Delhi District Court
Arun Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 June, 2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
DLST010000922010
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh.
LAC NO. 22/16
FILING No. 15569/2010
CNR No. DLST01-000092-2010
In the matter of :-
Arun Kumar
S/o Sh. Prakash Dayal
R/o A-7/21, DLF Phase-I
Gurugram, Haryana-122002 ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector (South),
M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi.
2. Chairman
DMRC Ltd.,
Metro Bhawan, 13, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
3. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice-Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. ......Respondents
Date of Institution : 07.05.2010
Reference received on : 07.05.2010
Date on which order was reserved : 29.04.2025
Date of Award : 09.06.2025
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:47:56 +0530
Page 1 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
AWARD BY THE COURT
1. The present reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was received from the office of Land Acquisition Collector (South) on an application moved by the petitioner, who has sought enhancement of the monetary award given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the assessment of the market value of the acquired land is wholly inadequate and was done on the lower side without considering the relevant factors for correctly assessing the market value of the land in question. The reference was received in this court from the office of LAC (South) on 07.05.2010.
2. For answering the present reference petition, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act: 07.11.2007 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act: 17.12.2007 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act: 17.12.2007
(iii) For Project: Construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat- Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II.
(iv) Date of possession taken: 29.05.2009
(v) Location/Name of Village: Harkesh Nagar
(vi) Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC: 08/2009-10 & date of Award: 11.12.2009
(vii) Area under this reference petition: 331.443 sq. mtrs.
(viii) Market value of land held by LAC: Rs.24978/- per sq. mtrs. for free hold land and Rs.18733/- per sq. mtrs. for lease hold land.
(ix) Date of reference petition to LAC: 15.01.2010
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 22/16
16:48:02 +0530
Page 2 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
(x) Petition referred to this Court on: 07.05.2010
3. The present reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land situated in Village Harkesh Nagar which was acquired for the public purpose of 'Construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat-
Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project, Phase-II'. The land in question was acquired by the LAC vide award No. 08/2009-10 dated 11.12.2009 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 07.11.2007 which was followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 17.12.2007.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after considering the relevant factors gave its Award No.08-2009-10 by determining the compensation awarded under Section 11 for the market value of the free hold land @ Rs.24978/- per sq. mtr. and market value of the lease hold land @ Rs.18733/- per sq. mtr.
5. Since the petitioner did not accept the award, he preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference filed by the petitioner along with statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector for answering the same.
6. Reference was forwarded by the LAC with the claim of the petitioner. As per the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner is the sole owner of the property bearing No. Z-67, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi total admeasuring 505.76 sq. mtrs. situated in the revenue estate of village Harkesh Nagar, New Delhi and the petitioner is the only interested person as per Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:48:07 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 3 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India Section 3 of Land Acquisition Act. On 24.01.1975, Delhi Development Authority allotted the above said plot for industrial purposes and the actual physical possession was handed over to the petitioner on 05.10.1976 by the D.D.A. The Delhi Development Authority on 19.01.1982 on behalf of President of India executed a perpetual lease deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner raised the construction of building consisting of basement, ground, first and second floor in the year 1987 and in 1993-94 for the purpose of using the same for industrial purposes. That on 07.11.2007 notification U/s 4 (l) of Land Acquisition Act, in respect of land measuring 331.443 Sq. mtrs. out of the above said plot was issued vide notification No. F.9 (82)/07/L&B/LA/MRTS(S)/11269 dated 07.11.2007. Thereafter a declaration U/s 6 of Land Acquisition Act, vide notification No. F.9 (82)/07/L&B/LA/MRTS(S)/13267 dated 17.12.07 and notification U/s 17 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notification No. F.9(82)/07/L&B/LA/MRTS (S)/13268 dated 17.12.2007 was issued by the Addl. Secretary (L&B) Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat-Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II. The petitioner in pursuance to the notices under Section 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act issued by the Land Acquisition Collector south regarding the acquisition of land measuring 331.443 Sq mtrs. out of plot No. Z-67, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi filed his claim/objections wherein the petitioner claimed the market rate of land for his property @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per Sq mtr. alongwith damages against structure, Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:48:12 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 4 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India damages for severance and damages for loss of revenue suffered by the petitioner due to non use of premises after acquisition. The petitioner also filed various evidences in support of his claim.
6.1. The petitioner after filing the claim did not receive any notice from the officer of Land Acquisition Collector (South) intimating or communicating the date of pronouncement of the award, thus the petitioner could not be present before the Land Acquisition Collector at the time of making and passing the award. The petitioner was also not represented by any person before the collector when the award was made. The petitioner on 22.12.09 personally approached to the officials of Land Acquisition Collector (South) and was handed over a copy of notice U/s 12 (2) of Land Acquisition Act by the said officials wherein it was mentioned that the Land Acquisition Collector (South) has passed an award U/s 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 11.12.09. Thus the limitation of making reference in the present case is governed by the provisions of Section 18 (II) (b) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, the present reference petition is within the period of limitation.
6.2. That the petitioner after having gone through the award was shocked to know that the Land Acquisition Collector did not take into consideration any of the evidence filed by the petitioner proving the market rate of the acquired property at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 while making and passing the award and has assessed the market value of the land at a very low price. The Land Acquisition Collector further did not pass any compensation with Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:48:18 +0530 Page 5 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India regards to the damages for severance, damages for loss of revenue due to non use of the premises after acquisition etc. and other claimed by the petitioner in the claim filed by the petitioner U/s 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner is not accepting the award No. 08/2009-10 alleged to have been pronounced on 11.12.09 and is aggrieved by the same requesting to refer the matter to the Distt. Judge, Distt. South Delhi, New Delhi U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of determination of the proper and fair market value of the above said property inter alia on the following amongst other grounds:
A. That the acquired land and building is situated on the main road in developed and well known industrial area known as Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi and due to location, situation and potentiality of the land is more advantageous for production and better condition comparing to the other industrial plot in the area. There are many commercial shops dealing in industrial and commercial goods near to the acquired property. The electricity, water, other amenities including man power is easily available in the area and due to said reason the acquired property is capable to fetch higher market value than the other plots in the adjoining area and much higher than the awarded amount as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector (South). The market value of the land was not less than Rs.2,00,000/- per Sq. mtr. and costs of the construction raised by the petitioner was not less than Rs.85,00,000/- on the date of notification issued U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the present Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:48:23 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 6 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India case. That U/s 3 (a) of L.A. Act, "Land" includes benefits to arise out of the land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to the earth. Therefore Solatium and Additional Amount should be paid not just on the value of land but also on the cost of structure.
B. That the property in question acquired for the purpose of MRTS Project and the same had commercial use and value in view of the fact that the DMRC has constructed the Metro Station at walkable distance and is right opposite to the Metro Line. The road between Metro line and the property in question is vide enough and has very high potential market value.
