquiring knowledge of the award, the reference petition cannot be thrown out on the mere submission of the respondent that it is time barred.
Issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners as being within time.
What was the market value of the acquired disputed land on the date of notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and what enhancement in market value, if any, petitioner is entitled thereto?
[SECTION].Though initially the petitioners had adduced various documents in evidence, reliance has finally been made in the case of "Lachhi & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Anr." for the land acquired in the same village and vide the same award. The acquired land is also similar in respect of fertility, water logging etc., being part of the river bed. Adopting the said decision in the case of "Lachhi & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] & Anr.", the market value of the acquired land is being fixed at Rs. 8[SECTION],600/- per bigha as there is no ground for this court to differ in its opinion. Even otherwise as per a catena of Judgments, the same compensation should be granted for similar lands notified and acquired under the same award.
18.Vide the impugned Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, compensation for the acquired land was fixed at Rs. 27,344/- per bigha. As the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification is fixed at Rs. 8[SECTION],600/- per bigha, the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 62,256/- per bigha. Issue No. 2 is decided in terms of the above.
RELIEF
1[SECTION].As per the admitted statement under [SECTION], the petitioners are therefore entitled to the enhanced compensation for their shares. In addition, the petitioners are also entitled to all statutory benefits, being 30% solatium on the market value in view of the compulsory nature of acquisition as per [SECTION] [ACT], an additional amount of 12% p.a. on the market value as provided under [SECTION] (1A) from the date of notification till the date of possession or award whichever is earlier. The petitioners would also be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation @ [SECTION]% p.a. from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till expiry of one year and thereafter @15% p.a. till payment.
20.Reference is answered vide the above award. Revised statement under [SECTION] of the [ACT], be annexed to the award. Copy be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for information and necessary compliance within one month. As the acquired land has been placed at the disposal of respondent no. 2 as the ultimate beneficiary, the liability of both the respondents would be joint and several. No orders as to costs.
21.File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Announced in open court.
([ENTITY]) ADJ-02, SOUTH, SAKET, NEW DELHI 12.03.2013/ MC [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr.
12.03.2013 Present: Counsel for the parties Officials on behalf of LAC
Revised statement u/[SECTION] has been filed on behalf of LAC. Taken on record. Revised statement has been verified to be correct by one of the petitioner (Partap).
From the perusal of record it appears that PE and RE has already been done in this matter. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that this is a covered matter. Arguments heard.
Vide separate Judgment, reference answered in terms thereof. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
([ENTITY]) ADJ-02, SOUTH, SAKET, NEW DELHI 12.03.2013/ MC