Delhi District Court
Bhupinder Singh vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH SHIV KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
LAC No.18/2023
CNR NO.DLWT010043622023
Name of Village: Property No. 69/6A at Patel Road/ Najafgarh
Road, Moti Nagar.
Area of Acquired land of the petitioner: 24.457 sq meter.
Award No.: 02/DC (W)/2006-07 dated 30.08.2006
1. Sh. Bhupinder Singh.
Partner of M/s Mec Engineering Corporation
R/o B-196, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi-15.
2. Smt. Sunita Goel (now deceased)
Partner of M/s Mec Engineering Corporation
Through LR.
Sh. Chander Mohan Goel
R/o B-3/197, Third Floor,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063.
.... Petitioner
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Land Acquisition Collector (District West)
Plot no. 3, Shivaji Place, Near West Gate Mall,
Raja Garden, New Delhi-110027.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 1/65
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
4th Floor, Dr. SDM Civic Centre,
Minto Road, Delhi
.....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 23.05.2023
Date of conclusion of arguments : 09.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.04.2026
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.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 2/65
2) Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') passed award no. 02/DC (W)/2006-2007 dated 30.08.2006 (Ex. R-1) 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.
3) Vide order dated 23.05.2023, 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 16.09.2023, LAC, West filed reply along with 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. 14 (I) 29.70 Sq. meter (I) 75% of total amount of M/s MEC compensation.
Engineering (ii) 21.82 Sq. Meter (ii) 10% of LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 3/65 Corporation total amount of compensation along with proportionate interest along with compensation pertaining to structures which has been assessed in the name of IP no.
14.6) As per statement under Section 19 of L.A. Act, filed by LAC, West, the acquired area in respect of M/s MEC Engineering Corporation through its partners Sh. Bhupinder Singh and Smt Sunita Goel comes to area measuring 29.70 sq meter and area measuring 21.82 sq. meter and the total area pertains to petitioners comes to area measuring 24.457 sq. meter and date of possession is 25.10.2005.
7) The petitioner has admitted in their application that their acquired land, in the present reference is 24.457 square meter.
8) In the present case, petitioner no. 2/Smt Sunita Goel had expired during trial and on 27.03.2025, the application under order XXII rule 3 CPC for impleading the legal heirs of petitioner no. 2 has been allowed and Sh. Chander Mohan Goel/husband of the petitioner no. 2 is impleaded as party in the present case. Moreover, Sh. Rahul Goel/son of petitioner LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 4/65 no. 2 and Sh. Divya Upadhyay/daughter of petitioner no. 2 have given their joint statement on 03.07.2025 in which they stated that they do not want any share in the enhanced compensation of their mother/Smt Sunita Goel, if any, passed in future, in respect of the land acquired in the present award. They further stated that the enhanced compensation, if awarded, in respect of their share be given to their father/Sh. Chander Mohan Goel.
9) The petitioners have filed the present reference application under Section 18 of said Act against the findings and determination of the market value of the land/property made by Collector.
10) In brief, the facts averred in the reference application is that petitioners are 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 MEC Engineering Corporation.
11) It is further stated that the petitioners were interested persons in the reference petition filed under section 30-31 of the Act tilted as Union of India Vs Harish Virmani and the petitioners have received the awarded amount of compensation under protest only on 06.06.2019.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 5/65
12) It is further averred in the petition that the petitioners came to know about the essential contents of the award only after receiving the awarded amount of compensation under protest i.e. on 06.06.2019 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.
13) The petitioners have not accepted 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 petitioners.
b) Because the LAC has failed to appreciate that the commercial land of the petitioners was situated in the hub of commercial activity and there were factories and commercial establishment surrounding the property of the petitioner. Rather the petitioners were 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 MEC Engineering Corporation.
c) Because the property of the petitioners were having all the facilities and amenities such as LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 6/65 commercial power connection, license to run a factory, registrations from the competent authorities etc.
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 petitioners was situated on the main Najafgarh Road and was capable of commercial activities only.
f) Because the value of the land alone if 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 petitioners claim the same.
g) Because the market value in respect of the structures of the petitioners were not less than Rs. 30 lakhs as on the date of notification under LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 7/65 section 4 of the Act and petitioner claims the same.
h) Because the petitioners have 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 petitioners estimate their loss of earning to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs and he claims the same. The petitioners have 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.
