Delhi District Court
Sh Tilak Raj Dua vs Union Of India on 13 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH SHIV KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
LAC No. 12/2023
CNR NO. DLWT01-004274-2023
DLWT010042742023
Name of Village: Property No. 69/6A at Patel Road, Moti Nagar,
Delhi.
Award No.: 02/DC (W)/2006-07 dated 30.08.2006
Shri Tilak Raj Dua
S/o late Shir NEB Raj Dua
Prop. of M/s Ashadeep Industries,
R/o 64-A, Ayodhya Apartments.
Rohini, Sector 13, Delhi
.... Petitioner
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
District West,
Shivaji Place, New Delhi.
2. North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 20.05.2023
Date of conclusion of arguments : 20.09.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.10.2025
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 1/63
Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the
enhancement of the compensation arising out of award no.
2/DC(W)/2006-07 by the Land Acquisition Collector, District West,
Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1) Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land measuring 11785.82 sq. meters under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9174 dated 03.09.2003. Notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9375 under Section 6 of said Act was issued on 02.09.2004. The land was notified under Section 17(1) vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9376 dated 02.09.2004. Such land had been acquired for the purpose of construction of Grade/Flyover at Najafgarh Road & Patel Road Intersection near Moti Nagar.
2) Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 02/DC (W)/2006-2007 dated 30.08.2006 (Ex. RW2/A) under Section 11 of said Act. He determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs.20,900/- per square meter for industrial land under acquisition. The structure was valued as per the valuation report submitted by MCD.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 2/63
3) Vide order dated 20.05.2023, the LAC, west was directed to file the revised statement under Section 19 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, in accordance with reference, which has been decided under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act concerning the acquired land.
4) On 13.09.2023, LAC, West filed revised statement under Section 19 of Land Acquisition Act.
5) According to the revised statement of Section 19 of L.A. Act filed by the Collector, the details of share of petitioner is as under : -
Sl. IP Number Area of respective IP Amount No and Name in he property No. in % Remark 69/6A, Patel s Road/Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi
7. IP No. 13 (I) 24 Sq. Meter on (I) 10% of M/s Asha ground floor. total amount of Deep compensation.
(ii) 6.66 sq. meter on first floor 10% of total amount of compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP No. 13. LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 3/63
6) As per statement under Section 19 of L.A. Act, filed by LAC, West, the acquired area in respect of M/s Asha Deep Industries through its Prop. Sh. Tilak Raj Dua comes to area measuring 3.066 Sq. Meter and IP No. 44 M/s Asha Deep Industries through its Prop. Sh. Tilak Raj Dua comes to area measuring 2 sq. meter and the total area pertains to petitioner comes to area measuring 5.066 Sq. meter and date of possession is 25.10.2005.
7) The petitioner filed application under Section 18 of said Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by Collector.
8) In brief, the facts averred in the petition are that petitioner is the interested person in respect of property bearing No. 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi and carrying on business of under the name and style of M/s Ashadeep Industries.
9) It is stated that the petitioner was an interested person in the reference petition filed under section 30-31 of the Act tilted as Union of India Vs Harish Virmani and the petitioner has received the awarded amount of compensation under protest only on 07.06.2019.
10) It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner came to know about the essential contents of the award only LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 4/63 after receiving the awarded amount of compensation under protest i.e. on 07.06.2019 and the present petition is being filed within 42 days of receiving the awarded amount of compensation and therefore, the present petition is within the period of limitation.
11) The petitioner does not accept the findings and determination of the LAC on the following grounds:
a) Because the LAC has failed to assess the fair market value of the land of the petitioner.
b) Because the LAC has failed to appreciate that the commercial land of the petitioner was situated in the hub of commercial activity and there were factories and commercial establishment surrounding the property of the petitioner. Rather the petitioner was also carrying out commercial activities on the acquired property as on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act under the name and style of M/s Ashadeep Industries.
c) Because the property of the petitioner was having all the facilities and amenities such as commercial power connection, license to run a factory, registrations from the competent authorities etc. LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 5/63
d) Because the land prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act was shown by the wing of respondent no. 2 @ Rs. 75,000/-
per sq. mtr. since the land was purely commercial in nature and could be used for industrial as well as commercial purposes only.
e) Because the properties in the vicinity were sold by the DDA @ Rs. 1 lakh per sq. metr. in the year 1995 which were for residential purposes and in the interiors. It is stated that the property of the petitioner was situated on the main Najafgarh Road and was capable of commercial activities only.
f) Because the value of the land alone is sold in open market under the condition of demand and supply was in any case not less than Rs. 1 lakh per sq. mtr. and the petitioner claims the same.
g) Because the market value in respect of the structures of the petitioner was not less than Rs. 30 lakhs as on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and petitioner claims the same.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 6/63
h) Because the petitioner has not been allotted any alternative site for re-installation of the machinery which he has to dis-mental on account of the acquisition proceedings thrust upon him. The petitioner estimates his loss of earning to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs and he claims the same. The petitioner has claimed market value @ Rs. 1 lakh per sq. mtr. alongwith all statutory benefits as per the prevailing Act, interest on solatium and additional amount in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Vs Union of India dated 19.09.2001, Rs. 20 lakhs as loss of earning and Rs. 30 lakhs as the value for structures and other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
12) The respondent no. 1/Union of India has filed reply, in compliance of order dated 20.05.2023. It is averred in the reply that the petitioner had filed the reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act on 11.07.2019, vide Diary no. 748/LAC(W) and the same was marked to Kanungo/LA for further process. It submitted that the Account Clerk of LAC (Branch) has submitted his report regarding the payment status on 07.12.2019.
13) It is further averred in the reply that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had given the direction in similar matter to LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 7/63 the LAC(West) to decide the reference applications after giving the personal appearance on 07.02.2023 at 2.30 P.M. and after finishing the personal hearing the reference shall be decided within 8 weeks.
14) It is further averred in the reply that as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the LAC, West heard the matter in detailed and has forwarded the reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act to the Court by keeping the issue of limitation as open to be decided by the Court, as per law.
15) It is further averred in Para F of reply that Para no. 1 to 6 as stated by the petitioners in his reference petitin are not admitted. It is further averred that the compensation assessed is sufficient and reasonable as the same represents the true market value as was prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4. The claim made by the petitioner(s) in reference is excessive and unjustified.
16) Reply / objections has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 / MCD. It was contended therein that the present petition is not maintainable and as per the Act, only the land owners were supposed to receive compensation during land acquisition proceedings. It is further contended that the Act does not address compensating other individuals that are effected by such acquisition, where as per the the petition, the petitioner is only interested person.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 8/63
17) It is further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to institute the present reference petition. It is further contended that the LAC has also awarded in respect of structures acquired for construction of grade/flyover Najafgarh Road and Patel Road intersection near Moti Nagar, Delhi. It is further submitted that this Award is based on valuation of the structure carried out by the PWD, GNCTD as per CPWD plinth area rates, as specified in the Award itself.
18) Respondent no.2 also highlighted about various previous aspects related to land in question. It is further contended that the petitioner has concealed material facts from the Hon'ble court that the sub-division of plot no. 69, Najafgarh Road has been allowed vide resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 subject to condition that the land required for widening of Najafgarh Road, Rama Road and Patel Road, shall be left free of cost, as per approval of alignment plan.
19) It is further contended that these awards were made on the basis of conversion rates charged by DDA issued in the year 2003. The indicative rate for industrial plots in West Zone was Rs. 17,870/- per square meter. By evaluating the above methods and keeping in mind the location of properties, under acquisition, i.e. being situated on main road and also the size of land under acquisition and size of land of sale deed, which was produced in evidence, the market value LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 9/63 has been assessed at Rs. 20,900/- per square meter for the industrial land under acquisition.
