Delhi District Court
Sh Narender Kumar Doomra vs Union Of India on 5 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE-02
WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 13/2023
CNR No. -DLWT01-004294-2023
DLWT010042942023
Name of Village: Property No.69/6A at Patel Road, Moti Ngar,
67,68 (1-3) DLF Industrial Area, Patel Road, 70, Najafgarh Road,
( Krishna House and Inderjeet House).
Award No.: 02/DC (W)/2006-07 dated 30.08.2006
Shri Narender Kumar Doomra
Prop. Of M/s Bombay Madras Goods Carriers
S/o late Shri H.B. Doomra,
R/o 51/100, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi-110027.
.... Petitioner
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
District West,
Shivaji Palace,
New Delhi.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 1/54
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 22.05.2023
Date of conclusion of arguments : 22.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.06.2025
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 passed 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. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 2/54
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 22.05.2023, 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 14.09.2023, LAC, West filed revised statement under Section 19 of Land Acquisition Act.
5) According to the revised statement of Section 19 of L.A. Act, filed by the Collector, the details of share of petitioner M/s Bombay Madras Good Carriers through its proprietor Sh. Narender Doomra is illustrated as under:
Sl. IP Number Area of Amount Remarks
No. and Name respective IP in %
in the property
No. 69/6A,
Patel
Road/Najafgar
h Road, Moti
Nagar, New
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 3/54
Delhi
21. IP No. 26 7.40 Sq. 75% of total
M/s Bombay Meter amount of
Madras Good compensation
Carriers along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been assessed
in the name of
IP No. 26.
6) As per statement under Section 19 of L.A. Act, filed
by LAC, West, the acquired area in respect of M/s Bombay Madras Good Carriers comes to area ad measuring 5.55 Sq. Meter. The petitioner has admitted date of possession is 25.10.2005.
7) The petitioner has filed application under Section 18 of L.A. Act against the findings and determination of the market value of his land/property, made by the Collector.
8) In brief, the facts averred in the petition are that petitioner is the interested person in respect of property bearing No. 69/6-A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi and was carrying on the business of Transportation under the name and style of M/s Bombay Madras Goods Carriers, on the acquired property, at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. It is stated that the petitioner is an LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 4/54 interested person in the the reference petition filed under section 30-31 of the L.A. Act tilted as Union of India Vs Harish Virmani and the petitioner has received the awarded amount of compensation under protest only on 05.08.2019.
9) It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner came to know about the essential contents of the award only after receiving the awarded amount of compensation under protest on 05.08.2019 and the present petition has been filed within 42 days of receiving the awarded amount of compensation and therefore, the present petition is within the period of limitation.
10) The petitioner has not accepted the market value of the acquired land determined by LAC, West, on the following grounds:
a) Because the LAC has failed to assess the fail market value of the land of the petitioner.
b) Because the LAC has failed to appreciate that the commercial land of the petitioner was situated in the hub of commercial activity and there were factories and commercial establishment surrounding the property of the petitioner. The petitioner was also carrying out commercial activities on the acquired property as on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 5/54
c) Because the property of the petitioner was having all the facilities and amenities such as commercial power connection, license to run a factory, registrations from the competent authorities etc.
d) Because the acquired land prior to the date of issuance 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. meter, in the year 1995 which were for residential purposes and in the interiors. It is stated that the property of the petitioner was situated on the main Najafgarh Road and was capable of commercial activities only.
f) Because the value of the land alone, 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 petitioner claims the same.
g) Because the market value in respect of the structures of the petitioner was not less than Rs. 30 lakhs as on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act and petitioner claims the same.
h) Because the petitioner has not been allotted any alternative site for re-
installation of the machinery which she LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 6/54 has to dis-mental on account of the acquisition proceedings thrust upon her. The petitioner estimates his loss of earning to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs and he claims the same.
I) The petitioner has claimed market value @ Rs. 1 lakh per sq. mtr.
alongwith all statutory benefits as per the prevailing Act, interest on solatium and additional amount in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India given in a case titled 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.
11) The respondent no. 1/Union of India has filed reply, in compliance of order dated 22.05.2023. It is averred in the reply that the petitioner had filed the reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act on 19.09.2019, vide Diary no. 1051/LAC(W).
12) It is further averred in the reply that Para no. 1 to 6 of the 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 issuance of notification under Section 4. It is further averred that the claim made by the petitioner in reference is excessive and unjustified. It is also mentioned LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 7/54 that the present reference petition is not within the time limit and reference petition may be dismissed with costs.
13) While forwarding the reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act to the Court, the LAC, West kept the issue of limitation as open to be decided by the Court, as per law.