14) The respondent no. 1/Union of India has filed reply on 16.09.2023, in compliance of order dated 23.05.2023. It is averred in the reply that the petitioners had filed the reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act on 11.07.2019, vide Diary no. 750/LAC(W) and the same was marked to Kanungo/LA for further process.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 8/65
15) It is further averred in the reply that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had given the direction in similar matter to 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.
16) 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.
17) It is further averred in Para F of reply that Para no. 1 to 6 as stated by the petitioners in his/her reference petition 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.
18) 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 9/65 that are effected by such acquisition, where as per the the petition, the petitioners are only interested persons.
19) It is further contended that the petitioners have 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.
20) Respondent no.2 also highlighted about various previous aspects related to land in question. It is further contended that the petitioners have 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.
21) 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 10/65 and also the size of land under acquisition and size of land of sale deed, which was produced in evidence, the market value has been assessed at Rs. 20,900/- per square meter for the industrial land under acquisition.
22) It is further contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is hopelessly time barred.
23) 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.
24) On merits, most of the contents of the petition has been denied as wrong and it is claimed that the petitioners are not entitled for further enhancement in compensation.
25) Petitioners have filed replication to the written statement/ revised memorandum filed on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI. Petitioners have admitted the revised memorandum filed by UOI to the extent that petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation for an area ad measuring 24.457 square meters. The rest of contents of revised memorandum are denied by the petitioners.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 11/65 ISSUES
26) Vide order dated 27.04.2024. the following issues have been framed:-
1. What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land in question and if so, at what rate? OPP.
3. Whether present reference u/s 18 L.A. Act is barred by limitation? OPR-2
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standie to file the present suit? OPR-2.
5. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-2.
6. Relief.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
27) On 17.09.2025, Sh. Kamal/Summoned witness has appeared in the witness as PW-1 and he brought the summoned files bearing no. LAC no. 66/2026, titled M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co/ & Ors Vs UOI & NDMC LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 12/65 and LAC no. 11/2023 titled Kamal Vohra Vs UOI & Anr. PW- 1 has compared the photocopies/certified copies of the documents on record with the record brought by him and found is correct. The photocopies of the documents are as under:
1. Ex PW-1/1 (colly): Certified copy of the valuation report of the built up structures on Patel Road dated 29.08.2005.
2. Ex PW-1/2: certified copy of Nazir report of case titled "UOI Vs Harish Virmani" bearing LAC no. 3/2016 showing the acquired area of the petitioner.
3. Ex PW-1/3 (colly): Certified copy of Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Virender Sood Vs UOI bearing LAC no.
117/05.
4. Ex PW-1/4: Certified copy of amended judgment dated 11.04.2022 passed by Sh. Umed Singh Grewal, Ld ADJ-02, West, THC, Delhi.
5. Ex PW-1/5: Certified copy of letter dated 30.08.2006.
6. Ex PW-1/6: Certified copy of statement of Sh. Surinder Yadav dated 14.11.2024.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 13/65
7. Ex PW-1/7 (colly): certified copy of SLP order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.01.2025 and certified copy of judgment dated 29.10.2024 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled "M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd (now known as Tarc Project Ltd) Vs UoI & Anr).PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld counsels for the UOI and MCD.
28) The petitioner no. 1, in order to prove his case, examined himself and appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A and also rely upon the documents Ex PW-1/1 to Ex PW-1/7, which were already exhibited in the testimony of PW-1.
29) During cross examination, PW-2 has deposed that he has already submitted the documents which can show that he was one of the partners of the petitioner firm and the name of the second partner is Smt Sunita Goel, the names of the legal heirs of the second partners are already on record. PW-2 further deposed that the address of M/s MEC Engineering Corporation was operating at address 69/6A, Najafgarh road, New Delhi. PW-2 further deposed that he was not aware whether any document has been filed by him in the present matter, which show the commercial activity was being run in the premises and he, voluntarily, deposed that the premises was demolished in the year around 2006. PW-2 further deposed that he was not aware whether the acquired area was approved commercial area or not.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 14/65
30) PW-2 further deposed that he had never received any notice under L.A. Act at the time of announcement of the award and even prior to it. PW-2 further deposed that he was not aware about the property, which was involved in the matter "virender Sood Vs UOI". PW-2 further deposed that he came to know about the award at the time of receiving the compensation cheques. PW-2 further deposed that two cheques received by him and the other partner, namely, Smt Sunita Goel, both cheques dated 31.05.2019.
31) Following questions have been asked from PW-2, in his cross examination:
Q How did the LAC/officials come to know about making the cheque in your name?