C. That the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation at the commercial rate in view of the location potentiality and high quality of the said property. It is pertinent to submit that the acquired land is in the vicinity of the commercial center Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-l wherein DDA has sold the plot @ Rs.3,21,528/- per sq. mtr. in the open auction held by the DDA on 27.07.07 prior to the notification U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Government Authorities itself fixes 3:2 ratio while calculating the circle rate of commercial and industrial area. If the said ratio is taking into account then also the fair market rate of the acquired property would be nearly 2,14,352/- per Sq mtr. The market value of the plot auctioned by the DDA is even higher than the amount claimed by the petitioner and much higher than the rate Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:48:27 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 7 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India offered by the Land Acquisition Collector. But the petitioner has restricted his claim for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per Sq. mtr as fair market value of land of his property. D. That the Land Acquisition Collector (South) has also wrongly determined the cost of structure and has assessed the same as per the valuation assessed by the DMRC through the Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, M-112 Delhi against the structure to the tune of Rs.67,05,934/- whereas the fact is that the construction costs of the building existing on the date of notification U/s 4 of L.A. Act, is much higher.
E. That the increasing trend in market rate of the industrial plot was also not considered by the Land Acquisition Collector while passing the award and the award has been passed by considering the sale deeds which were registered at a very low value despite the well known fact that while getting the documents of sale deed registered the people in Delhi do not show the true market rate of their property to avoid the incidence of stamp duty and capital gains tax. It is pertinent to mention here that three out of the five sale deeds considered by LAC have been registered below the Circle Rates. The acquired property is having more potentiality to fetch higher market rate due to its situation and location than the properties considered by the Land Acquisition Collector in order to determine the true market value of the acquired land.
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:48:31
+0530
LAC 22/16
Page 8 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
F. That the acquisition rendered the remaining land in irregular shape and disproportionate frontage to depth and has further rendered the use of remaining plot inconvenient and inefficient in its architecture design and utilization of workable space resulting in reduction of the price of remaining land. The petitioner is also entitled for damages and claimed Rs. 2,10,00,000/- in its claim filed U/s 9 & 10 of L.A. Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector has not determined the said damages in the award for which the petitioner is liable to be paid by the respondents. G. That the acquired land is being developed by the DMRC for construction of Railway Station, Mall, Marketing Complexes, Cineplex, Video Parlors, Restaurants, Commercial shops to attract customers and tourist meaning thereby the DMRC would be using the land for commercial purposes. The Delhi Development Authority itself has sold the commercial land @ Rs. 3,25,528/- per Sq. mtr. This fact has been intentionally, deliberately ignored by the Land Acquisition Collector (South) while determining the fair market value of the land and passing the award. Thus the petitioner is entitled @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per Sq. mtr. of the acquired land.
H. That the petitioner is also entitled to the damages suffered by him on account of damages for severance and damages for loss of revenue due to non use of premises after acquisition notice. The petitioner is entitled to the compensation against the damages to the tune of Rs.Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:48:36 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 9 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
4,35,58,800/- which was even claimed by the petitioner in the claimed filed U/s 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but the Land Acquisition Collector did not even consider the same while passing the award.
I. The award in respect of 331.443 Sq. mtr. out of the said plot has been acquired by your honour vide above mentioned award and LAC assessed compensation of lease hold property @ Rs. 18,733/-Sq. mtr. 25% less from the market value of free hold land as assessed in the award. J. That the petitioner is also entitled to all the statutory benefits including the Additional amount, interest, solatium etc. in accordance with law. Interest U/s 34 should be paid on the entire amount of compensation including value of land, value of structure, Additional Amount, Solatium and damages and not just on the value of land.
7. That there is no delay in filing the present petition and the same is within the period of limitation.
8. The petitioner sought following reliefs:
a. Fix the market value of the land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per sq. mtr. and the cost of the structure @ Rs. 85,00,000/- as on the date of notification U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
b. Pass an award towards the damages suffered by the petitioner on account of loss of severance and damages for loss of revenue due to non use of premises after acquisition for a sum of Rs. 4,35,58,800/-.
c. Award Additional amount, solatium, damages and interest etc. in accordance with law. d. Any other relief under law for which the petitioner is entitled to. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:48:41 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 10 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
9. In its Written Statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed the claim for enhancement in compensation. It was stated that the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the area Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II in the revenue estate of village Harkesh Nagar was issued on 07.11.2007. The declaration under section 6 and 17 of the Act were issued on 17.12.2007. The land has been acquired for the public purpose namely for "Purpose of Construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat- Badarpur Corridor of Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System Project Phase-II. Notices under section 9 & 10 were issued to the land owners/interested persons inviting claims of the affected properties. Pursuant to the notices, number of claims, were filed by the affected persons claiming different value of the land and properties. After considering all the claims of the land owners/interested parties the Land Acquisition Collector made and pronounced the award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, being Award No. 8/2009-2010 on 11.12.2009. That claim of the petitioner with respect to measurements, apportionment and compensation of the land is admitted to the extent of section 19 statement of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was sufficient and reasonable and it reflected the true market value prevailing at the time of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Various factors were taken into account while assessing the market value. The petitioner was claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land and structures. However the answering respondent craved leave of this Court to Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:48:46 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 11 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India refer and rely upon the Award No. 8/2009-2010 and the statement under section 19 of the Act for the factual aspect of the case. The Land Acquisition Collector in order to assess the fair market value of the land has considered the properties sold in the area and their value registered in the office of Sub-Registrar for the proximate period to section 4 notification. The Land Acquisition Collector considered five sale deeds and takes the average value of these five sale deeds. As the average value shows the value of free hold land including structures, for arriving at the true market value the cost of structures were deducted. In view of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Inder Presad Vs. UOI, the value was further deducted by 25% to arrive at the fair market value of a leasehold property.
9.1. The Land Acquisition Collector rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated under section 23 & 24 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the fair Market Value of the land after considering its current use, potentiality for the future land use, proximity of land to the nearby area. The Land Acquisition Collector also considered the permissive use of the land of the area of the land in question, under the master plan. The market value of the land assessed at Rs. 24,978 per Sq. Mtrs. For free hold land and Rs.18,733 per Sq. Mtrs. for leasehold land besides other statutory benefits. The structures appurtenant to the land under acquisition were got evaluated by the PWD of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and received through DMRC. The DMRC Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:48:50 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 12 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India conducted the evaluation and submitted the evaluation reports after duly vetted by the Public Works Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the Land Acquisition Collector which were accepted after due consideration. The details of the same are mentioned in the Award no. 8/2009-2010. The respondents dis- satisfied with the said determination of the market value of the land and structures, preferred a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation, which was referred to this Court. It was submitted that the land owners/interested persons were claiming exorbitant value of the land structures, which was correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Hence the reference under reply was liable to be dismissed and the petitioners were not entitled to any enhancement over and above the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. It was submitted that none of the land owner/interested person filed any evidence in support of their claim, which was exorbitantly high. The claim of the land owners/interested persons were duly considered and since the same was without any merit or any documentary evidence the same was rightly rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector.