14) Reply/objections has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 / MCD (North). It is contended therein that the present petition is not maintainable and is an abuse of due process of law. It is further contended that as per the Act, only the land owners are supposed to receive compensation during land acquisition. It is further contended that the Act does not address compensation to other individuals that are effected by such acquisition, where as per the the petition, the petitioner is only an interested person.
15) It is further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to institute the present reference petition. It is further contended that the LAC has also awarded compensation 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.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 8/54
16) Respondent no.2 has contended that it is for the Land Acquisition Collector to justify its award and the determination of the compensation is paid to the eligible claimants in accordance with law. It is further contended that the petitioner has concealed material facts from the Hon'ble court that the sub-division of plot no. 69, Najafgarh Road has been allowed vide resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 subject to condition that the land required for widening of Najafgarh Road, Rama Road and Patel Road, shall be left free of cost as per approval of alignment plan.
17) 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 sqm. By evaluating the above methods and keeping in mind the location of properties, under acquisition, i.e. being situated on main road and also the size of land under acquisition and size of land, sale deed of which was produced in evidence, the market value has been assessed at Rs. 20,900/- per square meter for the industrial land under acquisition.
18) It is further contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is hopelessly time barred.
19) It is further contended that the impugned Award is based on the sound reason and the respondent no. 1 after LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 9/54 taking into consideration, the evidence/documents produced during the proceedings of the Award may have rightly assessed the compensation amount in respect of the land and structures. It is submitted that compensation already remitted to LAC by the answering respondent is adequate.
20) On merits, most of the contents of the petition has been denied as wrong and it is claimed that the petitioner is not entitled for further enhancement in compensation amount.
21) Petitioner has filed replication to the written statement revised memorandum filed on behalf of respondent no. 1/UOI. Petitioner has admitted the revised memorandum filed by UOI to the extent that petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation for an area ad measuring 5.55 square meters. The rest of contents of revised memorandum are denied by the petitioner.
ISSUES
22) Vide order dated 09.02.2024, the following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether present reference u/s 18 of LA Act is barred by limitation ? OPR2
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 10/54 respect of land and if so, at what rate?
OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
23) Petitioner, in order to prove his case, has appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and also rely upon the following documents:
i) Mark A : Copy of Nazir report.
ii) Mark B: Copy of judgment titled" Virender Sood Vs UOI.
iii) Mark C: Copy of order in SLP vide diary no. 3786/19.
iv) Mark D: Copy of judgment titled, " M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI & Anr.
24) During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that the department never measured any property in front of him prior to acquisition proceedings. PW-1 further deposed that he has no knowledge whether any of the officials inspected the acquired land before acquisition. However, he voluntarily deposed that it might have been done in his absence. PW-1 further deposed that he did not know about the announcement of the Award, however, he came to know in the year 2006-07, from the local officials that there is some bridge will made.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 11/54 PW-1 further deposed that he had filed a claim petition. He did not receive any notice from the LAC, he received a notice from the present court only. PW-1 further deposed that he had filed all documents when he received a notice from the court. PW-1 further deposed that he had given those documents to his lawyer in the year 2007-08 but he does not know whether the same were filed in court or before the LAC. He further deposed that the award was announced or not was not in his knowledge before receiving of cheque. PW-1 admitted that it is correct that he filed the present petition in the year 2019 after receiving the cheque. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the present petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation and is not maintainable.
25) During cross examination, PW-1 further deposed that he has filed title documents in court. He further deposed that his father was a lessee of 99 years from M/s Jeevan Industries Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Jeevan Lal Virmani. He has filed the said lease deed in this court in the present case. PW-1 admitted that the area mentioned in the present case is as per the judgment u/s 30-31 L.A. Act, under a compromise titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani & Ors. The acquired land was his total area. PW-1 further deposed that he had filed electricity bill, house tax to show that the business namely M/s Bombay Madras Goods Carriers were existing on the acquire property. After inspection of the court record by PW-1, he deposed that he LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 12/54 has not filed the same in the present case and even the lease deed has not been filed in the present case.
26) PW-1 further deposed that he has shown the above stated business in his income tax returns, however, he has not filed the same in the present case. PW-1 denied the suggestion that at the time of acquisition proceedings, the above stated business was not shown in his income tax returns.
27) PW-1 further deposed that the land of Sh. Virender Sood is situated in Mansarover Garden. He has not seen the said land of Sh. Virender Sood. He further deposed that his land is situated on the Moti Nagar to Patel Nagar Road, situated on Najafgarh Road only. It was opposite Laxman Sylvania. The address of his shop is 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar to Patel Nagar Road. PW-1 further deposed that the distance between his land and Sh. Virender Sood must be one and half to two kilometers. Mansarover Garden is adjoining Kirti Nagar. PW-1 further deposed that he has not filed any document to show that the acquired area was a shop. PW-1 further deposed that he does not know whether he had received the compensation for structure of his shop acquired.