Ans My lawyer must have submitted the documents for preparation of the cheque. Q On what date, did you hand over these documents to your lawyer?
Ans I do not remember the exact date but it must have been in the year 2019.
32) PW-2 further deposed that he was the party in the case titled as "Union of India Vs Harish Virmani" and he, voluntarily, deposed that he was not aware about what I was going to get as compensation and how much area was under
his possession. PW-2 further deposed that he came to know LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 15/65 about his compensation only after he received his cheque. PW-2 further deposed that the case titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani was for receiving the awarded amount of compensation and M/s Mec Engineering Corporation was a party in that case. PW-2 further deposed that the case titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani was mutually settled between the parties. He further deposed that he does not remember whether he had made any statement in the case titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani.
33) PW-2 further deposed that he has not seen the title documents of M/s Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to the acquired property. PW-2 further deposed that he did not know whether there was any condition in the sale deed in favour of Jiwan Lal Virmani that if the land is ever required for road widening the same would be handed over the Municipal Authorities free of cost. PW-2 further deposed that he was not aware whether there was any condition in the lease deed of Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. that some land is to be kept vacant, to be handed over to the MCD for road widening purpose.
PW-2 further deposed that he was not aware about any restriction on sub-division of property bearing no. 69. PW2 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 and he, voluntarily, deposed that both are situated on Najafgarh Road.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 16/65 EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1
34) No witness has been examined on behalf of the respondent no. 1.
35) Ld. Counsel for UOI has tendered the copy of Award No. 02/DC(W)/2006-07 as Ex. R-1 and evidence on behalf of respondent no. 1/ UOI has been closed on 12.03.2026 by recording submissions of Ld counsel for UOI.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2
36) Respondent no.2/MCD has examined Sh. Dhananjoy Kumar Prabhat as R2W1 and he tendered in evidence his 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.
37) During cross examination, R2W1 has admitted that he is authorized to file the affidavit in evidence and the written statement on behalf of MCD by virtue of holding the post of LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 17/65 A.O. in Land & Estate Department and further admitted that he was conversant with the facts of the case as borne out from record. R2W1 replied that it is matter of record that in the present case, compensation for the acquired land was determined by the office of the Land Acquisition Collector. R2W1 also replied that it is matter of record that in his evidence affidavit, he has stated, the compensation has been assessed on the basis of commercial circle rate prevailing at the time of Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act.
38) R2W1 admitted that the written statement and evidence by way of affidavit are filed in the court after vetting by the Law Department of Land & Estate, MCD. R2W1 has deposed that he does not know as to whether the sale deed in favour of Sh. Jeevan Lal Virmani was issued by DDA or MCD or any other authority and he, voluntarily, deposed that it was private land. R2W1 further deposed that he does not have any knowledge regarding the sale deed Mark B and he further deposed that he read the resolution Mark A. R2W1 replied that it is matter of record that as per resolution Mark A, the land belonged to D.I.T, which is now DDA.
39) R2W1 admitted that plot no. 69, Najafgarh road was a corner plot (situated at the corner of Najafgarh road, Patel road and Rama road) and the plot at 69/6A is situated at intersection of Patel Road and Rama Road. R2W1 replied that he does not recall whether the acquired land bearing plot LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 18/65 no. 69/6A is situated at Najafgarh road or not and he, voluntarily, deposed that he will have to check.
40) R2W1 stated that there is no document on record showing service of notice showing service of notice under Section 12 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 upon the petitioner.
41) R2W1 further deposed that there is no document on record showing the permission of DDA for passing the resolution Mark A and he, voluntarily, deposed that as per his understanding, no such permission is required from DDA. R2W1 further replied that it is matter of record that the property bearing no. 67, DLF Industrial Area is also acquired in the present award.
42) R2W1 has 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 also does not know if any party had filed any appeal. R2W1 replied that he is not aware the order dated 30.01.2019 titled " Shri Ashok Virmani Vs Lieutenant Governor & Anr", WPC 1453/2018 as the MCD is not the party in the present case and further replied that he has no knowledge if the MCD has the knowledge of the abovesaid order.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 19/65
43) 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 replied that he does not know that MCD had prepared a modified valuation report in respect of the award as he was not involved in any such process. R2W1 admitted that property no. 69/6A patel road, which was under
Acquisition of the said award is on main road. R2W1 also admitted that the market value has been assessed at 20900 per square meter for industrial land under acquisition of the said award. R2W1 replied that he has the knowledge of the document Ex.RW2/C, however, the assessment mentioned in the document has been carried out by Government of India.