10. Respondent No.2/DMRC also filed its written statement. It was stated in the written statement that there was no cause of action arose to file the present reference/petition and petition needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The reference/petition is not maintainable as Ld. LAC has assessed the correct market value of the land in question. The value determined by the Ld. LAC was exact, appropriate and is quite Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:48:59 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 13 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India fair and reasonable. The reference/petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as such the Petitioner had failed to furnish and supply any evidence in his favour in respect of the relief claimed by him. The reference/petition is barred under Order VI Rule 15 of C.P.C.
11. Separate rejoinder/replication have been filed to the written statement of the respondents, wherein petitioner denied the allegations made by the respondents and reiterated the facts stated in the petition.
12. Vide order dated 01.11.2011, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor of this Court:
1. What is the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act? (OPP).
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation? (OPP)
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for award towards the damages on account of loss of severance and damages for loss of revenue? (OPP).
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the interest/solatium? (OPP).
5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount (i.e. 25%) being deducted by LAC on the ground that the property is perpetual lease hold? (OPP).
6. Relief.
13. Order dated 17.04.2012 of Ld. Predecessor Court reflects that that day it was recorded that LAC no. 222/11, LAC No. 33/11, LAC no. 55/11, LAC no. 54/11 and LAC no. 34/11 are pertaining to the same award and petitioner was allowed to led evidence in the present case for the purpose of consideration of the market value at the time notification under Section 4 of LA Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:49:05 +0530 Page 14 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India Act and the present matter was allowed to be taken as a lead case at request of Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
14. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. Petitioner examined himself as PW1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/1 and relied on the following documents:
i) Certified copy of perpetual lease dated 19.01.1982 as Ex. PW1/2.
ii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 09.06.2008 as Ex. PW1/3.
iii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 27.05.2008 as Ex.PW1/4.
iv) Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.12.2007 as Ex. PW1/5.
v) Certified copy of sale deed dated 14.12.2007 as Ex.PW1/6.
vi) Certified copy of sale deed dated 19.09.2007 as Ex. PW1/7.
vii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 10.04.2007 as Ex. PW1/8.
viii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 15.01.2007 as Ex.PW1/9.
ix) Certified copy of valuation of building structure as Ex.PW1/10.
x) Chart showing the calculation of the land rate after deduction of the cost of building structure as Mark A.
xi) Auction brochure as Mark B.
xii) Information sought under RTI Act by the petitioner vide letter dated 14.07.2010 as Ex. PW1/11.
xiii) Copy of zonal plan F from DDA as Mark C.
xiv) Copy of layout plan from DDA to Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I as Mark D.
xv) Copy of layout plan from DDA to Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II is Mark E. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:49:11 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 15 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India xvi) Copy of layout plan showing the locations of industrial plots in Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I & II on a single map as Mark F. xvii) Copy of letter issued by respondent no.2 under RTI Act vide its letter no. 2009/DMRC/PR/RTI/1052 dated 29.06.2009 as Ex. PW1/12.
xviii) Map alongwith the said letter as Mark G. xix) Prescribed form by the DDA for the year 2007-08 as Ex. PW1/13.
xx) Copy of letter dated DDA dated 20.04.2007 showing rate of conversion from leasehold to free hold for the year 2007-08 as Mark H. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsels for DMRC and UOI.
15. PW-2 is Himangshu Kumar Sarma, Asst. Manager, Public Relations, DMRC. He brought the photocopy of the letter dated 29.06.2009 and 29.07.2009. During his examination he stated that original letters had been sent to Sh. Arun Kumar and exhibited the copies of said letters as Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2.
16. PW-3 is Sh. Mahender Singh, Assistant, DDA, Office At C Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan INA. He brought the attested copy of circular dated 20.04.2007 regarding the revised rates for conversion of commercial/built up property and industrial properties into freehold for the financial year 2007-2008 and exhibited the same as Ex.PW3/1. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsels for DMRC and UOI.
17. PW-4 is Sh. Arun Kumar Vasisht, Asst. Director (Plg.), Area Planning-I, DDA, Vikas Minar, New Delhi. He brought the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:49:15 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 16 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India attested copy of the map bearing item no. 21/PLG/97, File no. F- 1 (22)/92/ZP and exhibited the same as Ex.PW4/1. The property bearing Z-67 situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II was marked at Point A and Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I was marked at point B. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsels for DMRC and UOI.
18. PW-5 is Sh. Nav Rattan Singh, Draftsman, Town Planning Deptt., MCD, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. He brought the original layout plan (map) for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I & Phase II but he did not bring the certified copies of the same. He was directed to bring the certified copies of the documents. His examination-in-chief was deferred. Thereafter on 08.01.2013, official from MCD was appeared, however, he had not brought the relevant summoned document. He stated that he is working on contract basis and may not be bound down.
19. PW-6 is Sh. Rama Shanker, Planning Assistant (Contract Basis), MCD, Town Planning, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. He brought the summoned record i.e. original layout plan (map) for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and original layout plan (map) for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. Certified copy of layout plan for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I was exhibited as Ex.PW-6/1 (OSR) and certified copy of layout plan for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II was exhibited as Ex.PW-6/2 (OSR). He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for UOI.
20. PW-7 is Sh. Saurabh Kumar Mishra, Senior Manager, Recovery Division, DSIIDC, Parpar Ganj, Udyog Sadan, Delhi. He brought the summoned record i.e. photocopy of auction Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:49:20 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 17 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India brochure dated 30.03.2010 and marked the same as Mark A. The said copy already marked as Mark B was in the file and the said photocopy was the same. He further brought the record of lease deed and free hold conveyance deed. The conveyance deed was exhibited as Ex.PW7/1 (OSR). He also brought another conveyance deed dated 04.09.2012, which was exhibited as Ex.PW7/2 (OSR). He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for UOI. He was again cross-examined on 28.01.2014.
21. PW-8 is Sh. Nand Kumar, Assistant Commercial Accountant (Recovery), DSIDC, Udyog Sadan, Parparganj, New Delhi. He brought the summoned record i.e. attested copy of conveyance deed dated 23.05.2012 and marked as Mark-A. His examination-in-chief was deferred as he did not bring the original documents on that day and thereafter he never appeared.
