Delhi High Court
Inder Pal Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 October, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 03.10.2013
Date of Decision: 09.10.2013
+ W.P.(C) 13687/2009 & CM 15391/2009
INDER PAL SINGH
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma and Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Ajay
Vikram Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 227/2010 & CM 463/2010
A L SHARMA(NOW DECEASED) THROUGH:
NOMINEE/ATTORNEY LR'S
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma and Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Ajay
Vikram Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 14025/2009 & CM 16071/2009
JASWANT RAI VIG
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma and Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Ajay
Vikram Singh, Advs.
W.P.(C) No.13687 of 2009&connected matters Page 1 of 11
+ W.P.(C) 14001/2009 & CM 16023/2009
AJAY KUMAR
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma and Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Ajay
Vikram Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 220/2010 & CM 457/2010
SUNNY
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma and Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Ajay
Vikram Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 226/2010 & CM 462/2010
GYAN CHAND
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma and Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Ajay
Vikram Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 13688/2009
MEERA BAI
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma and Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advs.
W.P.(C) No.13687 of 2009&connected matters Page 2 of 11
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Ajay
Vikram Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 13989/2009 & CM 16007/2009
SANDEEP KUMAR
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma and Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Ajay
Vikram Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 271/2010 & CM 579/2010
A L SHARMA(NOW DECEASE) THROUGH:
NOMINEE/ATTORNEY LR'S
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma and Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Ajay
Vikram Singh, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 272/2010 & CM 580/2010
RAJINDER KUMAR
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma and Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
W.P.(C) No.13687 of 2009&connected matters Page 3 of 11
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Ajay
Vikram Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J.
Late Shri Harbhajan Singh father of the petitioner in W.P(C)
No.13687/2009, late Shri M.L. Vig, father of the petitioner in W.P(C)
No.14025/2010, late Shri Ramesh Kumar, father of the petitioner in W.P(C)
No.220/2010, late Shri Sita Ram, maternal uncle of the petitioner in W.P(C)
No.226/2010 and Shri Rajinder Kumar, petitioner in W.P(C) No. 272/2010
were allotted different pieces of land measuring 11.97 square meters each,
whereas late Shri A.L. Sharma, father of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.
227/2010 and 271/2010, late Smt.Meera Bai, mother of the petitioner in
W.P(C) No. 13688/2009, late Shri Harish Chander, father of the petitioner in
W.P(C) No. 13989/2009 and Ajay Kumar, petitioner in W.P(C) No.
14001/2009 were allotted plots measuring 67 square meters each by the
respondent - Indian Railways, on license basis, for construction of shops on
the aforesaid plots. The said allotment was made under a policy of Indian
Railways. As noted by this Court in W.P(C) No.17216/2006 and connected
writ petitions, as per the agreed terms, the license fees at 20% of the land
rates.
2. Vide demand notice dated 12.4.2009, the allottees were asked to pay
the license fees calculated @ 20% of the land rates for the period from
1.4.1995 to 21.3.2004, and 10% of the land rate from the period 1.4.2004 to
31.03.2009. The land rates applied were as under:
S.No. Period % L/F Land Rate 10%
increased upto
31.03.2004 further
7%
1. 1.4.95 - 31.3.96 20% 6225/-
2, 1,4,96 - 31.3.97 20% 6847/-
3. 1.4.97 - 31.3.98 20% 7532/-
4. 1.4.96 - 31.3.99 20% 8285/-
5. 1.4.99.31.3.00 20% 9114/-
6. 1.4.00 - 31.3.01 20% 10025/-
7. 1.4.01 - 31.3.02 20% 11028/-
8. 1.4.02 - 31.3.03 20% 12131/-
9. 1.4.03 - 31.3.04 20% 13344/-
10. 1.4.04 - 31.3.05 10% 14278/-
11. 1.4.05 - 31.3.06 10% 15277/-
12. 1.4.06 - 31.3.07 10% 16347/-
13. 1.4.07 - 31.3.08 10% 17491/-
14. 1.4.08 - 31.3.09 10% 18715/-
The land rates were, thus, increased @ 10% per annum upto 31.3.2004
and @ 7% per annum with effect from 1.4.2004. Being aggrieved from the
aforesaid demand, the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of
the demand notice.
3. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the allottees
have failed to pay the arrears of licence fees in respect of the land which was
allotted to them and they are liable to pay the same along with interest. It is
also stated in the counter affidavit that the present occupants are enjoying the
land without having paid the licence fees for the last 16 years.
4. At one stage, the respondents had initiated proceedings under Public
Premises Act on the allegations that the arrears of licence fees had not been
paid and the occupation was an unauthorized occupation on railway land.
During the course of hearing before the Estate Officer Mr. L.R. Vohra, a letter
dated 17.9.1992 written by GM (Engineering) to the Executive Director (Land
Management), Railway Board was produced. It was stated in the aforesaid
letter that the licence fees be recovered @ Rs.1105 per annum till further
orders of the shops in question situated at Tuglaqabad. The respondents
before the Estate Officer made a statement that they were ready to pay licence
fees @ Rs.1105/- per annum with 10% increase every year without
compounding since 1.1.1989. In view of the said statement, the Estate Officer
directed the respondents before him to pay licence fees at the aforesaid rate of
Rs.1105 per annum with 10% compounding till the decision of the Competent
Authority in this respect.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of
the Supreme Court in Lala Ram(D) by L.R. & Ors.versus Union of India &
Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos.243-247 of 2003] wherein the Apex Court upheld the
right of the Railways to increase the licence fee. The licence fee in the
aforesaid case was enhanced by as much as 13 times. The enhancement was
challenged on the ground that it was excessive. Rejecting the challenge, the
Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:
"8. Undoubtedly, the enhanced license fee being 13 times, the
earlier license fee amount seems excessive, and such an observation
was also made by the Hon'ble Railway Minister in order dated
11.4.1981, but the enhanced license fee would be illusory if the same
is compared with the prevailing license fee in the said market as
applicable to private shops. A welfare state must serve larger public
interest, "Salus Popudi Suprema lex", means that the welfare of the
people is the supreme law. A state instrumentality must serve the
society as a whole, and must not grant unwarranted favour(s) to a
particular class of people without any justification, at the cost of
others. However, in order to serve larger public interest, the State
instrumentality must be able to generate its own resources, as it
cannot serve such higher purpose while in deficit. Merely because
the appellants have been occupying the suit premises for a prolonged
period of time, they cannot claim any special privilege. In the
absence of any proof of violation of their rights, such concession
cannot be granted to them."
6. Therefore, being licensor of the land, the respondent is entitled in law,
to fix such licence fee, as is deemed appropriate by it and the licencee, if he
wants to continue to occupy the licenced land, is under a legal obligation to
pay such fee. It would be competent for the licensor, to terminate the licence,
in case the licence fee fixed by it is not paid by the licencee, and also initiate
proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Act, 1971 to enforce such demand and evict the erstwhile licencee from the
licenced land.
7. The only contention raised by Mr. R.D. Sharma, learned counsel for
the petitioners was that since there has been no decision taken by the
Competent Authority after the aforesaid order dated 30.9.1993 passed by the
Estate Officer, the petitioners are required to pay the licence fee only @
Rs.1105 per annum with 10% increase every year with effect from 1.1.1989.
He further stated that the petitioners are willing to pay the arrears of licence
fees at the aforesaid rate. Therefore, the only question which needs to be
examined is whether, subsequent to the order dated 13.9.1993 passed by the
Estate Officer, the competent authority has taken a decision with respect to
the licence fee of plots in question or not.
