3 i.38&39 % 25 .03 .2011 Present: Ms. Deepika,Adv.forUOI appellantin L.A649/2010. Mr. S.K.RoutandMr. S.K.Sharma,Advocatesfortherespondents inL.A18/2010. + L .A .AppealNos . 18 /2010& 649 /2010 Counselfortinepartiesagreethatthepresentappealsarecoveredby thedecisionofthiscourtinotherL.A. Appeals andtheleadmatter being L.A.AppealNo. 228/2009titledasDeepak SachdevaVs. Union of Indiadated22""March, 2011. Accordingly, applyingtheratio ofthesaid judgmentdated 22.3.2011, both theseappeals will stand dismissed. However, thelandownerswill beentitledtothebenefitoftheprovisoto Section34 oftheLandAcquisitionAct,1894. Decreesheetbeprepared. March 25,2011 VALMIKIJ. MEHTA, J. ib Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified + % INTHEHIGH COURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI 22""March, 2011 1.L.A.App,228/2009 DEEPAKSACHDEVA m• 'c 'l/f Through: Ms. SukhdaDhamija,Mr. S.K.Routand Mr. S.K.Sharma,Advocates VERSUS UNION OFINDIA .....F^spondent Through: Mr. RameshRay,Mr. AshishTanwar, Adv. forMr: SanjayPoddar,Advocate. 2.L.A.App,242/2009 ROYAl MARBLES &ORS Appellants ROYALMARBLbb 6. S.K.Routand Mr. S.K.Sharma,Advocates VERSUS UNION OFINDIA-&ANR, . ' h'-ch Through: Mr. RameshRay,Mr. AshishTanwar, Adv.forMr. SanjayPoddar,Advocate. 3.L.A.APP.438/2009 UNION OFINDIA ......Appellant Through: None. VERSUS MR. KULDEEPKOHL,& MrrsSlr Mr. S.K.Sharma,Advocates LA.AppealNo.228/2009&conn. Page 1 of 11 ' - . '• • d-" © 4 .L .A .App .439 /2009 UNION OF INDIA 5" Through: None. Appellant VERSUS SUPERMARBLE & ORS Through: 5 .L.A.App.440 /2009 UNION OF,INDIA Respondents Ms. SukhdaDhamija, Mr. S.K.Routand Mr. S.K.Sharma,Advocates Through: None. Appellant VERSUS R.B.CHARKHA& ANR. Through: 6 . L .A .App .451 /2009 VIRENDERBHUTANI & ANR. Through: VERSUS UNION OF INDIA& ANR. Through: L.A.AppealNo.228/2009& conn. ' Respondents Ms. SukhdaDhamija, Mr. S.K.Routand Mr. S.K.Sharma,Advocates None . Appellants Respondents Mr. RameshRay, Mr.AshishTanwar,Adv. .forMr. SanjayPoddar,AdvocateforUOI. Page2 of 11 -A •'] •• } • ' i '-l ' 7. I-AAdd. 561/2009 UNION OFINDIA Through: VERSUS RAKESHKUMARBABBARThrough: O . A App.575/2009 UNION OF INDIA Through: VERSUS M/S libertyTILES'S,MARBLES Through: 9. I A.Adp.20/2010 UNION OFINDIA Through: VERSUS UTTAM BUILDERS&ANRThrough: Appellant None . Respondent Ms. SukhdaDhamija,Mr. S.K.Routand Mr. S.K.Sharma,Advocates. Appellant None . Respondent Ms. SukhdaDhannija,Mr. S.K.Routand Mr. S.K.Sharma,Advocates Appellant None . Respondents Ms. SukhdaDhamija,Mr. S.K.Routand Mr. S.K.Sharma,Advocates Appellant 10. fftApp.62/2010 UNION OFINDIA KISHAN LAL&ORS. Through: VERSUS Through: None . .Respondents Ms. SukhdaDhamija,-Mr.S.K.Routand Mr. S.K.Sharma,Advocates Page 3 of 11 L.A.AppealNO.228/2009&conn. |i I i O u 11.L.A.App.381/2010 N.S.MITTAL Through: None. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA&ORS Appellant Respondents Through: Mr. RameshRay,Mr. AshishTanwarfor Mr. SanjayPoddar,AdvocateforUOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEVALMIKIJ.MEHTA 1. Whether theReportersof localpapersmay be allowedtoseethejudgment? 2. TobereferredtotheReporterornot? 