20) It is further contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is hopelessly time barred.
21) It is further contended that the impugned Award is based on the sound reason and the respondent no. 1 after taking into consideration, the evidence/documents produced during the proceedings of the Award may have rightly assessed compensation amount in respect of the land and structures. It is submitted that compensation already remitted to LAC by the answering respondent is adequate.
22) On merits, most of the contents of the petition has been denied as wrong and it is claimed that the petitioner is not entitled for further enhancement in compensation.
23) Petitioner has filed replication to the written statement/ revised memorandum filed on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI. Petitioner has admitted the revised memorandum filed by UOI to the extent that petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation for an area ad measuring 5.066 square meters. The rest of contents of revised memorandum are denied by the petitioner.
ISSUES LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 10/63
24) Vide order dated 06.02.2024, the following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether present reference u/s 18 L.A. Act is barred by limitation? OPR-2
2. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land in question and if so, at what rate? OPP
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
25) The proprietor of M/s Ashadeep Industries, Sh. Tilak Raj Dua/petitioner in order to prove his case examined himself and appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and also rely upon the following documents:
i) Ex. PW1/1 (Colly): Coy of the banker's cheque dated 07.06.2019 received by him.
ii) Ex. PW1/1 (OSR): Copy of his bank statement of SBI, Moti Nagar Branch, LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 11/63 showing the receipt and date of deposit of the banker's cheque.
iii) Mark B: Copy of Nazir report in case title UOI Vs Hrish Virmani ( Ex. PW-1/2 in his affidavit and is hereby de-exhibited and marked as Mark B being the photocopy).
iv) Mark C : Copy of the judgment passed in LA appeal no. 913/2008 titled Virender Sood Vs UOI dated 15.11.2017 ( Ex. PW-1/3 in his affidavit and is hereby ex-exhibited and marked as Mark C being the photocopy).
v) Mark D: Copy of the judgment passed in SLP no. 3786/19 titled UOI Vs Virender Soodd dated 25.02.2019 (Ex. PW-1/4 in his affidavit and is hereby de-exhibited and marked as Mark D being the photocopy).
iv) Mark E: Copy of judgment passed in case titled M/s Esvee polymers Manufacturing Co.
Vs Union of India, LAC No. 66/16 dated 11.04.2022 ( Ex. PW-1/5 in his affidavit and is hereby de-exhibited and marked as Mark E being the photocopy).
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 12/63
26) PW-1 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of respondents and PW-1 and deposed that the department never measured any property in front of him prior to acquisition proceedings however it might be done in his absence. PW-1 further deposed that he has no knowledge whether any of the officials inspected the acquired land before acquisition. PW-1 further deposed that he did not know about the announcement of the Award and came to know from the local officials that some bridge will be made there. PW-1 further deposed that he came to know about the above fact in the year 2006-07 but he does not remember exact date and month. PW-1 further deposed that he had filed a claim petition. PW-1 further deposed that he did not receive any notice from the LAC, however, he received a notice from the present court only. PW-1 further deposed that he had filed all documents when he received a notice from the court. PW-1, again stated that he had given all documents in court as far as he remember. PW-1 further deposed that he had given those documents to his lawyer in the year 2007-08 but he does not know whether the same were filed in court or before the LAC. PW-1 further deposed that he had filed the present case for enhancement, after he received the cheque when he came to know it is very less. PW-1 further deposed that the pronouncement of award was not in his knowledge before receiving of cheque. PW-1 admitted that he filed the present petition in the year 2019. PW-1 further deposed that he does not know when the land was acquired or that when LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 13/63 the award was passed. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the present petition filed beyond the period of limitation and is not maintainable.
27) In further cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he has filed title documents in court. He was a lessee from M/s Jeevan Industries Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Jeevan Lal Virmani. PW-1 admitted that the area mentioned in the present case is as per the judgment u/s 30-31 L.A. Act under a compromise titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani & Ors. The acquired land was his total area . PW-1 further deposed that he has not filed any income tax returns and electricity bill of his firm, in the present case.
28) PW-1 further deposed in his cross-examination that the land of Sh. Virender Sood is situated in Mansarover Garden. He has not seen the said land of Sh. Virender Sood, however, his land is situated on the Moti Nagar to Patel Nagar Road on Najafgarh Road, opposite Laxman Sylvania. The address of his shop is 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar to Patel Nagar Road. The distance between his land and Sh. Virender Sood must be one and half to two kilometers. Mansarover Garden is adjoining Kirti Nagar. PW-1 further deposed that he has not filed any document to show that the acquired area was a shop. He further deposed that he does not know whether he had received the compensation for structure of his acquired shop. PW-1 further deposed that Kirti Nagar is at a LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 14/63 distance of 2.5 to 3 k.m from Raja Garden. He does not have any knowledge regarding the evidence by Virender Sood in his case.
29) PW-1 further deposed that he does not have knowledge regarding the evidence filed in case titled Esvee Polymers Vs UOI. He does not know regarding any other judgment. He does not know any judgment passed by Sh. A.K. Sarpal, the then ld. ADJ.
30) PW-1 further deposed that he has not filed any sale deed of the adjoining area in the present case and admitted that he does not have any knowledge of any sale deed of adjoining area.
31) In further cross-examination on behalf of MCD, PW-1 deposed that came to know about the award at the time of receiving the compensation cheque. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was aware of the announcement of the award at the time of its announcement.
32) PW-1 further deposed that the case titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani was for receiving the awarded amount of compensation. He was a party in that case. PW-1 further deposed that he had made an statement before the court in above case, based on which, the case was disposed off. PW-1 further deposed that he came to know about letters dated LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 15/63 31.07.2006 and 30.08.2006, upon receiving the payment under section 30-31 of the L.A. Act. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was aware of the essential contents of the award.
33) PW-1 further deposed that he has seen the title documents of M/s Jeevan Industries Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to the acquired property, and he also have the copy of the entire chain. PW-1 further deposed that does not know whether there was any condition in the sale deed in favour of M/s Jeevan Lal Virmani that if the land is ever required for road widening, the same would be handed over to Municipal Authorities free of cost. PW-1 further deposed that the property number 69-6A is towards the Najafgarh road and his property is on the Moti Nagar fly over towards Patel Nagar. However he voluntarily deposed that both are situated on Najafgarh Road.
34) Sh. Surinder Yadav, Patwari from the office of West District, Raja Garden, appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and deposed that he has brought the original summoned record i.e. the original award file of award no. 2/DCW/2006- 07, Moti Nagar, Flyover, bearing file no. F1(8)/LAC(W)/2006. PW-2 further deposed that as per original record brought by him, no notice under Section 12 (2) of the LA Act has been sent by the LAC, West, to any of the occupiers/interest persons, mentioned in the award. As LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 16/63 per the original award file, no person/owners were present at the time of the announcement of the award.
35) PW-2 further deposed that he has compared the photocopies of the two letters dated 31.07.2006 and 30.08.2006 with the original record brought by him. Copies of letter dated 31.07.2006 and 30.08.2006 are exhibited as Ex PW-2/A (OSR) and Ex PW-2/B (OSR).