8. This is not the case of the petitioners in the writ petitions that no
decision with respect to the licence fee of the land subject matter of the writ
petition has been taken by the competent authority after the order of the Estate
Officer dated 13.9.1993. Consequently, the respondents had no opportunity
to file any such decision along with their counter affidavit. The learned
counsel for the respondents, however, has placed on record two decisions
taken by the Government of India - one dated 29.8.1995 and the other dated
10.1.2005 with respect to the licence fee of Railway land. The decisions
dated 29.8.1995 & 10.1.2005 to the extent they are relevant read as under:
"2.3 Licences of existing licensees even if not connected with the
Railway working may, however, be renewed from time to time so
long as the land is not required by Railway for its own purpose but
on new terms and conditions indicated in this letter.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
3.1 Licence fee of plots will continue to be fixed as a percentage
of the land value, determined as per the procedure detailed in para 4
below. The percentage now applicable to various types of plots will
be as under:
Type of plots Annual licence fee as a
percentage of land value
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
f. Shops, Retail Oil Depots, etc. 20%
4. Fixing of Land Value
4.1 As the end use of the land licenced for the above purposes is
generally directly related to traffic movement, it does not bear any
direct relation to the land value advised by the Revenue Authorities
etc. which is for a different end use. A market value would however
be required to be taken to serve as a base value for working out
rental fee payable. This shall be fixed on the basis of the land value
of the surrounding area as on 1.1.1985, as determined from the
Revenue Authorities and/or from the following:
a. Evaluation of Town Planning Department;
b. Actuals as per PWD and CPWD Transactions;
c. Actual Transactions as per document filed in the Office of the
Sub-Registrar;
d. Value of land as assessed by professional evaluators of the
State and Central Governments.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
7.1 As the notional land value will increase by 10% of the
previous year's land value as mentioned in Para 3 above, the licence
fee will automatically go up by 10% over the previous year's fee
from the first of April every year. Suitable provisions, with the
Schedule of payment due, may be incorporated in the Agreement."
.... .... .... .... ....
"2.4 Licenses of existing licencees, not connected with the
Railways working as mentioned in Para 3 (f) below may, however,
be renewed from time to time so long as the land is not required by
Railway for its own purpose but on new terms and conditions
indicated in this letter.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
3. Rate of licence fee
3.1 Licence fee of plots will continue to be fixed as a percentage
of the land value, determined as per the procedure detailed in para-5
below. The percentage applicable w.e.f. 1.404 to various types of
plots will be as under:
Item Types of Plots Annual Licence Fee
No. as a Percentage of
Land Value
a. Railway related activities such as 6%
City Booking offices, Out
Agencies, etc.
b. Ordinary Commercial Plots - 6%
without structures
c. Ordinary Commercial Plots - with
temporary structures for
stacking/storing
i. Covered area i.7 ½%
ii. Open area ii. 6%
d. Steel Yards/Coal Dumps, Bulk Oil 7½%
Installations, etc.
e. Land use to lay private sidings 6%
f. Shops/Retail Depots etc. 10%
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
5.0 Fixing of land value
5.1 A market value would, however, be required to be taken to
serve as a base value for working out rental fee payable. This shall
be fixed on the basis of the land value of the surrounding area as on
1.1.1985, as determined from the Revenue Authorities and/or from
the following:
a. Evaluation of Town Planning Department;
b. Actuals as per PWD and CPWD Transactions;
c. Actual Transactions as per documents filed in the Office of
the Sub-Registrar;
d. Value of land as assessed by professional evaluators of the
State and Central Governments.
5.2 The land value as worked out shall be increased every year on
st
the 1 of April, starting from 1.4.1986, at the rate of 10% over the
previous year's land value to arrive at the land value for the
following year based on which the annual licence fee shall be fixed
From 1.4.2004 onwards, the land value shall be increased at the rate
of 7% every year over the previous year's value.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
7.0 Revision of licence fee
7.1 As the notional land value will increase by 7% over the
previous year's land value as mentioned in Para 5.2 above, the
licence fee will automatically go up by 7% over the previous year's
fee from the first of April every year. Suitable provisions with the
Schedule of payment due may be incorporated in the ......"
9. In view of the aforesaid decisions dated 29.8.1995 and 10.1.2005, it is
evident that the competent authority, i.e., the Government of India, Ministry
of Railways, revisited the issue of licence fee of Railway lands, after the order
passed by the Estate Officer on 13.9.1993. In view of the aforesaid decision
of the Government the order of the Estate Officer became inapplicable w.e.f.
1.4.1994.
The licencee has rightly been fixed at 20 per cent of the land value for
the period 1.4.1995 to 31.3.2004 whereafter the decision dated 10.1.2005
became applicable and the licence fee was reduced to 10 per cent of the land
rate. The land rate has also been rightly revised @ 10 per cent per annum up
to 31.3.2004 and thereafter @ 7 per cent per annum w.e.f. 1.4.2004. The
demand raised by the respondents, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal,
arbitrary or unjustified. No ground for quashing the impugned demand
notices, therefore, is made out.
The writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
OCTOBER 09, 2013/rd V.K. JAIN, J.