3. Whether thejudgmentshouldbereportedintheDigest? . L.A.AppealNos.228/2009,242/2009,451/2009,381/2010(ByLand Owners) L.A.AppealNos.438/2009,439/2009,440/2009,561/2009,575/2009, 20/2010,62/2010(ByUnionofIndia) VALMiKI I.MEHTA. IfORAL) 1. ThesetwosetsoffirstappealsunderSection54oftheLandAcquisition L Act,1894(hereinafterreferredto asthe'Act ')havebeenpreferredagainst theimpugnedjudgmentanddecreedated 16.10.2008oftheReference 0" CourtoftheADJ underSection18 of theAct. Whereas thelandownersin theirappeals have prayed for higher compensation and also statutory benefitunderSection 34oftheAct, which was deniedtothembythe ReferenceCourt,theUnion ofIndiain itsappealshasprayedforreductionin LA. AppealNo.228/2009& conn, Page4 of 11 5!•/•'•'•:!-'^• i^ki-J ' •• themarket value of thelanddetermined by theImpugnedjudgment. Counsel forthepartiesagreethatsincethefactsandtheevidenceledInthe casesIsmore orlessIdentical,theappealscanbedisposedof by acommon udgment. 2. A notificationunderSection4 oftheAct was issuedon5.4.1999for acquiringland forconstructionoftheRajaGarden Fly Over. Theownersof theselandsarethepersonswho appliedfor areferenceunderSection18 of theAct seekingenhancementofcompensationandthereafterhavefiled theseappealsforfurtherenhancementofcompensationandotherstatutory ^benefits.TheAwardinthiscasewaspassedbytheLandAcquisitionCollector on 24.4.2001 being Award No.l/DCW/2001-2002. The Land Acquisition Collectorgrantedcompensationconsideringthelandsasonlybeing'capable of being used forresidentialpurposesonly. Bytheimpugnedjudgment,the ReferenceCourtoftheADJ hasheldthatthelandsarecommercialinnature andaccordinglygrantedcommercialratesfortheacquiredlandsonthe basisofthescheduleofratesforcomrnerclalpremisesissuedbytheMinistry of Urban Affairs and Development, Department of Urban Ministry (Land 1^ Division)dated16.4.1999with respecttolandssituatedInRameshNagar, a colonyadjacenttoandfallingbehindRajouri Garden, in whichtheacquired landsaresituated . , - . f 3. IntheReference Court, thelandownersexaminedthewitness PVV-1 fromtheoificeoftheLand &Development Office, Government of India, L.A.AppealNo.228/2009& conn. Page5 of 11 ' ! I ;-'l p f - - V.r /s_ a Nirman Bhawan, andwhich witness provedthescheduleofratesoflandin Delhi dated16 .4 .1999 . ThelandownersalsoledtheevidenceoftheTown PlanneroftheMunicipal Corporationof Delhi(MCD)toshowthatshopswere sanctionedonthegroundfloorofbuildingsconstructedonthelandswhich were acquired by thesubjectnotification and theupperfloors inthe buildingswere residential.TheUnion of India relieduponvarioussaledeeds beingEx.R-2toR-6 with respecttolandsfallinginvillageBasai Darapur, a colonywhich is situatedevenbehind Ramesh Nagar. Bytheinnpugned judgment,theReferenceCourtofADJ hasheldthelanduseascommercialin viewofthedepositionofPW-2,Town PlannerofMCD. Thetrialcourthas alsoacceptedthescheduleofratesdated16.4.1999forthecommercial ratesofRamesh Nagar, acolonysituatedjustbehind Rajouri Garden where thesubec tlandsaresituated . 