28) PW-1 further deposed that he does not have knowledge regarding the evidence filed in case titled Esvee Polymers Vs UOI or any other judgment passed by Sh. A.K. Sarpal, the LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 13/54 then ld. ADJ. PW-1 further deposed that he has not filed any sale deed of the adjoining area in the present case. PW-1 admitted that he does not have any knowledge of any sale deed of adjoining area.
29) During cross-examination on behalf of MCD, PW-1 deposed that he came to know about the award at the time of receiving the compensation cheque. The name on the cheque dated 03.08.2019 is Bombay Madras Goods Carriers. In response to a specific question, how did the LAC come to know about making the cheque in the name of Bombay Madras Goods Carriers, PW-1 deposed that his lawyer must have submitted the documents for the preparation of the cheque but he does not remember the exact date when it was submitted but it must have been in the year 2011. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was aware of the announcement of the award in the year 2011 and that is why he had submitted the documents.
30) PW-1 further deposed that the case titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani was for receiving the awarded amount of compensation and he was a party in that case. PW-1 further deposed that he did not know the essential contents of the award at the time of contesting the case titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani, however he voluntarily deposed that he came to know about the same only when he received the cheque. PW-1 further deposed that he has seen the title documents of LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 14/54 M/s Jeevan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Pertaining to the acquired property, and he also has the copy of the entire chain. He further deposed that he does not know whether there was any condition in the sale deed in favour of M/s Jeevan Lal Virmani that if the land is ever required for road widening, the same would be handed over to Municipal Authorities free of cost. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was doing industrial work on the acquired property and that is why he had mentioned that "the petitioner has not been allotted any alternate site for re-installation of the machinery".
31) Vide separate statement of ld. Counsel for the petitioner, evidence on behalf of petitioner was closed on 14.11.2024.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1
32) No witness has been examined on behalf of the respondent no. 1.
33) Sh. S.S. Dalal, Ld. Counsel for UOI has tendered the copy of Award No. 02/DC(W)/2006-07 as Ex. R-1 and has closed evidence on behalf of respondent no. 1/ UOI on 16.01.2025.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 15/54 EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2
34) Respondent no.2/MCD has examined Sh. Dhananjoy Kumar Prabhat as R2W1 and he tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.R2W1/A. R2W1 relied upon the following documents:-
i).Ex.RW2/A: Copy of Award( already exhibited as Ex. R-1).
ii).Mark A: Copy of Resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973.
iii).Ex.RW2/C : Copy of the schedule of rates notified by the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India vide No. L&DO/F-24013/3/2013- CDN/107 dated 02.05.2017. ( document is not disputed by ld. Counsel for the petitioner).
35) During cross-examination, R2W1 deposed that he has been posted in land and Estate department in February, 2023. He further deposed that he does not know if the MCD filed any appeal against the judgment passed in case titled UOI Vs Harish Virmani & Ors. which was a 30-31 L. A Act case. Thereafter the witness was confronted with certified copy of written statement filed by MCD itself in case titled M/s. Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI dated 16.04.2013, the same is Ex. R2W1/P1.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 16/54
36) During cross-examination of RW2W1, following question has been put to him and he gave the following reply of the said question:
Ques: In the above written statement your department has admitted that the Resolution dated 31.05.1973 has been lapsed. Is it correct that this W.S. has been filed by Land & Estate Department.
Ans: It is correct. The department has mentioned the said fact since the terms and conditions of the Resolution were not fulfilled, therefore it was lapsed. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in Para 'f' of the written statement the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was required to leave some area for road widening of Patel Road, Najafgarh Road and intersection of Patel Road and Najafgarh Road which was to be handed over to Land & Estate Department. The occupiers of 69/1A came to MCD for regularization however the occupiers of 69/2A to 69/6A never approached the MCD for regularization.
Ques: Do you see the original Resolution dated 31.05.1973?
Ans: No.
37) In response to a specific question that is there any document/notice filed in the present case whereby the predecessor in interest of the petitioner of document ExR2W1/P1 was asked to hand over the land to your department, R2W1 deposed that No. However he voluntarily deposed that they were supposed to hand over the area on their own.
38) R2W1 further deposed that it is correct that the present award was never challenged by the MCD. He further deposed that he is not aware if the LAC sent any notice u/s LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 17/54 12 (2) of the L.A. Act to the petitioners after announcement of the Award. R2W1 further deposed that the commercial rates Ex.RW2/C are based on 100 FAR while calculation of the same. He admitted that it is correct that the PWD,GNCTD had carried out the valuation report stating that the acquired properties were commercial in nature or that it is correct that the acquired property was commercial in nature.
39) On 27.02.2025, R2W1 was again re-examined and he exhibited Letter no. AO/L&E/MCD/2024/D-3127 dated 21.01.2025 as Ex RW-2/D and resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 as Ex RW-2/E. He was again cross examined on behalf of the petitioner.