36) PW-2 has been cross-examined on behalf of UOI and he deposed that he is a Patwari and has not assigned any written letter by the LAC, West to be the custodian of the record brought by him. He does not have personal knowledge regarding the issuing or non-issuing of the notice of under Section 12 (2) of the LA Act. PW-2 further deposed that he has been working in the LAC Department, West for the last two years. He has also worked under LAC in other District also. PW-2 admitted that the issuance of notice Section 12 (2) of the LA Act is mandatory. PW-2 further admitted that in the present case, as per record brought by him, public notice was issued but the said public notice is without date and serial number but it is mentioned page no. C/71 of the file. PW-2 further deposed that there is an another notice dated 05.09... and page no. C-63 whereby the land owners were called upon on 09.09.2005 whereby there will be scheduled for a Kabja Karvahi. He further deposed that there is no serial number on LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 17/63 another notice. The photocopies of the two notices are exhibited as Ex PW-2/R-1 and Ex PW-2/R-2.
37) PW-2 further deposed that as per the record brought by him, the possession of the land was taken by Kabja Karvahi dated 25.10.2005. The report of Kabja Karvahi dated 25.10.2005, is Ex PW-2/R-3. PW-2 further deposed that the file brought by him is the main and original file of the award and he is not aware, if there is any other file. PW-2 admitted that the application for payment filed by the petitioner, if any, is not with the main file, it can only be available with payment file. PW-2 admitted that the reference under Section 30/31 if LA Act can only be sent on the application of the interested persons. PW-2 further admitted that there is a separate file regarding the application filed by any land owner for payment of compensation. He cannot tell without file when the present petitioner file any application for payment of compensation and objections. Thereafter PW-2 was asked the following questions:
Q Is it correct that the payment file is separate from main award file under Section 30/31 of LA Act?
Ans it is correct.
Q Is it correct that the reference file is separate from main original file under Section 30/31 of LA Act?
Ans it is correct.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 18/63
38) PW-2 further deposed that he has no personal knowledge regarding maintenance of the summoned file.
39) Ld counsel respondent no. 2 has adopted the cross-
examination conducted on behalf of UOI and gave the suggestion to PW-2 that he has deliberately not brought the other files connected with the main file.
40) Vide separate statement of ld. counsel for the petitioner, evidence on behalf of petitioner stands closed on 30.01.2025.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1
41) No witness has been examined on behalf of the respondent no. 1.
42) Sh. S.S. Dalal, Ld. Counsel for UOI has tendered the copy of Award No. 02/DC(W)/2006-07 as Ex. RW2/A and has closed evidence on behalf of respondent no. 1/ UOI on 08.05.2025.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2
43) Respondent no.2/MCD has examined Sh. Dhananjoy Kumar Prabhat as R2W1 and he tendered in evidence his LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 19/63 affidavit as Ex.R2W-1/A. R2W1 rely upon the following documents:-
i).Ex.RW2/A: Copy of Award.
ii).Mark A: Copy of Resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973.
iii).Ex.RW2/C : Copy of the schedule of rates notified by the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India vide No.L&DO/F-24013/3/2013-CDN/107 dated 02.05.2017. (document is not disputed by ld. Counsel for the petitioner).
44) During cross-examination on behalf of petitioner, R2W1 deposed that he has been posted in land and Estate department in February, 2023. R2W1 further deposed that he does not know if the MCD filed any appeal against the judgment passed in case titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani & Ors. which was a 30-31 L. A Act case. R2W1 admitted that as per point X1 and X2 on the Award Ex. RW2/A, the land was acquired for construction of grade fly over at Najafgarh Road and Patel Road intersection near Moti Nagar. R2W1, in response to a specific question whether MCD had prepared a modified valuation report in respect of the award, he deposed that he does not know as he was not involved in any such process. He cannot say whether the Ex. Engineer MCD has prepared the modified valuation report. R2W1 admitted that as per the award, the award no. 6/DCW/04-05 and award no. 7/DCW/0405 is Rs, 19,960/- per sq. metr. R2W1 further LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 20/63 deposed that it is a matter of record that the rate of compensation for acquired land is Rs. 20,900 per sq. meter.R2W1 further deposed that he has not filed any document on record to show that the reference filed by the petitioner is time barred.
45) R2W1 further deposed that it is a matter of record whether respondents have not filed any document that the petitioner was aware about the award much earlier but have falsely stated that the petitioner got to know about the essential contents only upon receiving the cheque.
46) In response to a specific question is there any notice filed by the MCD u/s 12 (2) of L.A Act in the present case, the R2W1 deposed that the notice u/s 12 (2) of L.A.Act is not issued by the MCD but by the LAC.
47) R2W1 further deposed that he is not aware about the case titled Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Company Vs UOI & Anr., in which vide judgment dated 11.04.2022, the ld. ADJ-02 had awarded the compensation @ Rs. 31,733/- in respect of award in question. However, he voluntarily deposed that the said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the appeal is currently pending. R2W1 further deposed that he cannot say whether the decision in aforesaid Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 21/63 Vs UOI & Anr., was on the basis of the case titled M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. Vs UOI & Anr. Dated 04.05.2016.
48) R2W1 further deposed that it is not in his knowledge whether any case titled M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. Vs UOI & Anr. was decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 29.10.2024 and the SLP against said judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 24.01.2025.
49) Thereafter the witness, R2W1 was confronted with the certified copy of judgment dated 29.10.2024 Ex. R2W1/X1 (OSR) and print out of order dated 24.01.2025 Ex. R2W1/X2 and asked whether he is aware about this judgment. The witness states "I am not aware as MCD was not a party in the said case".
50) In response to a specific question whether you have you seen the original Resolution dated 31.05.1973, R2W1 deposed that he has not seen the said resolution.
51) R2W1 further admitted that the present award was never challenged by the MCD. The commercial rates Ex.RW2/C are based on 100 FAR while calculation of the same. R2W1 further admitted that the PWD,GNCTD had carried out the valuation report stating that the acquired properties were commercial in nature. Thereafter the witness LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 22/63 was confronted with letter dated 30.08.2006 as Ex R-2W-1/X3 and asked the witness that in this letter dated 30.08.2006, it is stated that your legal department as well as L&E Department, MCD given NOC regarding the current award, the R2W1 stated that he has no knowledge about the said letter. R2W1 further deposed that he cannot produce the original Resolution Mark A but the original is with the MCD and can be produced by the concerned official.
52) R2W1 admitted that it is correct that if any resolution/letter passes then it is mandatory the signatures of the officer. R2W1 admitted that said resolution is already lapsed as the beneficiaries parties under the resolution had not complied with the conditions of the resolution. R2W1 further deposed that he has not filed any document, which is signed by the petitioner, regarding resolution Mark A.
53) R2W1 in response to a specific question deposed that there is no document to show that the petitioner had approached MCD regarding Sub-division of 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, Industrial Area Delhi, however, he voluntarily deposed that the plot no. 69 was requested to be sub-divided by Sh. Jivan Lal Virmani and he had approached the MCD regarding the same. R2W1 further deposed that only Sh. Jivan Lal Virmani had approached the MCD regarding the same, however, he cannot say exactly when he LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 23/63 had approached, however, the resolution, in this regard, is of 31.05.1973.
54) R2W1 further deposed that he has no knowledge regarding the sale of abovesaid property by Sh. Jivan Lal Virmani prior to 1973. R2W1 denied the suggestion that the abovesaid property had already been sold out and sub-divided prior to the resolution.
55) R2W2/Sh. Kamal, Ahlmad has appeared before the court as summoned witness and he brought the original file bearing LAC no. 15/23 titled "M/S Savita Sabharwal Vs UOI and the copy of the resolution of the said file bearing no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973, which is Ex R-2W2/A (objected by Ld counsel for the petitioner on the ground of mode and manner of proof).