44) R2W1 further replied that the main patel road is not mentioned in document Ex RW-2/C and he, voluntarily, deposed that the document mentions the area "Moti Nagar" at serial no. 12 under Zone 3. R2W1 further replied that it is matter of record that document Ex RW-2/C contains conversion rates.
45) R2WI further deposed that he could not say whether the Ex. Engineer MCD has prepared the modified valuation report. R2W1 admitted that as per the award in question and the award no. 6/DCW/04-05 and award no. 7/DCW/04-05 of the same locality and same potential. R2W1 replied that it is LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 20/65 matter of record that the rate of compensation in award no.
6/DCW/04-05 and award no. 7/DCW/04-05 is Rs.19,960/- per sq. metr.
46) R2W1 further deposed that he has not filed any document on record to show that the reference filed by the petitioner is time barred. R2W1 replied that it is a matter of record that the 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.
47) R2W1 deposed that he was 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. 31,733.59/- in respect of award in question and 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 could not say whether the decision in aforesaid Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI & Anr., was on the basis of the case titled M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. Vs Land & Building Department & Anr. Dated 04.05.2016. 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 21/65 dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 24.01.2025.
48) After showing the copy of 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 from R2W1 that whether he is aware about this judgment. R2W1 stated that "I am not aware as MCD was not a party in the said case".
49) R2W1 replied that he has not seen the original Resolution dated 31.05.1973. R2W1 admitted that the present award was never challenged by the MCD. R2W1 further deposed that the commercial rates Ex.RW2/C are based on 100 FAR while calculation of the same. R2W1 admitted that the PWD, GNCTD had carried out the valuation report stating that the acquired properties were commercial in nature. R2W1 replied that it is matter of record that the valuation of the structures carried out by the public works department of the GNCT of Delhi is correct and the same is accepted by the respondents. R2W1 admitted that the acquired property was commercial in nature. R2W1 replied that he has no knowledge about the letter dated 30.08.2006,Ex R-2W-1/X3, it is stated that your legal department as well as L&E Department, MCD given NOC regarding the current award.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 22/65
50) R2W1 deposed that he could not produce the original Resolution Mark A but the original is with the MCD and can be produced by the concerned official. R2W1 admitted that if any resolution/letter passes then it is mandatory the signatures of the officer.
51) R2W1 admitted that the resolution is already lapsed and he, voluntarily, deposed that as the beneficiaries parties under the resolution had not complied with the conditions of the resolution.
52) R2W1 replied that he has not filed any document, which is signed by the petitioner, regarding resolution Mark A. R2W1 further replied that there is no document to show that the petitioner had approached MCD regarding Sub- division of 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, Industrial Area Delhi and he voluntarily deposed that the plot no. 69 was requested to be sub-divided by Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani and he had approached the MCD regarding the same.
53) R2W1 replied that he cannot point out any document on the judicial record bearing the signatures of Jiwan Lal Virmani showing that he had applied for sub-division of plot no. 69, Najafgarh road, however, the relevant record is maintained by the Town Planning Department,MCD and can be summoned for the same.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 23/65
54) R2W1 further deposed that only Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani had approached the MCD regarding the same. R2W1 further deposed that he could not say exactly when he had approached, however, the resolution, in this regard, is of 31.05.1973. I have no knowledge regarding the sale of above said property by Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani prior to 1973. R2W1 admitted that there is a delay on the part of the LAC in forwarding the petition of the petitioner to this Hon'ble Court.
55) R2W1 admitted that the resolution number 1294 dated 31.05.1973 i.e. Mark A is kept in the custody of Municipal Secretary office, Civic centre. It is correct that the said resolution was produced before this court in a case bearing LAC no. 15/2023 titled "Savita Sabharwal Vs UOI" by the Section officer, Municipal Secretary office, Civic centre. In cross examination, the certified copy of testimony of S.B. Sharma, Section officer, Municipal Secretary office, Civic centre has been exhibited as Ex RW-2W1/Y-1 and the certified copy of Resolution 1294 dated 31.05.1973 filed in LAC no. 15/2023 titled "Savita Sabharwal Vs UOI" has been exhibited as Ex RW-2W1/Y-2.
56) R2W1 deposed that MCD can pass resolutions pertaining to properties under its jurisdiction and also pertaining to properties transferred from DDA and L&DO to MCD.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 24/65
57) R2W1 admitted that the rates of residential and commercial properties are different. R2W1 also admitted that the rate of commercial properties are 3 times the rates of residential properties. R2W1 deposed that he does not know whether the rates of commercial and industrial properties are the same or not. R2W1 replied that he cannot say whether the petitioner has received the compensation cheque under Section 30-31 of LA Act from the court or from LAC.