40) During cross examination, R2W1 admitted that on page no. 1, 4 & 5 of Ex RW-2/E, some paragraphs mentioned in the said document are cover with another paper/pasted. In response to the question, R2W1 admitted that the said resolution is already lapsed and voluntarily deposed that as the beneficiaries parties under the resolution had not complied with the conditions of the resolution.
41) Sh. S.B. Sharma, appeared as R2W2 in the court and brought the record book containing original Resolution No. 1294 dated 31.05.1973, the true copy of the same is Ex. R2W2/1 (OSR). However, the document is objected to by ld. counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the record LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 18/54 brought by the witness is not the original record of Resolution No. 1294 dated 31.05.1973.
42) During cross-examination, R2W2 admitted that there is no letter of Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani applying for sub-division of plot no. 69, Najafgarh Road in the original record brought by him. R2W2 further admitted that it is correct that there are no signatures of any MCD employee or commissioner in the document Ex. R2W2/1, the same is true typed copy of the original record. R2W2 further deposed that he has been posted in this department since the last one year. R2W2 further deposed that there is no signatures either of Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani or of the present petitioner in the original record brought by him.
43) Vide separate statement of ld. counsel for the MCD, evidence on behalf of MCD stands closed on 21.04.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
44) Arguments heard from ld counsel for the parties. I have also perused the written submissions and judgments filed by the ld counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through entire case file, including pleadings and testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the parties in court. I have also gone through case file bearing no. LAC 10/A/10/07 titled " UOI Vs Harish Virmani & Ors" decided on 14.12.2017.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 19/54 ISSUES-WISE FINDINGS.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE No. 1Issue no. 1: Whether present reference u/s 18 of LA Act is barred by limitation? OPR-2.
45) The onus to prove issue no. 1 is upon the respondent no. 2. In order to prove the said issue, the respondent no. 2 has examined two witnesses i.e. Sh. Dhananjoy Kumar Prabhat/R2W1 and Sh. S.B. Sharma/R2W2.
46) The award of present reference has been passed by the LAC, West on 30.08.2006. The present reference petition has been filed by the petitioner before LAC, West on 16.09.2019.
47) Ld counsels for respondents have argued that the present reference petition is barred by limitation. They further argued that the petitioner has filed objections before LAC, West, so, the petitioner cannot say that he was not having knowledge of the award of the present reference. They further argued that the petitioner has filed claim petition in reference petition forward under Section 30-31 LA Act by the LAC, West to the Court, so, during the pendency of the said reference petition, the petitioner had knowledge about the passing of award. Ld counsels for the respondents further LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 20/54 submit that the present reference petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.
48) Ld counsel for petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not aware about the essential contents of the award. Ld counsel further argued that the petitioner did not know the basis on which market value of the property was ascertained by the LAC, West. Ld counsel further argued that the petitioner came to know about the essential contents of the award only on 05.08.2019, when the petitioner finally managed to receive the awarded compensation amount under protest and at that time, the petitioner became aware about the essential contents of the award i.e. market value, basis of ascertaining the market value etc and thereafter, within 42 days of receiving the awarded compensation amount, the petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of L.A. Act before LAC, West. So, the present petition is within limitation.
49) Petitioner/PW-1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that he 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 he 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 and therefore, the present petition is within the period of limitation.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 21/54
50) Petitioner has further deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that the title of the petitioner gained finality only after receiving the awarded amount of compensation for an area ad measuring 5.5 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.
51) During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that he did not receive any notice from the LAC. He further deposed that he had filed the present case for enhancement after he received the cheque, when he came to know that the amount is very less. He further deposed that announcement of the award was not in his knowledge before receiving of cheque. He further deposed that he does not know when the land was acquired or that when the award was passed.
52) During cross examination, R-2W1 deposed that he is not aware if the LAC, sent any notice under Section 12 (2) of the LA Act to the petitioner after announcement of the award.
53) It is admitted on the part of LAC West that reference petition under Section 18 of LA Act was filed by the petitioner on 16.09.2019 and thereafter writ petition bearing no. WP(c)14491/2022 titled as Smt Santosh Suri & ors Vs UOI was filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the LAC to decide the reference application filed by the petitioner and other persons LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 22/54 and pass appropriate orders. Therefore vide Letter no. LAC (w) Ref/2023/436 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.
54) 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.
55) As per proviso (b) of Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, if the case of the petitioner does not fall in proviso
(a) of Section 18 of the Act then he is entitled to file application under Section 18 of the Act for sending the reference to the court, within 6 weeks from the receipt of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act or within 6 months from the date of collector's award, whichever period shall first expired.