56) R2W2 has been cross examined by Ld counsel for the petitioner and the witness deposed that in his cross examination that in the summoned case file, there is no original resolution but the true copy of the resolution has been filed. R2W2 further deposed that there is no MCD stamp on the said copy and I have no knowledge regarding the stamp of the MCD. R2W2 further deposed that M/s Savita Sabharwal Vs UOI has already been decided on 05.06.2025 in faovur of the petitioner and the compensation has been enhanced from Rs 20,900 to 31,733.59/-.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 24/63
57) R2W2 further deposed that the photocopies of certified copy of the statement of Sh. Surinder Yadav dated 14.11.2024 and photocopies of certified copy of the statement of Sh. S.B. Sharma, Section officer dated 21.04.2025 are true copy of the original statements lying in the summoned case file and the same is Ex R2W2/D-1 and Ex R-2W2/D-2 (objected to by Ld counsel for the respondent no.2, on the ground of mode and manner of the proof). R2W2 further deposed that the signatures of the petitioners are not on the copy of resolution filed in the summoned record.
58) Vide separate statement of ld. counsel for the MCD, evidence on behalf of MCD stands closed on 30.07.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
59) Arguments heard from ld counsels for the parties. I have gone through entire case file, including pleadings and testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the parties in court.
ISSUES-WISE FINDINGS.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE No. 1Issue no. 1: Whether present reference u/s 18 of LA Act is barred by limitation? OPR-2.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 25/63
60) The onus to prove issue no. 1 is upon the respondent no. 2. In order to prove the said issue, the respondent no. 2 has examined two witnesses i.e. Sh. Dhananjoy Kumar Prabhat/R2W1 and Sh. Kamal/R2W2.
61) The award of present reference has been passed by the LAC, West on 30.08.2006. The present reference petition has been filed by the petitioner before LAC, West on 11.07.2019.
62) Ld counsels for respondents have argued that the present reference petition is barred by limitation. They further argued that the petitioner has filed objections before LAC, West, so, the petitioner cannot say that he was not having knowledge of the award of the present reference. They further argued that the petitioner has filed claim petition in reference petition forward under Section 30-31 LA Act by the LAC, West to the Court, so, during the pendency of the said reference petition, the petitioner had knowledge about the passing of award. Ld counsels for the respondents further submitted that the present reference petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.
63) Ld counsel for petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not aware about the essential contents of the award. Ld counsel further argued that the petitioner did not know the basis on which market value of the property was ascertained by the LAC, West. Ld counsel further argued that the LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 26/63 petitioner came to know about the essential contents of the award only on 07.06.2019, when the petitioner finally managed to receive the awarded compensation amount under protest and at that time, the petitioner became aware about the essential contents of the award i.e. market value, basis of ascertaining the market value etc and thereafter, within 42 days of receiving the awarded compensation amount, the petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of L.A. Act before LAC, West. So, the present petition is within limitation.
64) Petitioner/PW-1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that the petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of the award and no notice under Section 12 (2) of the LA Act was ever served upon him. PW-1 further deposed that the petitioner came to know about the essential contents of the award only after receiving the awarded amount of compensation from the court, in a case titled UOI vs Harish Virmani etc and therefore, the present petition is within the period of limitation.
65) PW-1 has further deposed in para no. 6 of his evidence by way of affidavit that the title of the petitioner gained finality only after receiving the awarded amount of compensation for an area ad measuring 5.066 sq. meters, which was decided by the Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 27/63 ADJ, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in a case titled Union of India Vs Harish Virmani etc.
66) During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that he did not receive any notice from the LAC. PW-1 further deposed that the petitioner had filed the present case for enhancement after he received the cheque, when he came to know that the amount is very less. PW-1 further deposed that announcement of the award was not in his knowledge before receiving of cheque. PW-1 further deposed that he does not know when the land was acquired or that when the award was passed.
67) It is admitted on the part of LAC West that the reference petition under Section 18 of LA Act was filed by the petitioner on 11.07.2019 and thereafter writ petition bearing no. WP(c)14491/2022 titled as Smt Santosh Suri & ors Vs UOI was filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the LAC to decide the reference application filed by the petitioner and other persons and pass appropriate orders. Therefore vide Letter no. LAC (w)/Ref/2023/422 dated 19.04.2023, the LAC, West forwarded the present reference under Section 18 of LA Act to this court by keeping the issue of limitation as open to be decided by the court as per law.
68) As per proviso (a) of Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, the petitioner is required to file application under LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 28/63 Section 18 of the Act for sending the reference to the court, within 6 weeks from the date of collector's Award, in case, the petitioner was present or represented before the collector at the time of passing of award.
69) As per proviso (b) of Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, if the case of the petitioner does not fall in proviso
(a) of Section 18 of the Act then he is entitled to file application under Section 18 of the Act for sending the reference to the court, within 6 weeks from the receipt of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act or within 6 months from the date of collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
70) In a case bearing no. W.P. (c) 1323/2017 titled "Vaibhav Gupta & Ors Vs Union of India, W.P. (C) 1323/2017, decided on 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has discussed the law regarding the period, within which the petitioner is entitled to file reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act and the relevant paras of the said judgment are mentioned as under:-
" Once the award has been made and the party has knowledge about its ingredients, the time limit on a realistic interpretation would commence from that date and has expired on lapse of six months. Prohibition of limitation in a statute is normally to be construed strictly and the equitable or ethical consideration would not normally be with the courts in giving it totally a liberal interpretation so as to wipe out the very effect of the LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 29/63 limitation clause.
Reliance placed by the petitioners upon the judgments of the Supreme Court afore-referred is certainly well founded. It is a settled principle that the knowledge must relate to essential contents of the award and not merely the information that the Collector has passed the award.
It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in Harish Chandra's case, 1962-1 SCR 676 :(AIR 1961 SC 1500) (supra) is that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now, knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively.
In the case of Bharat Chand Dilwali v. UOI 1988, Rajdhani Law Reporter 224 as well as a Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in the case of Rsulkhanji Sardar Mahomad Khanji v. H.P. Rathod 3rd Spl Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmd and Anr. 1975 (16) Gujrat Law Reporter 911 took the view that mere knowledge of the award or taking part in the proceedings under section 30 of the Act would not be helpful for holding that limitation had commenced from such a date. For this purpose, the date would be when either the award was communicated to the party actually or he had knowledge of essential contents of the award actually or constructively.
The Court in Bhagwan Das then held:
"When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months' period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the person interested was present either in person or through his representative when the award was made, or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 30/63 interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so."
There is also no quarrel with the proposition in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, which has been noticed in the case of Sh. Bale Ram (supra) and the law laid down in the case of Premji Nathu (supra) that the period of limitation would start from the knowledge of the contents of the Award.
71) In a case titled " Jagdish Vs Union of India & Anr, 2024, DHC, 8427, decided on 23.10.2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has discussed the law regarding the period, within which the petitioner is entitled to file reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act and the relevant paras of the said judgment are mentioned as under:-
"12. The Supreme Court in Madan & Anr. case has held that it is only after the question of apportionment under Section 30 of the LA Act is crystalized, that a reference under Section 18 of LA Act can be legitimately sought. The relevant extract is below:
"11. A cursory glance at the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, extracted above, may suggest that there is some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of compensation to the court. But, a closer scrutiny would indicate that the two sections of the Act operate in entirely different circumstances. While Section 18 applies to situations where the apportionment made in the award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 31/63 when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the court under Section 30 of the Act. The other is to relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right to receive compensation under the award would crystallise after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. It is only thereafter that a reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the court in the reference under Section 30 or in the civil suit, as may be."