58) Vide separate statement of ld. counsel for the MCD, evidence on behalf of MCD stands closed on 12.03.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
59) Arguments heard from ld counsels for the parties. I have also perused the written submissions filed by Ld counsel for the MCD. 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. 3Issue no.3 : Whether present reference u/s 18 L.A. Act is barred by limitation? OPR-2
60) The onus to prove issue no. 3 is upon the respondent no. 2. In order to prove the said issue, the respondent no. 2 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 25/65 has examined one witness i.e. Sh. Dhananjoy Kumar Prabhat/R2W1.
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 petitioners 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 petitioners have filed objections before LAC, West, so, the petitioners cannot say that they were not having knowledge of the award of the present reference. They further argued that the petitioners have 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 petitioners 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 petitioners has argued that the petitioners were not aware about the essential contents of the award. Ld counsel further argued that the petitioners did not know the basis on which market value of the property was ascertained by the LAC, West. Ld counsel further argued that the petitioners came to know about the essential contents of LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 26/65 the award only on 06.06.2019, when the petitioners finally managed to receive the awarded compensation amount under protest and at that time, the petitioners 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 petitioners filed an application under Section 18 of L.A. Act before LAC, West. So, the present petition is within limitation.
64) Petitioner/PW-2 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-2 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 24.457 sq. meters, which was decided by the Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in a case titled Union of India Vs Harish Virmani etc. During cross examination, PW-
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 27/65 2 deposed that he had never received any notice from the LAC.
66) 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 vide Diary no. 750/LAC (W) 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/2023/428 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.
67) As per proviso (a) of Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, the petitioner is required to file application under 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.
68) 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 28/65 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 expired.
69) Ld counsel for respondent no. 2 has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High court given in a case titled" Sambhu Nath Kshetry V. State of WB, 2001 SCC online Cal 449 and also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court given in a case titled " Ramesh V. Union of India 2020 SCC Online Mad 2741 regarding the fact that the pendency of reference petition under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act is immaterial for extending the period of limitation for filing reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act.
70) The abovesaid judgments along with other judgments relied upon by respondent no. 2 in the written submissions are distinguished on facts and not fully applicable to the present case. In the first judgment passed by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the award was passed by the LAC, in favour of all the parties being co-owners but their amount of share was in dispute and it was not ascertained as to which party entitled to how much compensation amount. But, in the present case, the petitioner was not recorded owner of acquired land and no award was passed by LAC, West, in favour of petitioner or his firm. No notice was ever issued to the petitioner by the LAC, West before or after passing the award. The right and LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 29/65 title of petitioner to receive any compensation amount of the present award, had not been established, at the time of passing of award. So, the petitioner had no right and occasion to file application under Section 18 of LA Act.
71) In the second judgment, which is passed by Hon'ble Madras court, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has dealt with a case where the reference petition filed by the appellant under Section 18 of L.A. Act, was rejected by the LAC on 23.01.2017. The proceedings of reference petition filed under Section 30 of L.A. Act was also closed on 21.09.2012. Thereafter, when the application under Section 18 of L.A. Act of the neighbour of appellant was allowed by the Court, on 29.03.2016, the appellant filed recall application for reopening the proceedings under section 30 of L.A. Act on 26.10.2016 and also gave fresh representation under Section 18 of L.A. Act on 07.11.2016. The appellant had also written letter dated 01.09.2009 to Sub-Collector for seeking compensation amount and the Hon'ble High Court has held that the appellant had knowledge about the contents of the award on 01.09.2009. The facts of present case are totally different and earlier knowledge of petitioner about the contents of award has not been proved before receiving of compensation amount by way of cheque on 12.07.2019 and no notice was ever issued to the petitioner before or after the pronouncement of award by the LAC, West. The petitioner has not filed any reference application under Section 18 of LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 30/65 LA Act except the present one and no earlier reference application under Section 18 of LA Act of the petitioner has been rejected.
72) There are direct judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the fact that reference petition under Section 18 of L.A. Act can be legitimately filed by the petitioner, only after passing of judgment, in reference petition under Section 30 of L.A. Act and the said judgements of Hon'ble High court of Delhi are binding on this court and are fully applicable to the fact of this case and has been discussed in the succeeding paras.