56) In a case bearing no. W.P. (c) 1323/2017 titled "Vaibhav Gupta & Ors Vs Union of India, W.P. (C) 1323/2017, decided on 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has discussed the law regarding the period, within which the petition is entitled to file reference application LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 23/54 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 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 LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 24/54 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 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.
57) 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:-
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 25/54 "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 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.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 26/54
58) 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 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 LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 27/54 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.
59) Reliance has also been placed on the following judgments regarding entitlement of the petitioner to file reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act, within six months from the date of knowledge of the essential contents of award, as per proviso (b) of Section 18 of L.A. Act.
(a) Premji Nathu Vs State of Gujarat, AIR 2012, SC 1624.
(b) Bhagwan Dass Vs State of UP, AIR 2010, SC 1532
(c) Bharat Chand Dilwadi Vs Union of India, 1988, Legal Eagle (DEL) 32.
(d) State of Punjab Vs Qaisar Jahan Beigum, 1963, AIR(SC) 1604.
60) As per abovesaid judgments, it is settled proposition of law that the period of six months for filing reference LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 28/54 application under Section 18 of L.A. Act mentioned in proviso (b) of Section 18 of L.A. Act, will run from the date of knowledge of the petitioner regarding the essential contents of the award. The petitioner is entitled to file reference application within six months from the date of his knowledge regarding the essential contents of award. The knowledge of the petitioner about the essential contents of award may be either actual knowledge or constructive knowledge.
61) The initial burden is upon the petitioner to prove the date when he came to know about the essential contents of the award. In the present case, the petitioner has deposed on oath that he 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 he 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.
62) Petitioner has deposed in para no. 5 of his evidence by way of affidavit that the title of the petitioner gained finality only after receiving the awarded amount of compensation for an area ad measuring 5.5 sq. meters which was decided by the Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in case titled Union of India Vs Harish Virmani.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 29/54
63) During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that he did not receive any notice from the LAC. He further deposed that he had filed the present case for enhancement after he received the cheque, when he came to know that the amount is very less. He further deposed that announcement of the award was not in his knowledge before receiving of cheque. He further deposed that he does not know when the land was acquired or that when the award was passed.
64) During cross examination, R-2W1 deposed that he is not aware if the LAC, sent any notice under Section 12 (2) of the LA Act to the petitioner after announcement of the award.
65) 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.
66) No evidence has been led by the respondents to prove that the petitioner 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.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 30/54
67) Respondents have also failed to prove that any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever issued to or received by the petitioner. So, the case of the petitioner falls in the second part of Proviso (b) Section 18 of LA Act. As per said proviso, petitioner is entitled to file reference application within six months from the date of knowledge of the essential contents of collector's award.
68) Petitioner/PW-1 has deposed on oath that he came to know about the essential contents of the award on 30.08.2019 when he received the cheque of compensation amount. The fact of receiving cheque of compensation amount by the petitioner on 30.08.2019 is not disputed by the respondents. Now, the burden is upon the respondents to prove that the petitioner had knowledge of essential contents of award before 30.08.2019 but no evidence has been led by the respondents to prove that the petitioner had knowledge about the essential contents of award before 30.08.2019. The respondents have also not deposed about sending copy of award to the petitioner or receiving of the same by the petitioner from the collector or from the respondents.
69) Ld counsel for the respondents have argued that the knowledge of the petitioner about knowing the contents of award can be presumed from the date of filing of claim by the LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 31/54 petitioner in the reference petition forwarded under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act by the collector to the court.
70) Ld counsels for petitioner has argued that till the title of the petitioner in the acquired land was not upheld by the court, the petitioner was not having any right to file reference petition under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ld counsel for the petitioner has further argued that during the pendency of the reference proceedings under Section 30-31 of LA Act, the petitioner was never delivered the copy of award and essential contents of the award was also not disclosed to the petitioner.
71) As per judgments of Hon'ble High court of Delhi passed in cases titled Jagdish Vs UOI (supra) and Shanti Devi & Ors Vs Union of India (supra), if the petitioner participates in proceedings under Section 30-31 of the L.A. Act, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner had the knowledge about the essential contents of the award. So, the abovesaid contentions of ld counsels for respondents have no force. Moreover, only after passing of appropriation judgment in reference petition under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act, the reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act can be legitimately sought by the petitioner and the relevant paras of the said judgments have been mentioned in succeeding paras.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 32/54
72) In a case titled " Jagdish Vs Union of India & Ors (Supra), the Hon'ble High court of Delhi has held as under:-
12. The Supreme Court in Madan & Anr. case has held that it is only after the question of apportionment under Section 30 of the LA Act is crystalized, that a reference under Section 18 of LA Act can be legitimately sought.
13. As stated above, in the present Case, the Appropriation Judgment came on02.11.2015 and thereafter, that the Petition under Section 18 of the LA Act, was filed by the Appellant. It is not disputed that the Reference Petition was filed within six weeks of the date of the Apportionment Judgment.