(Emphasis supplied).
13. As stated above, in the present Case, the Appropriation Judgment came on02.11.2015 and thereafter, that the Petition under Section 18 of the LA Act, was filed by the Appellant. It is not disputed that the Reference Petition was filed within six weeks of the date of the Apportionment Judgment.
14. Given this position and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan & Anr case, since the Appellant had filed its Application for Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act within the stipulated period after the Appropriation Judgment, the Application could not be rejected on the ground of limitation.
72) In a case titled " Shanti Devi & Ors Vs Union of India, W.P. (C) 10039/2016, decided on 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the petitioner is entitled to file application under Section 18 of L.A. Act within 06 months from the date, when he came to know about the essential contents of award, either actually or constructively and the relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:
"11. A cursory glance at the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, extracted above, may suggest that there is some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of compensation to the court. But, a closer scrutiny would indicate that the two sections of the Act operate in entirely LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 32/63 different circumstances. While Section 18 applies to situations where the apportionment made in the award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the court under Section 30 of the Act. The other is to relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right to receive compensation under the award would crystallise after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. It is only thereafter that a reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the court in the reference under Section 30 or in the civil suit, as may be."
It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in Harish Chandra's case, 1962-1 SCR 676 :(AIR 1961 SC 1500) (supra) is that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now, knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively.
If the award is communicated to a party under S.12 (2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party is present in Court either personally or through his representative when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award."
In the case of Bharat Chand Dilwali v. UOI 1988, Rajdhani Law Reporter 224 as well as a Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in the case of Rsulkhanji Sardar Mahomad Khani v. H.P. Rathod 3rd Spl Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmd and Anr. 1975 (16) Gujrat Law Reporter 911 took the view that mere knowledge of the award or taking part in the proceedings under section 30 of the Act would not be helpful for holding that limitation had commenced from such a date. For this purpose, the date would be when either the award was communicated to the party actually or he had knowledge of essential contents of the award actually or constructively.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 33/63
73) Reliance has also been placed on the following judgments regarding entitlement of the petitioner to file reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act, within six months from the date of knowledge of the essential contents of award, as per proviso (b) of Section 18 of L.A. Act:
(a) Premji Nathu Vs State of Gujarat, AIR 2012, SC 1624.
(b) Bhagwan Dass Vs State of UP, AIR 2010, SC 1532. (C) Bharat Chand Dilwadi Vs Union of India, 1988, Legal Eagle (DEL) 32.
(d) State of Punjab Vs Qaisar Jahan Beigum, 1963, AIR (SC) 1604.
74) As per abovesaid judgments, it is settled proposition of law that the period of six months for filing reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act mentioned in proviso (b) of Section 18 of L.A. Act, will run from the date of knowledge of the petitioner regarding the essential contents of the award. The petitioner is entitled to file reference application within six months from the date of his knowledge regarding the essential contents of award. The knowledge of the petitioner about the essential contents of award may be either actual knowledge or constructive knowledge.
75) The initial burden is upon the petitioner to prove the date, when he came to know about the essential contents of LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 34/63 the award. In the present case, PW-1 has deposed on oath that the petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of the award and no notice under Section 12 (2) of the LA Act was ever served upon him. PW-1 further deposed that the petitioner came to know about the essential contents of the award only after receiving the awarded amount of compensation from this court in case titled UOI vs Harish Virmani and therefore, the present petition is within the period of limitation.
76) PW-1 has further deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that the title of the petitioner gained finality only after receiving the awarded amount of compensation for an area ad measuring 5.066 sq. meters, which was decided by the Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in case titled Union of India Vs Harish Virmani.
77) During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that the petitioner did not receive any notice from the LAC. PW-1 further deposed that the petitioner had filed the present case for enhancement after he received the cheque, when he came to know that the amount is very less. PW-1 further deposed that announcement of the award was not in his knowledge before receiving of cheque. PW-1 further deposed that he does not know, when the land was acquired or that when the award was passed.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 35/63
78) As per judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi passed in a case titled Vaibhav Gupta & Ors Vs UOI (supra), the petitioner has discharged the initial burden by deposing on oath that he was neither present nor represented before collector at the time of passing of award and no notice under Section 12 (2) of Land Acquisition Act was ever served upon him.
79) No evidence has been led by the respondents to prove that the petitioner or his predecessor in interest of acquired property was either present or represented before the collector at the time of passing of the award, so, proviso (a) of Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act is not applicable in the present case.
80) Respondents have also failed to prove that any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever issued to or received by the petitioner or by his predecessor in interest of acquired property. So, the case of the petitioner falls in the second part of Proviso (b) Section 18 of LA Act. As per said proviso, petitioner is entitled to file reference application within six months from the date of knowledge of the essential contents of collector's award.
81) PW-1 has deposed on oath that the petitioner came to know about the essential contents of the award on 07.06.2019 when he received the cheque of compensation amount. The LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 36/63 fact of receiving cheque of compensation amount by the petitioner on 07.06.2019 is not disputed by the respondents. Now, the burden is upon the respondents to prove that the petitioner had knowledge of essential contents of award before 07.06.2019 but no evidence has been led by the respondents to prove that the petitioner had knowledge about the essential contents of award before 07.06.2019. The respondents have also not deposed about sending copy of award to the petitioner or receiving of the same by the petitioner from the collector or from the respondents.
82) Ld counsels for the respondents have argued that the knowledge of the petitioner about knowing the contents of award can be presumed from the date of filing of claim by the petitioner in the reference petition forwarded under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act by the collector to the court.
83) Ld counsel for petitioner has argued that till the title of the petitioner in the acquired land was not upheld by the court, the petitioner was not having any right to file reference petition under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ld counsel for the petitioner has further argued that during the pendency of the reference proceedings under Section 30-31 of LA Act, the petitioner was never delivered the copy of award and essential contents of the award was also not disclosed to the petitioner.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 37/63
84) As per judgments of Hon'ble High court of Delhi passed in cases titled Jagdish Vs UOI (supra) and Shanti Devi & Ors Vs Union of India (supra), if the petitioner participates in proceedings under Section 30-31 of the L.A. Act, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner had the knowledge about the essential contents of the award. So, the abovesaid contentions of ld counsels for respondents have no force. Moreover, only after passing of appropriation judgment in reference petition under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act, the reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act can be legitimately sought by the petitioner and the relevant paras of the said judgments have been mentioned in succeeding paras.
85) In a case titled " Jagdish Vs Union of India & Ors (Supra), the Hon'ble High court of Delhi has held as under:-
12. The Supreme Court in Madan & Anr. case has held that it is only after the question of apportionment under Section 30 of the LA Act is crystalized, that a reference under Section 18 of LA Act can be legitimately sought.
13. As stated above, in the present Case, the Appropriation Judgment came on02.11.2015 and thereafter, that the Petition under Section 18 of the LA Act, was filed by the Appellant. It is not disputed that the Reference Petition was filed within six weeks of the date of the Apportionment Judgment.
14. Given this position and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan & Anr case, since the Appellant had filed its Application for Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act within the stipulated period after the Appropriation Judgment, the Application could not be rejected on the ground of limitation.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 38/63
86) In a case titled " Shanti Devi & Ors Vs Union of India, (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has held as under:
"11. A cursory glance at the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, extracted above, may suggest that there is some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of compensation to the court. But, a closer scrutiny would indicate that the two sections of the Act operate in entirely different circumstances. While Section 18 applies to situations where the apportionment made in the award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the court under Section 30 of the Act. The other is to relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right to receive compensation under the award would crystallise after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. It is only thereafter that a reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the court in the reference under Section 30 or in the civil suit, as may be."