4. LearnedcounselfortheappellantsoughttoarguethattheReference Court ofADJ oughttohavegrantedcommercialratesofWest Patel Nagar andnotofRamesh Nagar. Icannotagree,becauseadmittedly,theareaof West PatelNagar issituatedmany kilometersawayfromtheacquiredlands whereas Ramesh Nagar issituatedadjacenttoandbehindRajouri Garden where theacquiredlandsaresituated. Theotherargumentofthelearned counselfortheappellantinreplytothegroundsofappealofUnion ofIndia initsappealsforreductionofcompensationwas thatthecommercialrates statedinthescheduleofratesdated16.4.1999, aretobetakenonlyasa LAAppealNo.228/2009&conn. Page6 of 11 7, o basis/startingpoint,inasmuchas,thesaidschedulewouldcontainbasically generalaverageratesandwhich generalaverageratesareliabletobe modified/increased asperthesuperiorlocationofacommercialplot/shop, and,itwas contendedthatsincetheacquiredlandsinthiscasewere situatedrightonthemain Ring Road,theReferenceCourtoftheADJ has correctlyacceptedthecommercialratesasspecifiedinthescheduledated 16,4.1999. ItwasarguedthatashoporshowroomonthemainRingRoad hasaveryvantagelocationandwasfarmore valuableandhavingmore marketvaluethanthegeneralratesofcommercialareasinRameshNagar. Itwasarguedthatratesofthesubjectlandswouldbeatleast50%to100% higherthanratesofcommercialpremisesinRameshNagar. 5. unfortunately,theUnion ofIndiaremainedunrepresentedby its counselinitsappealswhichwerefiledbytheUnionofIndia.Thecounsel who appearedforUnion ofIndiaonlyappearedforUnion ofIndiaasthe respondentintheappealsfiledbythelandowners,1 havewaitedforthe counselfortheUnion ofIndiatoargueitsappealsrightfrom2.15PM, however,althoughItis3.30PM,thecounselforUnionofIndia,Ms. Deepika, Advocate hasnotappeared,Ihavetherefore,perusedtherecordwith respecttotheappealsfiledbytheUnion ofIndia.Aperusalofthesame showsthattheonlyrelevantgroundraisedintheseappealsfiledbyUnionof IndiaisthattheReferenceCourtoftheADJ hascommittedanerrorin grantingthecommercialrateswithrespecttotheacquiredlandsbecauseas Page 7 of 11 L.A.AppealNO.228/2009&conn. —.-CT^TStF- II pertheevidenceoftheTown PlannerofMCD, ledbythelandowners themselves,onlythegroundfloorwascomr^erclalandnottheupperfloors whichwereresidential. Inmy opinion,theappeals,bothofthelandownersandalsoofthe Un,onOfIndia,areliabletobedismissedforthereasonssetouthereinbelow exceptthefactthattheappellants-landownerswould beentitledtothe statutorybenefitunderSection34oftheActofpaymentofInterestat15% afteroneyearfromthedateOftakingpossessionOftheacquiredlandsand Which hasnotbeengrantedbytheimpugnedjudgment, ^7. ThetrialcourthasrightiyrelieduponthedepositionofPW-2 Town PlannerofMCD, toholdthatthegroundfloorofthebuildingsconstructedon thesubjectlandscouldbeusedforcommercialpurposes.TheUnionofIndia d,dnotf,leanycounterevidencetoshowthatthegroundfloorcouldnotbe usedforcommercialpurposes, l,therefore,holdthatthegroundfloorof buildingsontheacquiredlandscouidbeusedforcommercialpurposes -smuchastheplanswhich weresanctionedforthepropertieswere of mmercial usewith respecttothegroundfloor.Thatis,however,notthe endOf thematter becausetheADJ primafacieseemstohaveerredin grantingcommercialrateswith respecttotheentirelandsI.e.,forallthe floorsinasmuchasthescheduledated16,4.1999wouidonlybeapplicableIf thecompleteuseofallfloorsIscommercial.Thequestionthereforeiswhat Shouldbetheratewhichshouldbeawardedfortheacquiredlandskeeping ' ^Yr-- '" — - 111 _ • • • Page 8 of 11 1 '^ inviewthefactthattheground floor could be used forcommercialpurposes and the upper floors were to be used for residential purposes. Inmyopinion, theargumentofthecounselfortheappellantscarriesweight thattherate fixed