14. Given this position and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan & Anr case, since the Appellant had filed its Application for Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act within the stipulated period after the Appropriation Judgment, the Application could not be rejected on the ground of limitation.
73) In a case titled " Shanti Devi & Ors Vs Union of India, (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has held as under:
11. A cursory glance at the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, extracted above, may suggest that there is some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of compensation to the court. But, a closer scrutiny would indicate that the two sections of the Act operate in entirely different circumstances. While Section 18 applies to situations where the apportionment made in the award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the court under Section 30 of the Act. The other is to relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right to receive compensation under the award would crystallise after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. It is only thereafter LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 33/54 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."
74) In view of the above-said judgments, it is settled proposition of law that until the rights of the parties in the acquired land are not crystalized/upheld by the Court, in reference petition filed under Section 30-31 of LA Act, the petitioner is not required to file reference petition under Section 18 of L.A. Act. The petitioner has the right to file the reference petition under Section 18 L.A Act after the date of decision of reference petition filed under Section 30-31 of the LA Act.
75) The reference petition titled "UOI Vs Harish Virmani & Ors forwarded under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act was decided by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2017. Thereafter, the said judgment was further corrected vide order dated 12.01.2018 and 22.01.2018. Sh. Ashok Virmani filed writ petition before Hon'ble High court of Delhi in a case " Ashok Virmani Vs Hon'ble L.G. & Ors"
by challenging the abovesaid orders. Vide order dated 16.02.2018, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi stayed the operation of abovesaid three orders dated ie. 14.12.2017, 12.01.2018 and 22.01.2018 till NDOH i.e. 18.04.2018. On 18.04.2018, the stay order stands extended till further order.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 34/54 On 30.01.2019, the abovesaid petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the stay was vacated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
76) In view of the testimony of petitioner/PW-1, it is proved that the petitioner came to know about the essential contents of the award on 03.08.2019, when he received the cheque of compensation amount and after seeing the less amount of compensation, he filed reference application under Section 18 of LA Act before LAC west on 16.09.2019, which is within 42 days of getting knowledge of essential contents of award and is within limitation. Hence issue no. 1 is decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2.
Issue no. 2 : Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land and if so, at what rate? OPP
77) The onus to prove the issue no. 2 is upon the petitioner. In order to prove the said issue, the petitioner has examined only one witness/PW1 i.e. petitioner himself.
78) Ld counsel for the respondent no. 2 has argued that the sub-division of plot no. 69, Najafgrah road was allowed by LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 35/54 Resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 as Ex R2W2/1, subject to condition that the land required for widening of Najafgrah road shall be left free of cost as per approval of alignment plan. Ld counsel for the MCD further argued that the MCD is entitled to obtain the acquired land free of cost and petitioner is not entitled to receive any compensation.
79) Ld counsel for the petitioner has argued that MCD has not led any evidence to prove that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was ever approached MCD for sub-division of Plot no. 69, Najafgrah road. He further argued that the MCD has never demanded acquired land from the petitioner or his predecessor in interest, free of cost. He 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. He further argued that this court has already passed judgment in the abovesaid reference petition under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act, in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is declared to be entitled to receive the compensation amount and the petitioner has already received the compensation amount determined by the LAC. He further argued that the abovesaid resolution was lapsed as per statement given by R2W1.
80) The witness of MCD, namely, Sh. Dhananjoy Kumar Prabhat/R2W1 deposed during his cross examination that the LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 36/54 occupiers of plot no. 69/1A came to MCD for regularization, however, the occupiers of 69/2A to 69/6A never approached the MCD for regularization.
81) R2W1 has admitted during his cross examination that in the written statement dated 16.04.2013 filed by MCD in a case titled "M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI", the department has admitted that the resolution dated 31.05.1973 has been lapsed.
82) From the testimony of R2W1, it is proved that the resolution dated 31.05.1973 as Ex R2W2/1 was lapsed as the occupiers of said plots never approached the MCD for regularization.
83) In view of the foregoing testimony of R2W1, it is proved that the resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 was lapsed. So, on the basis of the said resolution, the MCD cannot claim any interest in the acquired land. Moreover, MCD has never raised its claim over the acquired property either before LAC or before this court during the pendency of the reference petition under Section 30-31 of LA Act. This court, vide judgment dated 14.12.2017 has already held that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation amount of the acquired land and appeal against said judgment filed before Hon'ble High court of Delhi has also been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 18.04.2018. The LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 37/54 compensation determined by the LAC, West has already been released to the petitioner on 03.08.2019. So, at this stage, the MCD cannot claim any right to obtain the acquired land free of cost.