22. Thereafter, PE was closed on vide order dated 28.01.2014.
23. On behalf of the respondent No.1/Union of India, Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for UOI tendered the copy of the award of Village Harkesh Nagar as Ex.R-1. He also tendered the photocopy of sale deed dated 19.04.2007 entered between Kesho Nath Vs Rinku Sobti for Rs.1,65,00,000/- pertaining to Village Okhla. The same was exhibited as Ex.RW1/A.
24. Respondent no.2/DMRC examined Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer, DMRC as RW2 in RE. He relied upon photocopy of sale deed dated 10.5.2007 entered between M/s Navjeevan Associate Pvt. Ltd and M/s Unique Technobuild Pvt. Ltd for Rs.9,81,00,000/- pertaining to Mohan Cooperative Industrial Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:49:24 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 18 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India Area and exhibited the same as Ex.RW2/A. He also relied upon copy of the judgment dated 21.4.2017 in LAC no.101/16, titled as Mate Ram Vs UOI & Ors decided by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, ADJ- 02 West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and exhibited the same as Ex.RW2/B.
25. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of respondents no.1/UOI and respondent no.2/DMRC was closed on 09.01.2018 vide separate statements of their respective counsels.
26. During the proceedings, one application on behalf of DMRC under Section 151 CPC for reopening the respondent evidence was filed which was allowed vide order dated 09.07.2024 and opportunity was given to DMRC to lead additional evidence.
27. Thereafter, DMRC examined Sh. Sushant Tripathi, Law Officer, DMRC, Metro Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi as RW-3. He relied upon the following documents:
i) Certified copy of sale deed dated 14.06.2007 registered with Sub-Registrar with registration no. 7416 in Book no. 1, volume no. 7397 from pages 99-110 and exhibited the same as Ex.RW-3/A (objected to as mode of proof).
ii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.10.2007 registered with Sub-Registrar with registration no. 12863 in Additional Book no. 1, volume no. 7728 from pages 88-139 and exhibited the same as Ex. RW-3/B (objected to as mode of proof).
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of respondent Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:49:27 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 19 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India no.2/DMRC was closed on 09.07.2024 vide separate statement of Law Officer, DMRC.
28. On 03.09.2024, one application on behalf of the UOI under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of DDA being proper and necessary party was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 05.11.2024 and DDA was impleaded as respondent no.3 in the present case.
29. Written statement on behalf of DDA alongwith documents was filed on 04.12.2024.
30. Replication on behalf of petitioner to the written statement of respondent no.3/DDA was filed on 08.01.2025.
31. During the proceedings, an application on behalf of DMRC under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC alongwith certain documents was again filed on 01.10.2024, which was allowed vide order dated 28.01.2025 and documents filed alongwith the application were taken on record.
32. On 28.01.2025, an application on behalf of DMRC under Section 151 CPC for reopening RE alongwith annexures was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2025.
33. Thereafter, RW2 Sh. A.S. Rao, DGM, Legal, DMRC tendered additional evidence. He relied upon the following documents:
i) Certified copy of the agreement to sell dated 09.08.2006 entered into between Sh. Arun Bhatia and Sh. Nitin Juneja as Ex.RW2/C (Objected to as mode of proof).
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:49:31 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 20 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
ii) Copy of requisition dated 15.06.2007 submitted by DMRC to Secretary, Land and Building Department for acquisition as Ex.RW2/D (OSR).
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, RE on behalf of DMRC was closed on 04.03.2025.
34. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. My issue-wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1: What is the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act? (OPP).
Petitioner's Evidence:-
35. The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner and in order to prove the issue the petitioner led evidence by examining himself as PW1 and certain officials from the government offices as PW2 to PW8.
36. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon documents Ex.PW1/2 to PW1/13 and Mark-A to Mark-H.
37. Ex.PW1/2 is perpetual lease deed dated 19.01.1982 of the subject land in petitioner's favour. This document was not relied upon by the petitioner to prove the actual market value of the subject land but only to show his entitlement for the compensation. Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9 are certified copies of Sale Deeds dated 09.06.2008, 27.05.2008, 18.12.2007, 14.12.2007, 19.09.2007, 10.04.2007 and 15.01.2007 respectively.
Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:49:36 +0530 Page 21 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
During the final arguments, Ld. counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 were executed after the present case Section 4 notification LA Act, 1894.
38. The judgment dated 26.07.1995 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 704-706/19860 in case titled State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. was relied upon by the respondent no.2 to oppose the consideration of these sale deeds to determine the market value of the subject land. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para 3 which is reproduced as under:
"..... as on the date of the determination of the compensation. Its consideration should alone be confined to the market value prevailing as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1)."
39. The locality of exemplar Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 are different to the present case subject land. The subject land is situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Z Block having plot No. 67. However, the subject land of Sale Deed Ex.PW1/3 is situated at B-18/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. The exemplar Ex.PW1/4 is situated at D- 177, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. The exemplar Ex.PW1/5 is Sale Deed of plot No. E-49/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II and the exemplar Ex.PW1/6 is the Sale Deed of Plot No. D-10/8, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. Documents Mark-D, Mark-E and Mark-F which are the maps of layout plans of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and Phase-II show considerable Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:49:42 +0530 Page 22 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India distance between exemplar lands and subject land of the present case. Moreover, there is no deliberations with respect to the actual distance of the acquired land with the exemplars or any locational advantages and disadvantages factor with regard to the specifications of location of acquired land vis-a-vis the exemplars and also considering that any party to the sale deed was not examined to prove the bonafideness of the transaction. The Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the subject land. In view of the abovesaid settled legal position also the Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/6 fall within the ambit of subsequent development after the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
40. Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/9 are the three other exemplar sale deeds. The locality of Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/9 are different to the present case subject land. The present case subject land is situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Z Block having plot No. 67. The subject land of exemplar Ex.PW1/7 is situated at Okhla Industiral Area, Phase-II, Block-A and bearing Plot No. 86. The exemplar Ex.PW1/8 is situated at Okhla Industiral Area, Phase-I, Block-F and bearing plot No. 90/25 and the exemplar Ex.PW1/9 is Sale Deed of Plot No. 63, F-Block, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. However, document Mark-D i.e. copy of layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- I, document Mark-E i.e. copy of layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II and document Mark-F i.e. copy of layout plan showing locations of industrial plot in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and II on single map show a considerable distance Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:49:47 +0530 Page 23 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India between the exemplar lands and the subject land of the present case. The subject land of exemplars Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 are situated in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, however, the subject land of the present case is situated in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. The abovesaid layout plans show that these properties are situated at the opposite ends of Phase-I and Phase- II and accordingly a considerable distance lies between these exemplars and subject land. The subject land exemplar Ex.PW1/7 and the subject land of the present case both are situated in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. However, Ex.PW1/7 is in A-Block having plot No. 86 and the subject land of the present case is situated in Z-Block having plot No. 67 and as per the abovesaid layout plans, both these lands are situated at extreme ends of North-East and South-West directions of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II.