73) In a case 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 petition 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 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 31/65 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 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 32/65 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.
74) 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 petition 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 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 33/65 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.
75) 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 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 34/65 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.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 35/65
76) Reliance is also 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.
77) 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 petitioners are entitled to file reference application within six months from the date of his knowledge regarding the essential contents of award. The knowledge of the petitioners about the essential contents of award may be either actual knowledge or constructive knowledge.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 36/65
78) The initial burden is upon the petitioners to prove the date, when he came to know about the essential contents of the award. In the present case, PW-2 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-2 further deposed that the petitioners 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.
79) PW-2 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 24.457sq. 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.
80) 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 representative 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.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 37/65
81) No evidence has been led by the respondents to prove that the petitioners or any of the partners of M/S MEC Engineering Corporation 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.
82) Respondents have also failed to prove that any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever issued to or received by the petitioners or any of the directors of M/S MEC Engineering Corporation. So, the case of the petitioners 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.
83) PW-2 has deposed on oath that the petitioners came to know about the essential contents of the award on 06.06.2019 when he received the cheque of compensation amount. The fact of receiving cheque of compensation amount by the petitioners on 06.06.2019 is not disputed by the respondents.
Now, the burden is upon the respondents to prove that the petitioners had knowledge of essential contents of award before 06.06.2019 but no evidence has been led by the respondents to prove that the petitioners or any of the directors of M/S MEC Engineering Corporation had knowledge about the essential contents of award before LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 38/65 06.06.2019. The respondents have also not deposed about sending copy of award to the petitioners or any of the directors of M/S MEC Engineering Corporation receiving of the same by the petitioners or any of the directors of M/S MEC Engineering Corporation from the collector or from the respondents.
84) Ld counsel for the respondents have argued that the knowledge of the petitioners about knowing the contents of award can be presumed from the date of filing of claim by the petitioners in the reference petition forwarded under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act by the collector to the court.
85) Ld counsel for petitioners has argued that till the title of the petitioners in the acquired land was not upheld by the court, the petitioners were not having any right to file reference petition under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ld counsel for the petitioners has further argued that during the pendency of the reference proceedings under Section 30-31 of LA Act, the petitioners were never delivered the copy of award and essential contents of the award was also not disclosed to the petitioners.
86) 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 39/65 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 petitioners.
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 petitioners are not required to file reference petition under Section 18 of L.A. Act. The petitioners have 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.
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, LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 40/65 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 abovesaid fact, it is established that the title of the petitioner in the acquired land was crystallized and finally settled on 30.01.2019 and thereafter the petitioners were entitled to file reference petition under Section 18 of L.A. Act.
90) In view of the testimony of petitioner/PW-2, it is proved that the petitioners came to know about the essential contents of the award on 06.06.2019, when they received the cheque of compensation amount and after coming to know the essential contents of the award, the petitioners 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. 3 is decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1, 2, 4 & 5 Issues no. 1 :What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 41/65 Issues no. 2 :Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land in question and if so, at what rate? OPP.
Issues no. 4 :Whether the plaintiff has no locus standie to file the present suit? OPR-2.
& Issues no. 5:Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-2.
91) The onus to prove, issue no.1 and 2 is upon the petitioners and issue no. 4 & 5 is upon the respondent no. 2.
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 Mark 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 petitioners are not entitled to receive any compensation.
93) Ld counsel for the petitioners has argued that MCD has not led any evidence to prove that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was ever approached MCD for sub- division of Plot no. 69, Najafgrah road. Ld counsel for the petitioners further argued that the MCD has never demanded acquired land from the petitioners or his predecessor in LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 42/65 interest, free of cost. Ld counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners are declared to be entitled to receive the compensation amount and the petitioners have already received the compensation amount determined by the LAC.
94) The respondent no. 2 has not produced original Resolution no. 1294. R2W1 admitted that the resolution Mark A is already lapsed. R2W1 voluntarily deposed that as the beneficiary parties under the resolution had not completed with its conditions of the resolution. In view of the testimony of R2W1, it is proved that the resolution Mark A was never acted upon and it was already lapsed. So, on the basis of lapsed resolution, the MCD cannot claim any right upon the acquired land.