84) The present reference has been forwarded to the Court on the reference application under Section 18 L.A. Act filed by the petitioner. This reference has been sent to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to receive enhancement of compensation amount and what is the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notice under Section 4 of L.A. Act. This court has the domain only to decide the above-said issue as to what was the market value of the acquired land and whether the petitioner is entitled to receive enhanced compensation amount. No reference petition of MCD regarding making claim on acquired is pending in this court. The claim of the MCD to receive the acquired land free of cost cannot be considered in the present reference. Reliance 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.
85) Petitioner/PW-1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that he is the proprietor of M/S Bombay Madras Good Carriers. PW-1 further deposed that the acquired land is commercial in nature. PW-1 further deposed that Hon'ble LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 38/54 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. He 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. He further deposed that the acquired property of award no. 16 was situated in the same revenue village Basaidara pur, New Delhi and the said property is extremely approximate to the acquired property of present award and is also similar in location as well as potentiality. He further deposed that the acquired property of the petitioner is 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-1/2. 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-1/3.
86) There is no evidence on record except the bald statement of petitioner that acquired land is situated near to property of award no. 16. The petitioner has not seen the acquired property of award no. 16. On behalf of UOI, suggestion has been given to petitioner that the acquired land of award no. 16 is more than 5 km away from the acquired LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 39/54 property of petitioner. In chief examination, the petitioner deposed that his acquired property is at a distance of more than 500 square meter from the acquired property of award no. 16 but during cross-examination, he deposed that it must be one and a half to two km away. The acquired land under award no. 16 was a single plot of 557.61 square meter. The said plot was three side open plot and was situated in fully developed area. The permitted use of said lot was residential- cum-commercial. The acquired land under present award is Plot no. 69/6A, total ad measuring 2222.25 square meter and out of this total land of Plot no. 69/6A, the petitioner has share of land ad measuring 5.55 square meter. The acquired land is situated at main road but it is not the case of the petitioner that it is three side open plot. The permitted use of acquired land is industry. It is also not proved that the acquired land of award no. 16 & acquired land of present award are situated nearby. In view of the abovesaid disparity between the both acquired lands, this court is of the view that the market rate of acquired land of award no. 16 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.
87) During arguments, Ld counsel for the petitioner has filed certified 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. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 40/54 26.10.2024 along with certified copy of order dated 24.01.2025 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.
88) 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 under Section of the Act. The notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act in award no. 6 was issued on 13.02.2004 and in award no. 7 on 04.03.2003.
89) Ld counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is also entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 130,000/-per square meter. Ld counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the LAC, West himself relied upon abovesaid both awards while determining the market value of property in question. So, both abovesaid awards can be considered for present award for determining the market value of property of the petitioner.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 41/54
90) 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 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.
91) 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.20175/- per square meter and the status of the property was industrial.
92) The LAC, West has also considered the two awards of nearby area for determining the market value of the acquired land and the details of said awards are as follows:
A. Award no. 6/DCW/04-05 situated at Patel Nagar and the status of land is Industrial and average rate of acquired property per square meter is Rs. 19660/-.
B. Award no. 7/DCW/04-05 situated at Patel Nagar and the status of land is Industrial and LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 42/54 average rate of acquired property per square meter is Rs. 19660/-.
93) 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.
(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 LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 43/54 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.
(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 LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 44/54 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 2. situation in the
road. interior at
a distances from the
Road.
3. frontage on a 3. narrow strip of land
road. with very small frontage
compared to death.
4. nearness to 4. lower level
developed area. requiring the depressed
portion to be filled up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from
developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis 6. some special under
land acquistion.
disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser.
7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 45/54 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.
94) In a case titled Union of India & Anr Vs Ram Phal & Anr, 2003 SCC 10 167, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as follows:
"That award had not been produced before the High Court in the case in hand nor was it before the Reference Court also; though an application for taking that as additional evidence has been filed in this Court. Contemporaneous award no doubt is a useful guide for every court to determine the market value but that award must be taken into evidence in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to the other side for rebutting the same and that had not been done in the case in hand. It is not possible to look into the additional evidence for coming to any conclusion as to whether the market value as determined by the High Court is sustainable or not.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 46/54 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.
95) In a case titled Jas Rath Vs Union of India, 2006 AD DEL6, 284, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"54. We have discussed in great detail that Exh. X and Exh. X-1 even read in conjunction with Resolution dated 24th December, 1980 are relevant factors for determining the potential, location and as a guiding factor to the value of the surrounding land to the acquired land. This by itself cannot be treated to be a determinative factor for awarding compensation to the claimants. In fact for varied reasons, we would decline to fix compensation on the basis of this brochure. Firstly, the claimants have failed to lead any supporting evidence in that behalf. No witness has come and stated that the acquired land is identically situated and has the same facilities like the land covered under Exh. X. Further there is no direct evidence of comparable lands and/or the land having identical potential to the land covered under the scheme. Onus of this kind was certainly LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 47/54 upon the claimants and they have failed to discharge their onus in this regard."