41. During final arguments, certain photographs were put before this court on behalf of the respondents, which were also showed to Ld. counsel for the petitioner. These photographs were produced in order to show the surrounding locations of the subject land. It was argued by Ld. counsel for the respondents that acquired land is surrounded by the jhuggis/encroachments and in front of the acquired properties there is an open Nala and there was no proper access to approach the subject properties. It was further argued that even the present petitioner himself filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide CWP No. 3624/2014 titled Arun Kumar Vs. DMRC to remove the garbage and encroachments in that area. They argued that the Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:49:51 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 24 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India acquired properties were only accessible through service road which is totally encroached by the jhuggis. It was argued that just behind the acquired properties there is an unauthorized residential colony and there is no access to the subject land from that side. These facts were not denied by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner. These facts were argued on behalf of the respondents in order to show that the subject land area lacks development till date and in these circumstances, the market price of the highly developed area of the Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I might not be considered in order to determine the market value.
42. In a case Union of India Versus Pramod Gupta(Dead) by LRs and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the two methods laying down the principles for determining the market value. Firstly, what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser. Secondly, comparison of sale deeds. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. The area of land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the land.
43. In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001) 7SCC 650, Hon'ble Supreme Court made pertinent observation about comparable sales method of valuation and relevant factors thereunder in the following words;
3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:49:55 +0530 Page 25 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as Capitalisation of Net Income Method or Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4of the Act. However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded,according to the value the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down" inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sales must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sale must be similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.
44. The scale is of a willing seller and a willing purchaser and the domain is a fair and reasonable understanding of the potentiality of land and a just decision based thereupon. The onus is upon the claimants to show in quantitative terms, the existing and prospective development of the acquired land so as to enable the Court to fairly adjudge the market value of the said land.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:49:59 +0530 Page 26 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
45. It is settled law that the exemplar to be considered has to be that of a comparable land in respect of being contemporary in time and also enjoying situational proximity so as to give a fair idea of the market value of similarly placed lands in the immediate vicinity or in the neighbouring areas at the relevant time of issuance of notification.
46. It is settled law that each piece of land might suffer from locational advantages or disadvantages and cannot simply be equated to apply to any land, even in the same village. Nothing has been placed on record to show as to how the sale amount/consideration in the exemplars relied upon by petitioner, can be applied to the acquired land. There is no deliberation with respect to the actual distance of acquired land with the exemplars relied upon or any locational advantageous or disadvantageous factor with regard to specification of location of acquired land vis-a-vis the exemplars. There is nothing to show that the acquired land enjoys similar locational advantages and disadvantages.
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kanwar Singh & Ors. V. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 317 observed regarding compensation awarded to the claimants of adjoining village, as follows:
"9. The contention of appellants counsel that appellants deserved to be awarded the same rate of compensation as it was awarded to the claimants of village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, in the present facts and circumstances of the case. is not tenable. If we go by the compensation awarded to claimants of adjoining village it would not lead to the correct Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:50:04 +0530 Page 27 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India assessment of market value of the land acquired in the village Rangpuri. For example village 'A' adjoins village 'B', village 'B' adjoins village 'C', village 'C' adjoins village 'D', so on and so forth and in that process the entire Delhi would be covered. Generally there would be different situation and potentiality of the land situated in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same."
48. In the present case also the exemplar Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 are situated in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and subject land of the present case is situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. Phase-I and Phase-II are adjoining to each other and accordingly, on the same analogy, the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanwar Singh (supra) is fairly applicable in the present case also. In view of the abovesaid discussion, settled legal prepositions, these sale deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9 also do not fairly indicate the prevailing market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification.
49. Ex.PW1/10 is valuation report of the subject land of this case alongwith a covering letter sent by Executive Engineer, PWD to the petitioner herein. As per the valuation report, the assessed value for the subject land is Rs.6705934/-. During his cross-examination dated 17.04.2012, PW1 answered that he has not challenged the compensation for construction upon the land in question. Moreover, no separate issue regarding any enhanced compensation for construction upon the subject land was also framed or ever pressed for in the present case. Accordingly, the compensation for construction upon the subject land is not in Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:50:09 +0530 Page 28 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India issue. Perusal of the valuation report itself shows that while preparing the valuation report the value of the land was not considered. As per para 6 of the affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1 of petitioner/PW1, Ex.PW1/10 was filed to prove the value of the structure and the method of valuation. Accordingly, this document also cannot be considered to determine the actual market value of the acquired land.
50. PW1 also filed on a document Mark-A, which is a comparable calculation chart. PW1 explained this document in para 7 of his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1. This calculation chart prepared by the petitioner shows valuation of building structure of the abovestated Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9. It was claimed that the valuation of structure for these seven Sale Deeds had been calculated on the same basis as has been done by Executive Engineer, PWD for the subject land property. It has further been averred that this document clearly proves market value of the acquired land which was much lesser than the true market rate on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act. However, during the final arguments this document was not explained on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, the document was also not proved by calling any expert witness. Otherwise also, as per the petitioner's claim itself this document pertains to the valuation of the building structure of the abovesaid sale deeds. At the maximum, valuation of structure over the subject land of these sale deeds may be somewhere similar to the structure over the present case subject land but that scenario also shall not be useful to assess the actual market value of the present Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:50:13 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 29 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India case subject land because the cost of structure does not depend upon the market value of the land. Even otherwise, the total cost of building structure as per this document Mark-A also is different for all of the Sale Deeds. It is not a hidden fact that factors governing the market value of the land are different to the factors which affect the cost of the structure. Accordingly, this document is of no help to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
51. Ex.PW1/11 is an information under RTI Act as furnished by DSIIDC to the petitioner through letter dated 14.07.2010. Perusal of the RTI information shows that it was regarding auction details of shed number 188-189 of DSIIDC, Okhla Industrial Complex, Phase-I, New Delhi.
Document Mark-B as filed by PW1 during his evidence on 17.04.2012 is an auction brochure, wherein the auction details regarding abovesaid property No. 188-189 of DSIIDC, Okhla Industrial Complex, Phase-I have been mentioned. As per this document, the date of auction is 30.03.2010 i.e. post notification under Section 4 of LA Act, 1894 in the present case.