95) Ld counsel for the petitioner has also argued that at the time of sanctioning of layout plan, the MCD can not make any condition for giving some of the area of the property, free of cost to the MCD. Ld counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in a case titled "PT. Chet Ram Vashist V. Municipal LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 43/65 Corporation of Delhi, 1995 AIR SC 430 and the relevant paras of the said judgement is as under:
None of its provisions entitled the Corporation to claim any right or interest in the property of the owner. Sub-section (3) empowers the Standing Committee to accord sanction to the layout plan on such conditions as it may think fit. The expression, 'such conditions' has to be understood so as to advance the objective of the provision and the purpose for which it has been enacted. The Corporation has been given the right to examine that the layout plan is not contrary to any provision of the Act or the rules framed by it. For instance a person submitting a layout plan may be required to leave certain open space or he may be required that the length and width of the rooms shall not be less than a particular measurement or that a coloniser shall have to provide amenities and facilities to those who shall purchase land or building in its colony. But the power cannot be construed to mean that the Corporation in the exercise of placing restrictions or imposing conditions before sanctioning a layout plan can also claim that it shall be sanctioned only if the owner surrenders a portion of the land and transfers it in favour of the Corporation free of cost. That would be contrary to the language used in the section and violative of civil rights which vests in every owner to hold his land and transfer it in accordance with law. The resolution passed by the Corporation directing the appellant to transfer the space reserved for tubewells, school and park in its favour free of cost was depriving the owner of his property and vesting it in the Corporation against law. The finding of the High Court that such condition did not amount. to transfer of ownership but it was only a transfer of the right of management cannot be accepted. The two rights, namely, of ownership and of management, are distinct and different rights. Once a vacant site is transferred in favour of another free of cost then the person transferring it ceases to be owner of it.
Whereas in transfer of right of management the ownership continues with the person to whom the property belongs and the local authority only gets rights to manage it. But the conditions imposed by the Standing Committee clearly meant to transfer the ownership in favour of the Corporation. The Corporation as custodian of civil amenities and services may claim and that would be proper as well, to permit the Corporation to regulate, manage, supervise and look after such amenities but whether such a LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 44/65 provision can entitle a Corporation to claim that such property should be transferred to it free of cost appears to be fraught with insurmountable difficulties. The law does not appear to be in favour of the Corporation. Public purpose is, no doubt, a very important consideration and private interest has to be sacrificed for the welfare of the society. But when the appellant was willing to reserve the two plots for park and school then he was not acting against public interest. This cannot be stretched to create a right and title in favour of a local body which utmost may be entitled to manage and supervise only.
96) In view of the abovesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the MCD has no right to pass resolution for imposing condition at the time of sanctioning of layout plan for imposing duty upon the owners of the land to vest some portion of the land free of cost to the MCD.
97) 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) he present reference has been forwarded to the Court on the reference application under Section 18 L.A. Act filed LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 45/65 by the petitioner. This reference has been sent to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to receive enhanced 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 upon acquired land 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-2 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that the acquired land was commercial in nature. PW-2 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-2 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-2 further deposed that the acquired property of award no. 16 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 46/65 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 location as well as potentiality. PW-2 further deposed that the acquired property of the petitioner is not more than 500 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) The burden is upon the petitioners to prove that the acquired land of present reference and acquired land of award no. 16 were similar situated and had same potentiality.
101) There is no evidence on record except the bald statement of PW-2 that acquired land is situated near to property of award no. 16. PW-2 has deposed that he is not aware of the land involved 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 his property.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 47/65
102) PW-2 has not deposed in his evidence, as to how, the acquired land of both awards were similarly situated and had similar potential value.
103) 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 petitioners have shares of land ad measuring 24.457 square meter. 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. It is not proved that both acquired lands were similarly situated and had similar potentiality. In view of foregoing discussions, 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.
104) During arguments, Ld counsel for the petitioners 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 48/65 26.10.2024 Ex R2W1/X1 along with certified copy of order dated 24.01.2025 Ex R2W1/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.
105) 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 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.
106) Ld counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners are also entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 1,30,000/-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 petitioners.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 49/65
107) 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.
108) 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 price of the land is Rs.20,175/- per square meter and the status of the property was industrial.
109) 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/-.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 50/65 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/-.
110) The 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 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.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 51/65 (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.
(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.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 52/65 (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
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.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 53/65 (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. (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.
111) 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 54/65 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 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.
112) 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 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 55/65 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."
113) It is well settled legal position that the burden of proof is always on the petitioners to prove by leading cogent and reliable evidence that the acquired land was capable of fetching higher compensation than what is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is only an offer. It is the duty of the court to evaluate the evidence and assess the market the value of the land, on the basis of evidence led by the parties in court.
