Delhi High Court
Nimitaya Properties Ltd & Anr. vs Indian Oil Corporation & Ors on 2 August, 2019
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 02.08.2019
+ W.P.(C) 1456/2008 & CM APPLN. 9004/2018
NIMITAYA PROPERTIES LTD & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Inder Bir Singh Alagh, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Sumit Gehlawat, Mr. T. S.
Thakraon, Mr. Jaitegn Singh, Mr.
Abhishek Bhardwaj and Ms. Neetu
Singh, Advs.
versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. M. M. Kalara with Ms. Sonali
Kumar, Advs. for IOCL
Ms. Sonia A. Menon, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CM APPLN. 52141/2018
1. Vide the present application, the applicants/petitioners seek direction
thereby rejecting the Valuation Report dated 16.10.2018 filed by valuer 'M/s
Kapoor & Associates' before this court on 22.10.2018.
2. Consequently, consider and rely the documents provided by both the
parties to the valuer M/s Kapoor & Associates for assessment and
preparation of valuation report of the subject property and it should be re-
assessed by this Court to arrive at a fair value of subject property.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that during the hearing of writ petition
on 02.02.2018, after some arguments, the parties arrived at a resolution. Ms
Meenakshi Arora, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no. 1
(lOCL) stated that the said respondent shall provide a list of four
Government approved valuers and leave it for the Court to select one out of
them. The valuer so appointed shall value the land in question (Tehsil
Rajpura, Village Pehar Khurad, Distt: Patiala (Punjab), (admeasuring
13467.6 sq. yards) considering the same to be unencumbered and ignoring
that an oil pipeline is running underneath a part of the land in question.
Accordingly, liberty was granted to both the parties to provide copies of
sale deeds relating to other properties in the vicinity of the area as well as
other relevant material for the valuer to arrive at a fair valuation of the land
in question. However, the parties were precluded from approaching the
valuer in any other manner.
4. In view of above, the valuer was directed to submit his report to the
parties and the valuation of the land in question as estimated by the valuer
shall be binding on both the parties. The petitioners and the
IOCL/respondent no.1 had agreed that neither party shall raise objection to
the valuation report.
5. In addition to above, the respondents were directed to make a
payment of the fair value as ascertained by the valuer within a period of
eight weeks from receipt of the valuation report and on the petitioners
executing all necessary documents as desired by the respondents including
the necessary sale deeds. The stamp duty for the same will be borne by the
IOCL/respondent.
6. Accordingly, the interim order was vacated and the respondents were
at liberty to enter the land in question forthwith.
7. For the aforesaid purpose, the matter was posted on 07.02.2018 for
considering the appointment of the valuer.
8. Pursuant to the direction passed by this Court, the valuer submitted its
report on 16.10.2018 stating therein that in compliance of the order of this
court, a visit was made by us to the site and valuation was done on the basis
of the information, documents and drawings supplied by the Owner and
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The enquiries were made in the site's
neighborhood from Real Estate agents etc. He received various documents
sent by petitioners continuously, from the receipt of orders of valuation till
16-10-2018. The valuation report including site photographs were furnished
along with the report.
9. Mr. Alagh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners/applicants
submits that valuation report of the present property was to be submitted
within six weeks from 21.08.2018, however, the valuer filed valuation report
dated 16.10.2018 in the Registry of this Court only on 22.10.2018. The said
valuation report came on the record only on 13.11.2018. However, no copy
of the valuation report was supplied by the valuer to the petitioners despite
directions in order dated 02.02.2018 passed by this Court and requests made
by the petitioners to the valuer.
10. The petitioners also moved an application in this regard before this
Court which was not followed in view of direction given in order dated
13.11.2018 to obtain the copy of report from Registry.
11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submit that on
perusal of the Valuation Report dated 16.10.2018 it becomes clear that the
said valuation report is nowhere a 'fair valuation report' rather appears to be
a Valuation Report prepared in an ultra casual manner. The said Valuation
Report does not conform even the basics of any Valuation Report.