87) In view of the above-said judgments, it is settled proposition of law that until the rights of the parties in the acquired land are not crystalized/upheld by the Court, in reference petition filed under Section 30-31 of LA Act, the petitioner is not required to file reference petition under Section 18 of L.A. Act. The petitioner has the right to file the reference petition under Section 18 L.A Act after the date of decision of reference petition filed under Section 30-31 of the LA Act.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 39/63
88) The reference petition titled "UOI Vs Harish Virmani & Ors forwarded under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act was decided by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2017. Thereafter, the said judgment was further corrected vide order dated 12.01.2018 and 22.01.2018. Sh. Ashok Virmani filed writ petition before Hon'ble High court of Delhi in a case " Ashok Virmani Vs Hon'ble L.G. & Ors"
by challenging the abovesaid orders. Vide order dated 16.02.2018, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi stayed the operation of abovesaid three orders dated ie. 14.12.2017, 12.01.2018 and 22.01.2018 till NDOH i.e. 18.04.2018. On 18.04.2018, the stay order stands extended till further order. On 30.01.2019, the abovesaid petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the stay was vacated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
89) In view of the testimony of PW-1, it is proved that the petitioner came to know about the essential contents of the award on 07.06.2019, when he received the cheque of compensation amount and after seeing the less amount of compensation, the petitioner filed reference application under Section 18 of LA Act before LAC west on 11.07.2019, which is within 42 days of getting knowledge of essential contents of award and is within limitation. Hence issue no. 1 is decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 40/63 90) FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2 & 3 Issue no. 2: What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP.
& Issue no. 3: Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land in question and if so, at what rate? OPP.
91) The issue no. 2 & 3 are inter-connected and have mutual bearings, therefore, they are taken together. The onus to prove issue no. 2 & 3 is upon the petitioner.
92) Ld counsel for the respondent no. 2 has argued that the sub-division of plot no. 69, Najafgrah road was allowed by Resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 as Ex R2W2/A, subject to condition that the land required for widening of Najafgrah road shall be left free of cost as per approval of alignment plan. Ld counsel for the MCD further argued that the MCD is entitled to obtain the acquired land free of cost and petitioner is not entitled to receive any compensation.
93) Ld counsel for the petitioner has argued that MCD has not led any evidence to prove that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was ever approached MCD for sub-division LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 41/63 of Plot no. 69, Najafgrah road. Ld counsel for the petitioner further argued that the MCD has never demanded acquired land from the petitioner or his predecessor in interest, free of cost. Ld counsel for the petitioner further argued that MCD has never filed any claim either before LAC or before this court in reference petition filed under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act for claiming its right to obtain the acquired land free of cost. Ld counsel for the petitioner further argued that this court has already passed judgment in the abovesaid reference petition under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act, in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is declared to be entitled to receive the compensation amount and the petitioner has already received the compensation amount determined by the LAC. Ld counsel for the petitioner further argued that the abovesaid resolution was lapsed as per statement given by R2W1.
94) The witness of MCD, namely, Sh. Dhananjoy Kumar Prabhat/R2W1 deposed during his cross examination that the occupiers of plot no. 69/1A came to MCD for regularization, however, the occupiers of 69/2A to 69/6A never approached the MCD for regularization.
95) R2W1 has admitted during his cross examination that in the written statement dated 16.04.2013 filed by MCD in a case titled "M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI", LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 42/63 the department has admitted that the resolution dated 31.05.1973 has been lapsed.
96) From the testimony of R2W1, it is proved that the resolution dated 31.05.1973 as Ex R2W2/A was lapsed as the occupiers of Plot no. 69/2A to 69/6A never approached the MCD for regularization.
97) In view of the foregoing testimony of R2W1, it is proved that the resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 was lapsed. So, on the basis of the said resolution, the MCD cannot claim any interest in the acquired land. Moreover, MCD has never raised its claim over the acquired property either before LAC or before this court during the pendency of the reference petition under Section 30-31 of LA Act. This court, vide judgment dated 14.12.2017 has already held that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation amount of the acquired land and appeal against said judgment filed before Hon'ble High court of Delhi has also been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 18.04.2018. So, at this stage, the MCD cannot claim any right to obtain the acquired land free of cost.
98) The present reference has been forwarded to the Court on the reference application under Section 18 L.A. Act filed by the petitioner. This reference has been sent to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to receive enhancement of LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 43/63 compensation amount and what is the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notice under Section 4 of L.A. Act. This court has the domain only to decide the above-said issue as to what was the market value of the acquired land and whether the petitioner is entitled to receive enhanced compensation amount. No reference petition of MCD regarding making claim on acquired is pending in this court. The claim of the MCD to receive the acquired land free of cost cannot be considered in the present reference. Reliance is placed upon judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled "P.K. ShreeKantan Vs. P.Sree Kumaran Nair" AIR 2007 SC 516 and case titled "Shyamali Vs Illa Chaudhary" AIR 2007, SC 215.
99) PW-1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that the acquired land was commercial in nature. PW-1 further deposed that Hon'ble High court of Delhi has enhanced the market value of property situated in Mansarover Garden, which has been acquired vide award no. 16/2004-05 from Rs.37,500/- per square meter to 52,000/- per square meter. PW-1 further deposed that the date of notification in the said award was 01.04.2004, which is few months subsequent to the date of notification of present award. PW-1 further deposed that the acquired property of award no. 16 was situated in the same revenue village Basaidara pur, New Delhi and the said property is extremely approximate to the acquired property of present award and is also similar in LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 44/63 location as well as potentiality. PW-1 further deposed that the acquired property of the petitioner is not more than 400 square meter away from the acquired property of Sh. Virender Sood in Mansarovar Garden. Petitioner has relied upon judgment passed in a case titled "Virender Sood Vs UOI", which is exhibited as Ex PW-1/3. Petitioner has further deposed that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the market value as determined by Hon'ble High court of Delhi in a L.A. Appeal no. 913/2008 vide judgment dated 25.02.2019. The copy of said order is exhibited as ExPW-1/4.
100) There is no evidence on record except the bald statement of petitioner that acquired land is situated near to the property of award no. 16. The petitioner is not aware about the property, which was acquired by the Government in a case titled "Virender Sood Vs Union of India. On behalf of UOI, suggestion has been given to the petitioner that the acquired land of case "Virender Sood Vs UOI was situated far away from her property. The acquired land under award no. 16 was a single plot of 557.61 square meter. The said plot was three side open plot and was situated in fully developed area. The permitted use of said lot was residential-cum- commercial. The acquired land under present award is Plot no. 69/6A, total ad measuring 2222.25 square meter and out of this total land of Plot no. 69/6A, the petitioner has share of land ad measuring 5.066 square meter. The acquired land is situated at main road but it is not proved that it is three side LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 45/63 open plot. The permitted use of acquired land is industry. It is also not proved that the acquired land of award no. 16 & acquired land of present award are situated nearby. In view of the abovesaid disparity between the both acquired lands, this court is of the view that the market rate of acquired land of award no. 16 decided in a case titled "Virender Sood Vs Union of India & Anr",cannot be considered for determining the market rate of acquired land of present award as both are not similar situated and have not similar potential value.
101) During arguments, Ld counsel for the petitioner has relied upon copy of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in a case titled M/S Anant Raj Projects Ltd (now known as Tarc Project Ltd) Vs UOI & Anr decided on 26.10.2024 Ex R-2W1/X1 along with certified copy of order dated 24.01.2025 Ex R-2W1/X2 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding dismissing the appeal of DMRC filed against the abovesaid judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi. The abovesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi has attained as appeal against the said judgment filed by the DMRC has been dismissed.