inthescheduleofratesdated,16.4.1999isonlyindicativeofgeneral commercialratesand inappropriatecases,thesaidratesareliable to be enhancedin view oftheadvantageouslocationwhich canbefoundinthe facts of aparticularcase.Inthefacts ofthepresentcases,thecommercial properties situated on themain Ring Road will obviously have more commercialvaluethanthecommercialpropertywhich issituatednot onthe main Ring Road but somewhereinsideinRamesh Nagar. The rates of commercialpropertiesinRamesh Nagar have thus to be enhanced when appliedto thesubjectlandsonmain RingRoadasRameshNagarissituated notonmain Ring Road butbehindRajouriGardenand the rates ofRamesh Nagar canthusapplyforthesubjectacquiredlandsonly bysuitably enhancingthe same.Balancingtherefore the fact that theappellantshave claimedhighercompensationand theUnionofIndiahasclaimedreductionof compensation,onthegroundthatonlygroundfloorcouldbeusedfor commercialpurpose,Ifindthatinthepeculiarfacts andcircumstancesof the presentcasestheaveragecommercialratesasfoundinthecirculardated 16.4.1999 oftheMinistry ofUrban Affairs and Development should be t grantedwithrespectto the acquired lands as awhole. LA.AppealNO.228/2009&conn. Page9of11 / 13 ' I mustnotethateveryexercisefordeterminingofthemarl<etvalueof thelandisnecessarilyfraughtwith certainamountofguessworkanditis indeedverydifficulttogetperfectexactionfortheratestobedetermined. Inthefactsofthepresentcases,Iamforcedtoresorttopartialintelligent guessworl< becausenoevidencehasbeenledonbehalfofeitherofthe parties,i.e.,theUnionofIndiaorthelandownersastowhatshouldbethe ratesofpropertieswheregroundfloorcanbeusedforcommercialpurposes andfirstfloorandaboveforresidentialpurposesandIhavebeforemeonly thecircularforcommercialratesofRamesh Nagar which hastobe conditionedbythefactoftheprimeshowroomlocationsofthesubject propertiesonthemainRingRoad. Inmyopinion,theendsofjusticewill be servedinthefactsofthepresentcasesby notinterferingwith the determinationofcompensationasarrivedatbytheReferenceCourtofADJin the impugnedjudgment. 8. ItisnotdisputedbythecounselforUnionofIndia/respondentinthe appealsasfiledbythelandowners,thattheReferenceCourtofADJ has p. erroneouslynotgrantedthestatutorybenefitof15%interestafteroneyear oftakingpossessionoftheacquiredlandsintermsofSection34oftheAct. ^TheprovisotoSection34oftheActclearlyprovidesthatifcompensationis notpaidordepositedwithinaperiodofoneyearfromthedateonwhich possession Istakenoftheacquiredlands,interestat15%shan,bepayable fromthedateofexpiryoftheperiodofoneyearontheamountof L.A.AppealNo.228/2009&conn. Page 10 of 11 N compensationwhich hasnotbeenpaidordepositedbeforethedateof expiryofsuchperiod. Ithereforeholdthattheappellantswill beentitledto statutorybenefitof15%rateofinterestintermsoftheprovisotoSection34 oftheAct. 9. Inviewoftheabove,Ideterminethemarket valueof.thelandsat 14,490/-persquaremeter,theratedeterminedbythereferencecourt.The appellantswill alsobeentitledtootherstatutorybenefitsasgrantedbythe ReferenceCourtoftheADJ intheimpugnedjudgment.Inadditiontothe above,andasalreadystatedbyme, theappellants/landownerswill be entitledtostatutorybenefitoftheprovisotoSection34oftheAct. Decree sheetbeprepared.Trialcourtrecordbesentback. MARCH 22,2011 \^Mna^MI^A,J, ib L.A.AppealNo.228/2009&conn. Page11 of11