PW-7 was a summoned witness from DSIIDC, Udyog Sadan, Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. conveyance deed of these properties. The conveyance deed of property no. 188, Phase-I at Okhla Industrial Complex was exhibited as Ex.PW7/1 and this conveyance deed is found to be registered on 21.06.2012. The conveyance deed of property no. 189, Phase-I at Okhla Industrial Complex was exhibited as Ex.PW7/2 and this conveyance deed is found to be registered on 10.09.2012.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:50:18 +0530 Page 30 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
52. Regarding the exemplars of auction sales, it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors." Appeal Nos. 51-52 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27805/2009), Civil decided on 04.01.2011 that "Unless there are indications to hold otherwise, all sale transactions under registered sale deeds will be assumed to be normal sales by willing sellers to willing purchasers. Where however there is evidence or indications that the sale was not at prevailing fair market value, it has to be ignored. But auction sales stand on a different footing. When purchasers start bidding for a property in an auction, an element of competition enters into the auction. Human ego, and desire to do better and excel other competitors, leads to competitive bidding, each trying to outbid the others. Thus in a well advertised open auction sale, where a large number of bidders participate, there is always a tendency for the price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On the other hand, where the auction sale is by banks or financial institutions, courts, etc. to recover dues, there is an element of distress, a cloud regarding title, and a chance of litigation, which have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders and making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There is therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction sale transactions when other regular traditional sale transactions are available while determining the market value of the acquired Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:50:23 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 31 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India land. This Court in Raj Kumar v. Haryana State MANU/SC/7864/2007: 2007 (7) SCC 609, observed that the element of competition in auction sales makes them unsafe guides for determining the market value.".
Section 24 of LA, Act provides that any increase of value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use of which it will be put when acquired is required to be neglected while determining compensation. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. (supra) observed that in order to determine market value of the acquired land its consideration should be confined to the market value prevailing as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894.
It is settled law that the exemplar to be considered has to be that of a comparable land in respect of being contemporary in time and also enjoying situational proximity so as to give a fair idea of the market value of similarly placed lands in the immediate vicinity or in the neighbouring areas at the relevant time of issuance of notification.
It is also settled law that each piece of land might suffer from locational advantages or disadvantages and cannot simply be equated to apply to any land, even in the same village. Nothing has been placed on record to show as to how the sale amount/consideration in the exemplars relied upon by petitioners, can be applied to the acquired land. There is no deliberation with respect to the actual distance of acquired land with the exemplars relied upon or any locational advantageous or disadvantageous Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:50:28 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 32 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India factor with regard to specification of location of acquired land vis-a-vis the exemplars.
When there is no evidence regarding comparability of the exemplars with subject land then in view of the abovesaid settled legal position regarding auction sale transactions and sale transactions took place after issuance of Section 4 notification of the LA Act, 1894, these documents cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
53. Ex.PW1/12 is an information dated 29.06.2009 under RTI Act, 2005 furnished by DMRC to the petitioner herein. Through this letter dated 9.06.2009, DMRC provided the information regarding certain dimensions. However, except the mentioning of dimensions no other detail has been mentioned in the letter. However, the petitioner also filed a map alongwith letter Ex.PW1/12 and the map is marked as Mark-G. After seeing the map, it is clear that the dimensions as mentioned in document Ex.PW1/12 are regarding balance area left out with owner i.e. petitioner herein. The map contains the dimensions of the subject land. This document is also not relevant to determine the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act as it is not related to the valuation of the subject land.
54. Ex.PW1/13 is a booklet published by DDA in August, 2003 containing scheme of conversion from lease hold to free hold. One document Mark-H was also filed during the evidence of PW1/petitioner, which is one circular of DDA dated 20.04.2007 showing market rates of commercial properties and Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:51:30 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 33 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India market rates of industrial properties in various zones of Delhi for conversion of these properties into free hold. This circular dated 20.04.2007 was also filed by PW3, who was examined as summoned witness alongwith the attested copy of circular dated 20.04.2007 and it was exhibited as Ex.PW3/1. The letter Ex.PW3/1 and letter marked as Mark-H are copies of same circular. However, it was not explained on behalf of the petitioner that how these documents may be relied upon to decide the actual market value of the subject land and as it has been mentioned in the abovesaid circular dated 20.04.2007 itself that the same were being circulated on provisional basis subject to approval of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. Any relevant document showing subsequent approval of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India in respect of this circular dated 20.04.2007 was not placed on record on behalf of the petitioner. It is also noted in the circular itself that these rights are applicable only for the purpose of computation of conversion charges for commercial/industrial plots for allowing conversion from lease hold to free hold and would not at all be applicable for allotment of plots at market rates, etc. Accordingly, in absence of any relevant document showing approval by concerned authority, the document Ex.PW3/1/Mark-H cannot be considered to determine the actual market value of the land at the relevant point of time.
55. Document Ex.PW1/13 was relied upon by the petitioner only in order to show the calculation method for abovesaid Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:51:35 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 34 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India conversion charges and it is also not relevant to decide the actual market value of the subject land.
56. The petitioner also relied upon copy of Zonal Plan of Zone F from DDA and the same was marked as Mark-C during his evidence. Nature of the subject land use is not in dispute and the parties admitted that the nature of land use of the subject land is industrial. As per affidavit Ex.PW1/1 of PW1 this document was filed to show the location of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I and II. Accordingly, this document was filed with sole purpose of understanding the location of Phase I and Phase II and apart from this it does not have any direct bearing on the assessment of actual market value of the acquired land at the relevant point of time.
57. Petitioner also examined summoned witnesses i.e. PW2 to PW9.
58. PW2 appeared from DMRC alongwith letter dated 29.06.2009 and 29.07.2009 which were exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2 respectively. Ex.PW2/1 is the same document which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/12 during the evidence of the petitioner/PW1 and the same has already been discussed above and need not to be discussed again. Ex.PW2/2 is letter dated 29.07.2009 vide which the information under RTI Act, 2005 was furnished by the DMRC to the petitioner herein. However, this document only mentions that the reply to the queries of the petitioner had already been provided to him vide letter dated 29.06.2009 and the letter dated 29.06.2009 is nothing but the abovesaid document Ex.PW2/1 which has already been Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:51:39 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 35 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India discussed. Accordingly, these documents are of no help to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
59. PW3 is Assistant from DDA Vikas Sadan, INA and he exhibited the document Ex.PW3/1 i.e. circular dated 20.04.2007 regarding the revised rates of conversion from commercial/industrial properties to free hold for the financial year 2007-08 during his evidence, which has already been discussed above alongwith document Mark-H as filed by PW1 and need not to be discussed again.
60. PW4 is Assistant Director (Plg.), DDA, Vikas Mandir, who brought the summoned record i.e. attested copy of map and it was exhibited as Ex.PW4/1. Ex.PW4/1 and abovesaid discussed document Mark-C as filed during the evidence of PW1 are same. In Ex.PW4/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I is marked as Mark-B and Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II where the subject land is situated has been marked as Mark-A. Undisputedly, both the Phase-I and Phase-II are adjoining to each other. However, this court cannot turn a Nelson's eye to the fact that the subject land is situated at remote end of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II towards Harkesh Nagar and not towards Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I. So, this document for the purpose of comparison of the subject land in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II with the lands of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I cannot be considered because there is a considerable distance between the subject land and Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II.