102) By way of above-said judgement passed in a case titled M/S Anant Raj Project Ltd Vs UOI & Anr, the Hon'ble High court of Delhi has determined the market value of the acquired land of award no. 6 and award no. 7 as Rs. 1,30,000/- per square meter, on the date of issuance of LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 46/63 notification issued under Section of the Act. The notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act in a award no. 6 was issued on 13.02.2004 and in award no. 7 on 04.03.2003.
103) Ld counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is also entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 130,000/-per square meter. Ld counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the LAC, West himself relied upon abovesaid both awards while determining the market value of property in question. So, both abovesaid awards can be considered for present award for determining the market value of property of the petitioner.
104) I have perused the copy of award no. 02/DC(W)/2006- 07 in respect of property no. 69/1A to 69/6A, Patel Road, Moti Nagar, 67, 68 (1-3), DLF Industrial Area, Patel Road, 70, Najafgarh Road which is exhibited as Ex R-1. As per this award, the properties have been acquired for construction of grade/flyover at Najafgarh road and patel road intersection near Moti Nagar.
105) In the abovesaid award, the LAC, West has mentioned that the properties under acquisition are pertaining to industrial land situated on Patel road and Najafgarh road. The LAC, West has considered the sale deed bearing registration no. 15875 dated 21.11.2022 of area 1710 sq. meter situated at 3, Najafgarh road, New Delhi. As per this sale deed, the sale LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 47/63 price of the land is Rs.20175/- per square meter and the status of the property was industrial.
106) The LAC, West has also considered the two awards of nearby area for determining the market value of the acquired land and the details of said awards are as follows:
A. Award no. 6/DCW/04-05 situated at Patel Nagar and the status of land is Industrial and average rate of acquired property per square meter is Rs. 19660/-.
B. Award no. 7/DCW/04-05 situated at Patel Nagar and the status of land is Industrial and average rate of acquired property per square meter is Rs. 19660/-.
107) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has given following guidelines while determining the market value of the acquired land in a case titled "Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition officer, Poona and another:
(1) A reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 48/63 Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under sec. 4 ) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account.
(Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land).
(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 49/63 (l0) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
1.smallness of size. 1.smallness of size.
2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the
interior at
a distances from the
Road.
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land
with very small
frontage compared to
death.
4. nearness to developed 4. lower level
area. requiring the
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 50/63
depressed portion to
be filled up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from
developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land 6. some special
under acquistion.
disadvantageous
factor which would
deter a purchaser.
7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 51/63 (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. The problem which has surfaced in the present appeals needs to be recapitulated. The question is whether in scaling down the total compensation payable to the appellant from Rs.1,14,517 to Rs.63,846, the High Court has violated any principle of valuation or adopted any faulty methodology.
108) In a case titled Union of India & Anr Vs Ram Phal & Anr, 2003 SCC 10 167, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as follows:
"That award had not been produced before the High Court in the case in hand nor was it before the Reference Court also; though an application for taking that as additional evidence has been filed in this Court. Contemporaneous award no doubt is a useful guide for every court to determine the market value but that award must be taken into evidence in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to the other side for rebutting the same and that had not been done in the case in hand. It is not possible to look into the additional evidence for coming to any conclusion as to whether the market value as determined by the High Court is sustainable or not. Leaving aside the so-called award, if we examine the impugned judgment of the High Court, we have no other evidence other than Exhibit A-1 which was a sale transaction of 10-9-1981 in respect of one bigha of land and the price therein was Rs 30,000 per bigha. It has been held in a catena of decisions of this Court that the sale price in respect of a small bit of transaction would not be the determinative factor for deciding the market value of a vast stretch of land. As has been stated earlier, the extent of land acquired in the case in hand i.e 5484 bighas. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court has wholly erred in relying upon Exhibit A-1 in determining the market value of the acquired land extending to 5484 bighas. Since the onus is on the claimant to lead evidence on the LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 52/63 determination of market value and if Exhibit A-1 is taken out of consideration, then there is no residue of evidence on which the determination made by the High Court enhancing the compensation awarded by the Reference Court could be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and affirm the market value as determined by the Reference Court. These appeals are allowed. Cross-appeals filed by the claimants are dismissed.
109) In a case titled Jas Rath Vs Union of India, 2006 AD DEL6, 284, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"54. We have discussed in great detail that Exh. X and Exh. X-1 even read in conjunction with Resolution dated 24th December, 1980 are relevant factors for determining the potential, location and as a guiding factor to the value of the surrounding land to the acquired land. This by itself cannot be treated to be a determinative factor for awarding compensation to the claimants. In fact for varied reasons, we would decline to fix compensation on the basis of this brochure. Firstly, the claimants have failed to lead any supporting evidence in that behalf. No witness has come and stated that the acquired land is identically situated and has the same facilities like the land covered under Exh. X. Further there is no direct evidence of comparable lands and/or the land having identical potential to the land covered under the scheme. Onus of this kind was certainly upon the claimants and they have failed to discharge their onus in this regard."
110) It is well settled legal position that the petitioner/claimant stands in the position of petitioner. Burden of prove is always on the petitioner to prove by leading cogent and reliable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensation than what is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is only an offer. It is the duty LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 53/63 of the court to evaluate the evidence and assess the market the value of the land.
111) It is settled law that reference under section 18 of L.A. Act sent to the court is not an appeal against the award and the court has to re-determine the market value of acquired land as per evidence led by the parties. The material considered by LAC for passing award cannot be considered unless such material is produced in evidence and has been proved in accordance with law. The petitioner has not mentioned anything about award no. 6 and award no. 7 in his reference application. The abovesaid awards have also not been tendered in evidence by the petitioner. While tendering his affidavit in evidence Ex PW-1/A, the petitioner has not relied upon above awards in his evidence. The petitioner has not deposed in his evidence as to how the land of award no. 6 and 7 is comparable with acquired land of petitioner. The petitioner has not deposed about the nature, situation and potentiality of acquired land of petitioner, similar to acquired land of award no. 6 & 7. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove that acquired land of award no. 6 & 7 is similarly situated and similar in potential value as of acquired land of present award. The abovesaid judgment and order Ex R2W1/X1 and Ex R2W1/X2 have been put to R2W1 during cross examination and R2W1 deposed that he is not aware of said judgment and order as MCD was not a party in the said cases. In view of foregoing discussion, it is held that the LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 54/63 market value of acquired land of award no. 6 & 7 cannot be considered for determining the market value of acquired land of present award.
112) The petitioner has also relied upon judgment of this court passed in a case titled "M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI" in respect of another property i.e. 69/6A, ad measuring 2083.37 square meter acquired under the present award and in which, the court determined the market value of the land as Rs. 31733.59/- per square meter. The Copy of said judgment is exhibited as ExPW-1/5.
113) Ld. counsels for petitioner have argued that the Ld Predecessor of this court has passed Judgement in a case titled "M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI" and this court has also passed judgements in four reference petitions titled " Savita Sabharwal Vs UOI", "Anita Sabharwal Vs UOI" and "Narender Kumar Doomra Vs UOI"
on 05.06.2025 and "Santosh Suri Vs UOI & Anr on 25.08.2025, in respect of same plot i.e. 69/6A, ad measuring 2222.25 square meter, acquired under the present award and in which, the court determined the market value of the acquired land of plot no. 69/6A as Rs.31733.59/- per square meter.