12. He further submits that vide order dated 02.02.2018 this Court
observed that the parties have arrived at a resolution. On the basis of said
resolution, this Court issued directions for fair valuation of the land in
question to be prepared by valuer. Accordingly, the valuation report
becomes highly important on which entire case and relief to the petitioners
is based. The valuation report dated 16.10.2018 is full of gross mistakes and
grave errors which are likely to cause injustice to the petitioners as this
valuation report will decide the relief for the petitioners.
13. It is further submitted that the valuation report values the land in
question for Rs. 5,43.00,000/-(Rupees Five Crore Forty Three Lacs Only)
wherein the cost of land is taken,® Rs. 40,00,000/- per Bigha, for 13 Bigha
& 6 Biswa. In the entire valuation report at no place any basis for this cost of
land has been discussed as to how this figure appeared and based on which
data, which was must for any person to arrive at a particular cost. This raises
grave suspicion on the correctness, genuineness and veracity of the valuation
report on which the fate of whole relief of the petitioners completely
depends.
14. On perusal of the valuation report filed by the valuer, it is apparent
that he has not discussed, while preparing the report, as to what was the base
to arrive at the rate valued by the valuer. However, in his forwarding letter
while submitting report, he has stated that his team visited to the site and the
valuation report was prepared on the basis of the information, documents
and drawings supplied by the owner and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
15. In addition to above, the enquiries were made by them from Real
Estate Agent etc. It is further stated that they were in receipt of various
documents sent by the petitioners continuously from the receipt of orders of
valuation till 16.10.2018.
16. The applicants/petitioners has annexed the site plan of the properties
under municipal corporation of Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab. On perusal
of the same, the property in question is five kilometers away from one
property of Sh. Anil Sehgal and the rate of that property is ₹69247 per
square yards. Another property is 4.5 kilometers away from Sh. Sukhbir
Singh property and the rate of that property is ₹102439 per square yards.
The other properties are farther away than the property mentioned above.
There is no construction at all of the back side of the property or the other
side of the property.
17. It is not in dispute that the property in question is on the main road
which goes from Chandigarh to Patiala and from the said property, across
the road is Prime Cinema Hub which is one kilometer away and rent in that
property is ₹60 per square feet. Another property on the same direction and
same distance is Village Shamdoo Seva Singh property and rate of that
property is ₹62500 per square yards.
18. It is pertinent to mention here that these two properties mentioned
above is across the road and one kilometer away from the property in
question. Furthermore, on this side of the road where the said property is
located, no construction is there, except 4.5 kilometer away is Sh.Sukhbir
Singh's property and other properties are farther away than this property.
Though the valuer has not mentioned details as to what documents he has
used to come to the conclusion that rate of the property in question is ₹40
lacs per bigha, but the fact remains that petitioner have also not produced
any sale deed of adjacent property and only relying upon the fact that
property in question is within the municipality of Rajpura District Patiala,
Punjab.
19. As per the report, Rajpura city is 2.5 kilometers away from the
property in question. Therefore, the rate of the Rajpura city cannot be made
available to the applicants on the ground that the property in question is in
the municipality, however, it is far away from the city and no construction
at all near about the property in question.
20. Moreover, both parties agreed on 02.02.2018 that they shall accept the
report of the valuer and not challenge the same.
21. Accordingly, the parties are bound to accept the same. However, I
find no ground to pass any order in the present application while accepting
the report of the valuer. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
22. Since the valuation report has been submitted, therefore, the
applicant/petitioners shall execute the documents in favour of the respondent
company and on executing the documents in favour of the respondent, the
respondent shall pay the value of the property as per the rate determined by
the valuer.
W.P.(C) 1456/2008
23. Since nothing remains in the writ petition, the petition is also disposed
of.
24. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
AUGUST 2, 2019/ms