61. PW5 appeared from MCD office on 18.09.2012 and his examination-in-chief was deferred for want of certified copies of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:51:43 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 36 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India the layout plan (map) of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and Phase-II. Perusal of the record shows that thereafter, PW5 did not appear for remaining examination. Accordingly, his incomplete evidence cannot be read. However, PW5 was summoned only for the purpose of bringing on record the original/certified copy of layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and Phase-II and these documents have already been discussed while discussing documents Mark-D, Mark-E and Mark-F as filed by PW1/petitioner during his evidence.
62. PW6 is summoned witness from MCD, who brought the original layout plan for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and Phase- II . The certified copies of these layout plans were exhibited as Ex.PW6/1 and PW6/2 respectively for Phase-I and Phase-II. These lay out plans have already been discussed above and need not to be discussed again to avoid repetition.
63. PW7 is a summoned witness from DSIIDC, who brought the conveyance deeds Ex.PW7/1 and Ex.PW7/2. These documents have already been discussed above alognwith documents Ex.PW1/11 and document Mark B and need not to be discussed again in order to avoid repetition. PW8 is also a summoned witness from DSIIDC, who was partly examined on 22.10.2013 and his further examination was deferred for want of original documents, however, thereafter PW8 did not to appear and accordingly his incomplete examination cannot be read in evidence. He filed one conveyance deed dated 23.05.2012 which was marked as Mark-A during his evidence and otherwise also this document cannot be considered to assess the market value of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:51:46 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 37 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India the subject land as it was executed post notification under Section 4 of LA Act in the present case. Even Ld. counsel for petitioner also did not discuss this document during final arguments. Respondents' Evidence:-
64. Ld. counsel for UOI examined himself as RW1 and filed sale deed dated 19.04.2007 pertaining to F Block of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II and exhibited it as Ex.RW1/A. During final arguments, Ld. counsel for UOI submitted that the sale deed was not of the same locality and UOI does not rely upon that document. On submissions on behalf of UOI and also considering that this sale deed pertains to different Block and there is no deliberation with respect to the actual distance of acquired land with the exemplar or any locational advantages or disadvantages factor with regard to specification of location of acquired land vis-à-vis the exemplar and also considering that any party to the sale deed was not examined to prove the bonafideness of the transaction, this document cannot be relied upon to determine the actual market value of the subject land.
65. The Law Officer, DMRC examined himself as RW2 and on 09.01.2018 filed copy of sale deed dated 10.05.2007 exhibited as Ex.RW2/A pertaining to Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area.
During his evidence, one copy of judgment dated 21.04.2017 in LAC No. 1101/16 tilted as Mate Ram Vs. UOI & Ors. were also filed and exhibited as Ex. RW2/B. However, during final arguments, it was submitted by DMRC that the abovesaid documents as filed on behalf of DMRC on 09.01.2018 pertain to different locality and need not to be taken into consideration to Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:51:50 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 38 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India determine the market value of the subject land. In view of the submissions and considering no evidence regarding comparability of present case subject land with the subject land of these cases, these documents are also liable to be ignored to assess the market value of the subject land.
66. Thereafter, on 04.03.2025, RW2 was further examined for additional evidence and that day he filed agreement to sell dated 09.08.2006 exhibited as Ex.RW2/C, copy of DMRC's requisition dated 15.06.2007 Ex.RW2/D (OSR). Document Ex.PW2/C was objected to on the ground of mode of proof on behalf of the petitioner.
One another witness RW3 on behalf of DMRC filed certified copy of sale deeds dated 14.06.2007 and 18.10.2007, which were exhibited as Ex. RW3/A and Ex.RW3/B respectively. Both these documents were also objected to on the ground of mode of proof on behalf of the petitioner.
67. Document Ex.RW2/D is merely an intimation letter from DMRC to the Secretary, Land & Building Department regarding requirement of private land on permanent basis in connection with Construction of Central Secretariat - Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project, Phase-II. This document does not speak anything about the market value of the subject land. The purpose of filing of this document was also not explained on behalf of DMRC. Accordingly, this document is useless to determine the actual market value of the subject land.
68. Document Ex.RW3/A is a Sale Deed for an industrial plot bearing No. 129, Block-A measuring 1226.5 sq. yards Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:51:55 +0530 Page 39 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India situated in revenue estate of Village Bahapur and Jasola in the layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. Document Ex.RW3/B is Sale Deed of an industrial plot bearing No. 20/1 in D Block, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. However, these documents were objected on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of mode of proof. These documents cannot be relied upon to determine the actual market value of the subject land as there is no deliberations with respect to the actual distance of the acquired land with the exemplars or any locational advantages and disadvantages factor with regard to the specifications of location of acquired land vis-a-vis the exemplars. Moreover, any party to the sale deed was also not examined to prove the bonafideness of the transaction.
69. However, one fact which may not be ignored is that as per sale deed Ex.RW3/A, the subject land of this sale deed is situated in Block A of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, in the revenue estate of Village Bahapur and Jasola. On the other hand, subject land of the present case is situated in the Block Z of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, in the revenue estate of the Village Harkesh Nagar. It shows that even the Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II is not situated in the revenue estate of any single village what to talk of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II and Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I put together. In these circumstances, the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh & Ors. (supra) cannot be ignored.
70. Document Ex.RW2/C is certified copy of Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.2006 entered into between one Sh. Arun Bhatia Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:52:00 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 40 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India and Sh. Nitin Juneja. This Agreement to Sell pertains to the subject land of one connected case LAC No. 110/16 titled Nitin Juneja Vs. UOI. During the evidence of RW2, this document was objected to on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of mode of proof.
On 29.04.2025, it was requested on behalf of the respondents that judicial notice of the sale transactions of the subject land in connected case bearing LAC 105/16 tilted Rakesh Verma Vs. UOI and LAC 92/16 in case titled Jagdeep Singh Sapra Vs. UOI may also be taken.
Perusal of the order dated 29.04.2025 shows that that day Ld. counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the veracity of the documents of sale transactions as relied upon by respondents and on inquiry Ld. counsel for the petitioner also submitted that original of these documents were never produced before this court.
It is also pertinent to mention here that on 01.11.2011, it was submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that there were five other connected matters alongwith the present case and the present case be treated as a lead case and prayed for leading his evidence in the present case. Thereafter, on submissions on behalf of the petitioner common evidences were led only in the present case. During the final arguments also, Ld. counsel for the petitioner requested to read the evidence of this case in other connected cases also. It is also a factual as well as admitted position of the parties that the subject lands of these connected cases are adjacent to each other and are similarly located. The Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:52:04 +0530 Page 41 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India sale and purchase documents of these properties are best piece of evidence to assess the actual market value of the subject land in view of the settled legal position.