96) It is well settled legal position that the claimants stand in the position of plaintiffs. Burden of prove is always on the claimants to prove by leading cogent and reliable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensation than what is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is only a offer. It is the duty of the court to evaluate the evidence and assess the market the value of the land.
97) It is settled law that reference under section 18 of L.A. Act sent to the court is not an appeal against the award and the court has to re-determine the market value of acquired land as per evidence led by the parties. The material considered by LAC for passing award cannot be considered unless such material is produced in evidence and has been proved in accordance with law. The petitioner has not mentioned anything about award no. 6 and award no. 7 in his reference application. The abovesaid awards have also not been tendered in evidence by the petitioner. The petitioner has not relied upon above awards in his evidence. The petitioner has not deposed in his evidence as to how the land of award no. 6 and 7 is comparable with acquired land of petitioner. The petitioner has not deposed about the nature, situation and potentiality of acquired land of petitioner, similar to acquired land of award no. 6 & 7. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove that acquired land of award no. 6 & 7 is LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 48/54 similarly situated and similar in potential value as of acquired land of present award. 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.
98) The petitioner has also relied upon judgment of this court passed in a case titled "M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI" in respect of another property i.e. 69/6A, ad measuring 2083.37 square meter acquired under the present award and in which, the court determined the market value of the land as Rs. 31733.59/- per square meter. The Copy of said judgment is marked as Mark D.
99) I have perused the copy of said judgment, 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 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 LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 49/54 a case titled "Nand Ram & Ors Vs The State of Haryana, JT 1988 JT4 260.
98. In the present reference, the land ad measuring 5.5 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 out of this total land of plot no. 69/6A, market rate of 2083.37 square meter land has already been determined by the court vide judgment dated 11.04.2021, given in above case of M/S Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs. Unio of India & Anr. Acquired land of present reference and acquired land of abovesaid case are similar and have similar potential value being part of same plot no. 69/6A and have been acquired under same award. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to receive the same compensation of his land, which has been given in the abovesaid case.
100) 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 same award for 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. LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 50/54
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.
Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land of present reference is determined as Rs.31733.59/- per square meter.
101) Petitioner is already held entitled to receive compensation of the acquired land ad measuring 5.5 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.
102) So, the petitioner is held entitled to receive compensation amount Rs. 31733.59/- per square meter instead of Rs. 20900/- per square meter as determined by LAC, West.
103) In view of foregoing discussions, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF
104) The petitioner has also claimed in the petition that value of structure of the petitioner was more than Rs.30 lakhs LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 51/54 on the date of notification and petitioner is also entitled for compensation for loss of earning to the extent of Rs.20 lakhs along with enhancement relief of market value of his acquired land.
105) In the award, the LAC, West has assessed the value of the structure of the acquired land of the petitioner as Rs.9255/-. During arguments, Ld counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not disputing the structure value of the acquired land and is also not claiming relief of loss of earning. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove that the value of structure of petitioner existing in the acquired property was more than Rs 9255/- There is no evidence on record regarding any loss of earning suffered by the petitioner due to acquisition of his land by the Government. Accordingly, it is held that petitioner is entitled his share in the structure amount, as per judgment dated 14.12.2017 passed in reference petition titled "Union of India Vs Harish Virman and others" (Supra) and is not entitled for further enhancement in the structure value and is also not entitled to receive any amount for loss of earning.
106) In view of foregoing findings as well as findings on issues no 1 and 2, the present petition stands partly allowed and following reliefs have been given to the petitioner.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 52/54 A) The petitioner is entitled to receive enhanced compensation @ Rs. 10833.59 square meter over and above the compensation determined by LAC, West i.e. Rs.20,900/- in respect of acquired land 5.5 square meter.
B) The petitioner is entitled to receive 30% solatium of the market value of acquired land, as per Section 23 (2) of L.A. Act, 1894.
C) The petitioner is also entitled to receive additional amount @ 12% per annum on the market Value of acquired land, for the period, specified in Section 23 (1A) of L.A. Act 1894.
(d) The petitioner is further entitled for interest on the aggregate of market value of acquired land, solatium and additional amount, for the period between the date of taking possession of acquired land of the petitioner to the date of payment/deposit at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period.
F). The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioner be adjusted and deducted from total LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 53/54 amount of compensation. Parties to bear their own costs.
107) Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Copy of the judgement and decree sheet be sent to Land Acquisition collector (west) for intimation and compliance.
108) File be consigned to record room after due compliance Digitally signed by SHIV Announced in the open court SHIV KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.05 on 05.06.2025 (SHIV KUMAR) 16:54:15 +0530 DJ-02/West/THC/DELHI LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 54/54