114) Ld. Predecessor of this court has already decided reference petition forwarded under Section 18 of L.A. Act, in LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 55/63 respect of same property i.e. Plot no. 69/6A ad measuring 2083.37, acquired by Government under the same award of present reference petition by way of same notification and for the same purpose. The title of said case is "M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI & Anr. Bearing LAC no. 05/2013 (old) and new number 66/2016, decided on 11.04.2022. In the abovesaid case, Ld Predecessor of this court determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.
31733.59/- per square meter by relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in a case titled "Nand Ram & Ors Vs The State of Haryana, JT 1988 JT4 260.
115) I have perused the case files of abovesaid four cases and these cases have been decided by this court, vide judgements dated 25.08.2025 and 05.06.2025 respectively, on the basis of compensation enhanced by Ld Predecessor of this Court in a case titled M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co Vs UOI & Anr bearing LAC no. 05/2013 (old) and New Number 66/2016, decided on 11.04.2022.
116) The abovesaid reference petitions have already been decided, in respect of same property i.e. Plot no. 69/6A ad measuring 2222.25 square meter acquired by Government under the same award of present reference petition and for the same purpose.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 56/63
117) In the present reference, the land ad measuring 5.066 square meter of petitioner in plot no. 69/6A at Patel road, Moti Nagar is in question. The total acquired land of plot no. 69/6A is 2222.25 square meter and market rate of other portion of same land has already been determined by this court, vide judgements given in following reference cases:
A. LAC no. 15/2023 titled as "Savita Sabharwal Vs UOI" decided on 05.06.2025.
B. LAC no. 21/2023 titled as "Anita Sabharwal Vs UOI" decided on 05.06.2025.
C. LAC no. 13/23 titled as "Narender Kumar Doomra Vs UOI" decided on 05.06.2025.
D. LAC no. 10/2023 titled as "Santosh Suri Vs UOI & Anr, decided on 25.08.2025.
118) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in a case titled Bed Ram Vs UOI & Anr L.A. APP. 59/2007 & CM APPL.13373/2016, decided on 26.09.2025 has held as follows:
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 57/63 "76 Section 28 A of the L.A. Act provides that where in an award the court allows compensation to an applicant in respect of the acquired land, all persons whose land had been similarly acquired would be awarded, the same compensation, even if they had not applied for the same. It is further held that once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined, the benefit of such rate must be given to all persons whose land was acquired under the same Notification. Thus, all persons whose land has been similarly acquired in these four villages of Kilokari, Khizrabad, Nangli Razarpur and Garhi Mendu shall also be entitled to the enhanced compensation".
119) In the present reference, the land ad measuring 5.066 square meter of petitioner in plot no. 69/6A at Patel road, Moti Nagar is in question. The total acquired land of plot no. 69/6A is 2222.25 square meter. The court has already determined the market value of the other portions of land of property of plot no. 69/6A at Patel road, Moti Nagar as Rs. 31,733.59/- per square meter in the abovesaid judgments passed in the reference petitions mentioned in para no. 115 and 117. The acquired land of present reference and acquired land of abovesaid cases are similar and have similar potential value being part of same plot no. 69/6A and have been acquired under same award by way of same notification. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to receive the same compensation of his land, which has been determined by the court, in the abovesaid cases.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 58/63
120) Reliance is also placed on the following judgments, in which, it is held that similar compensation be given to the parties, whose similar situated and having similar potential value lands have been acquired under the same award for the same purpose:
1. Nand Ram Vs State of Haryana 1988 JT4 260.
2. Raj Dat & ors Vs UOI & Anr, 2007 AD DEL9 749.
3. Shri Rattan Lal & Ors Vs Union of India 2001, 1LR DEL 7
241.
4. Harprat & Others Vs Union of India & Ors 2002 1LR DEL 10 312.
5. Nafe singh (deceased) Lrs etc. Vs Union of India 2001, SCC online DEL 277.
6. K.H. Parashiva Murthy Vs Special Land Acquisition, MFA-CROB 128/2012 decided on 03.02.2021 by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court.
121) In view of the foregoing discussions and facts, the market value of the acquired land of present reference is determined as Rs.31,733.59/- per square meter.
1. Nand Ram Vs State of Haryana 1988 JT4 260.
2. Raj Dat & ors Vs UOI & Anr, 2007 AD DEL9 749.
3. Shri Rattan Lal & Ors Vs Union of India 2001, 1LR DEL 7
241.
4. Harprat & Others Vs Union of India & Ors 2002 1LR DEL 10 312.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 59/63
5. Nafe singh (deceased) Lrs etc. Vs Union of India 2001, SCC online DEL 277.
6. K.H. Parashiva Murthy Vs Special Land Acquisition, MFA-CROB 128/2012 decided on 03.02.2021 by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court.
122) Petitioner is already held entitled to receive compensation of the acquired land ad measuring 5.066 square meter by the court vide judgment dated 14.12.2017 passed in reference petition under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act, titled "Union of India Vs Harish Virmani & Ors, LAC no. 10A/10/07, New number 03/2016.
123) In view of the aboveaid facts and observations, it is held that the petitioner is held entitled to receive compensation amount Rs. 31,733.59/- per square meter instead of Rs. 20900/- per square meter as determined by LAC, West, in respect of his acquired land ad measuring 5.066 square meters.
124) In view of foregoing discussions, issue no. 1 to 4 are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF
125) The petitioner has also claimed in the petition that market value of structure of the petitioner was not less than LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 60/63 Rs.30 lakhs on the date of notification and petitioner is also entitled for compensation for loss of earning to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs along with enhancement relief of market value of his acquired land.
126) In the award, the LAC, West has assessed the value of the structure of the acquired land of M/S Ashdeep Industries Rs. 38373/-. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove that the value of structure of M/S Ashdeep Industries existing in the acquired property was more than Rs. 38373/-. There is no evidence on record regarding any loss of earning suffered by the petitioner due to acquisition of his land by the Government. Accordingly, it is held that petitioner is entitled his share in the structure amount, as per judgment dated 14.12.2017 passed in reference petition titled "Union of India Vs Harish Virman and others" (Supra) and is not entitled for further enhancement in the structure value and is also not entitled to receive any amount for loss of earning.
127) In view of foregoing discussions as well as findings on issues specifically on issue no 1 and 2, the present petition stands partly allowed and following reliefs have been given to the petitioner.
A) The petitioner is entitled to receive enhanced compensation @ Rs. 10833.59 square meter over and above the compensation determined by LAC, LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 61/63 West i.e. Rs.20,900/- in respect of acquired land 5.066 square meter.
B) The petitioner is entitled to receive 30% solatium of the market value of acquired land, as per Section 23 (2) of L.A. Act, 1894.
C) The petitioner is also entitled to receive additional amount @ 12% per annum on the market Value of acquired land, for the period, specified in Section 23 (1A) of L.A. Act 1894.
(d) The petitioner is further entitled for interest on the aggregate of market value of acquired land, solatium and additional amount, for the period between the date of taking possession of acquired land of the petitioner to the date of payment/deposit at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period.
F). The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioner be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. Parties to bear their own costs.
LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 62/63
128) Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Copy of the judgement and decree sheet be sent to Land Acquisition collector (west) for intimation and compliance.
129) File be consigned to record room after due compliance Announced in the open court on 13.10.2025 (SHIV KUMAR) Digitally signed by DJ-02/West/THC/DELHI SHIV KUMAR SHIV Date:
KUMAR 2025.10.13 17:46:19 +0530 LAC No. 12-2023 Tilak Raj Dua Vs UOI & Anr. 63/63