114) 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 petitioners have not mentioned anything about award no. 6 and award no. 7 in their reference application. The abovesaid awards have also not been tendered in evidence by the petitioners. While LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 56/65 tendering the affidavit in evidence Ex PW-2/A, the petitioner no.1 has not relied upon above awards in his evidence. The petitioner no. 1 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 no. 1 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 petitioners 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 market value of acquired land of award no. 6 & 7 cannot be considered for determining the market value of acquired land of present award.
115) 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. 31,733.59/- per square meter. The Copy of said judgment is exhibited as ExPW-1/5.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 57/65
116) Ld. counsels for petitioner have argued that the Ld Predecessor of this court has passed Judgment in a case titled "M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI" and this court has also passed judgments 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.31,733.59/- per square meter.
117) Ld. Predecessor of this court has already decided reference petition forwarded under Section 18 of L.A. Act, in 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.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 58/65
118) I have perused the case files of abovesaid four cases and these cases have been decided by this court, vide judgments 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.
119) 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.
120) In the present reference, the land ad measuring 24.457 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.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 59/65 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.
121) 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:
"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".
122) In the present reference, the land ad measuring 24.457 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 property of plot no. 69/6A at Patel road, Moti Nagar as Rs. 31,733.59/-
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 60/65 per square meter in the abovesaid judgments passed in the reference petitions mentioned in para no. 120. 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 petitioners are also entitled to receive the same compensation of his land, which has been determined by the court, in the abovesaid cases.
123) 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.
LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 61/65
124) 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.
125) The petitioners are already held entitled to receive compensation of the acquired land ad measuring 24.457 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.
126) In view of the above-said facts and observations, it is held that the petitioners are held entitled to receive compensation amount @ Rs. 31,733.59/- per square meter instead of Rs. 20,900/- per square meter as determined by LAC, West, in respect of his acquired land ad measuring 24.457 square meters.
127) In view of foregoing discussions, issue no. 1, 2, 4 & 5 are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no. 2.
RELIEF
128) The petitioners have also claimed in the petition that market value of structure of the petitioner was not less than Rs.30 lakhs on the date of notification and petitioners are also LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 62/65 entitled for compensation for loss of earning to the extent of Rs.20 lakhs along with enhancement relief of market value of their acquired land.
129) In the award, the LAC, West has assessed the value of the structure of the acquired land of petitioners as Rs.38,800/-.
130) Ld counsel for the petitioners submits that as per report of PWD Ex PW-1/1, the PWD has assessed the structural value of petitioners' firm as Rs. 63,337/- and the said report has been admitted by respondent no. 2.
131) I have perused the said report Ex PW-1/1, this report has been filed by PWD. As per this report, the structural valueh of petitioners' firm has been mentioned as Rs. 63,337/-. In para no. 3 of reply of respondent no. 2, it is mentioned that this award is based on valuation of the structure carried out by the PWD. The abovesaid report of PWD has not been challenged by the respondents. So, the petitiners are entitled to receive compensation for structural value as per abovesaid report Ex PW-1/1. Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to obtain Rs. 63,337/- as structural value instead of Rs. 38,800/-.
132) There is no evidence on record regarding any loss of earning suffered by the petitioners due to acquisition of his LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 63/65 land by the Government. Accordingly, it is held that petitioner is not entitled for further enhancement in the structure value and is also not entitled to receive any amount for loss of earning.
133) In view of foregoing discussions as well as findings on issues specifically on issue no 1, 2, 4 & 5, the present petition stands partly allowed and following reliefs have been given to the petitioners.
A) The petitioners are held entitled to receive enhanced compensation @ Rs. 10,833.59 square meter over and above the compensation determined by LAC, West i.e. Rs.20,900/- in respect of acquired land 24.457 square meter.
B) The petitioners are also held entitled to receive 30% solatium of the market value of acquired land, as per Section 23 (2) of L.A. Act, 1894.
C) The petitioners are 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 petitioners are also held entitled for interest on the aggregate of market value of LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 64/65 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.
E) The petitioners are also held entitled to obtain Rs. 63,337/- as structural value instead of Rs. 38,800/-.
F). The amount of compensation already paid to petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. Parties to bear their own costs.
134) The reference is answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn. Copy of the judgement and decree sheet be sent to Land Acquisition collector (west) for intimation and compliance.
135) File be consigned to record room after due compliance Announced in the open court Digitally signed on 29.04.2026 SHIV (SHIV KUMAR) by SHIV KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.04.29 DJ-02/West/THC/DELHI 16:47:35 +0530 LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 65/65