In Special Deputy Collector & Anr. Etc vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors. Etc', AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 2625, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold; nature of the consideration and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors."
Accordingly, the judicial notice of sale transactions of the subject land of abovestated connected cases is hereby taken.
The Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.2006 was entered into between Sh. Arun Bhatia and Sh. Nitin Juneja for sale of industrial Plot No. 61, Block Z, measuring 487.78 sq. mtrs. situated in layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I for sale consideration of Rs.29,50,000/- is hereby taken. As per this sale transaction the subject land of connected case LAC No. 110/16 in case titled Nitin Juneja Vs. UOI was purchased for a consideration amount of Rs.6,047.70/- per sq. mtrs. The transaction took place around 15 months before the notification under Section 4 of LA Act dated 07.11.2007 in the present case. Even by applying the progressive increase @ 15% per annum, consideration amount of this transaction remains below the compensation awarded by the LAC in the present case.
The agreement to sell dated 16.02.2004 pertaining to subject land of connected case LAC No. 105/16 in case titled Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:52:08 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 42 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India Rakesh Verma Vs UOI was entered into between Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Rakesh Verma for sale of industrial plot bearing No. Z-65 measuring 605 sq. yards (505.85 sq. mtrs.) situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi for a sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- i.e. Rs.6611.57/- per sq. yards (7907.48 per sq. mtrs.). The transaction took place around 45 months before the notification under Section 4 of LA Act dated 07.11.2007 in the present case. Even by applying the progressive increase @ 15% per annum, the consideration amount of this transaction remains below the compensation awarded by the LAC in the present case.
The sale deed dated 22.08.2008 pertaining to subject land of connected case LAC No. 92/16 in case titled Jagdeep Singh Sapra Vs UOI is found to be executed in favour of Sh. Gagandeep Singh Sapra and Sh. Jagdeep Singh Sapra for sale of free hold property bearing No. Z-62, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II admeasuring 534 sq. mtrs. and other common easement together with undivided, indivisible and impartial proportionate ownership rights of the land underneath the said building for a total consideration of Rs.99,70,000/- i.e. Rs.18670/- per sq. mtrs. Again the consideration amount of this sale deed also is lesser to the compensation awarded by the LAC in the present case.
It is also pertinent to mention here that per square meter value of the abovesaid subject lands of the connected cases has been calculated without deducting the construction cost of the structure available on the subject lands of these sale deeds /agreement to sell of connected cases and despite this their Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:52:12 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 43 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India consideration amount remain lesser to the compensation awarded by the LAC only for the acquired land in the present case.
71. In view of the abovesaid discussion, case laws, material available on record and considering the abovesaid best piece of evidence in form of sale transactions of the subject lands of the abovesaid connected cases, I am of the considered opinion that LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act, 1894. Hence, issue No.1 is decided against the petitioner. Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation? (OPP)
72. As issue no.1 is decided by upholding the market value of the acquired land as determined by LAC, so the petitioner is held not entitled for any enhanced compensation. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided against the petitioner. Issue No.3: Whether the petitioner is entitled for award towards the damages on account of loss of severance and damages for loss of revenue? (OPP).
73. The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. The petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove the actual loss of severance and damages for loss of revenue in support of his present claim on account of these damages. Due to the reasons best known to the petitioner himself, he neither filed balance sheet, profit or loss account or receipt of his business, if any, on the subject land either before or after Section 4 notification of LA Act. During his cross-examination dated 17.04.2012 he also admitted that he had not challenged the compensation for Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:52:18 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 44 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India construction upon the land in question. Respondents relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case titled Binny Ltd., Madras Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Madras, Appeal No. 696 of 1975 decided on 29.11.1977 by Double Bench, where it has been observed as under:
"4. One another head of claim which was made by the claimant was severance compensation under Section 23(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. What is urged by Mr. Ramasubramaniam is that by reason of the acquisition the frontage of the property has been sufficiently and conspicuously cut and the left out portion is at a disadvantage having lost such an access to the east of it. But the question is whether there has been severance at all and if there was a severance whether there was a damage as a result thereof and if such damage is alleged whether it has been proved. .... Severance compensation which is the subject-matter of Clause (3) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, has a special significance. It is not every severance within the dictionary meaning of, that word that could provoke the owner! whose property has been sliced to come to the court or ask for the same before the Land Acquisition Officer. It is such severance which in the eye of law could be said to have damnified by reason of a compulsory acquisition that could be the subject- matter of the claim. In every case such damage has not only to be pleaded, but also to be proved by acceptable evidence."
74. In the present case also, the alleged damage due to severance was not proved by the petitioner by acceptable evidence. I am also not inclined to accept the contention of Ld. counsel for the petitioner that for severance compensation should mechanically be granted because a major portion of the subject land has been acquired because damage, if any, due to the severance not only to be pleaded but also has to be proved by Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:52:23 +0530 Page 45 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India acceptable evidence. In the present case not even a single evidence on this issue to prove damages was led on behalf of the petitioner.
In view of the abovesaid discussion, material available on record, in absence of acceptable evidence and the settled legal position, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled for award towards the damages on account of loss of severance and damages for loss of severance. Accordingly, issue No.3 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.4: Whether the petitioner is entitled for the interest/solatium? (OPP).
75. Section 23(2) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides that in addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the court shall in every case award a sum of 30 per centum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
76. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled State of Pubjab Vs. Amarjit Singh & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 1494 of 2011 decided on 08.02.2011 declares that the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act was payable only on the market value determined under Section 23(1) of the Act and cannot be calculated on solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act. Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"7. Thus a person whose land is acquired is entitled to the following amounts under the Act.
(a) Compensation determined under Section 23(1) of the Act (comprising the market value of the land referred to as the first factor and any Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:52:28 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 46 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India damages/expenses referred to as the second to sixth factors under the said sub-section).
(b) Solatium at 30% on the market value determined as the first factor under section 23(1) of the Act.
(c) Additional amount at 12% per annum of the market value of the land referred to as the first factor under Section 23(1) of the Act, for the period specified in Section 23(2).
(d) Interest on the aggregate of (a), (b) and (c) above for the period between the date of taking possession to date of payment/deposit at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period.
Payments made are to be adjusted and accounted in the manner set out in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457."
77. Perusal of Award Ex.R-1 shows that solatium @ 30% alongwith additional amunt @ 12% under Section 23(1)(a) and interest @ 9% has already been awarded by the Ld. LAC. In the present reference, the market value of the acquired land as determined by the Ld. LAC has been upheld in issue No.1. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of further interest/solatium in respect of the acquired land. Moreover, no evidence was placed on record on behalf of the petitioner to claim any further interest/solatium on the acquired land. Accordingly, the issue no.4 is decided against the petitioner. Issue No.5: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount (i.e. 25%) being deducted by LAC on the ground that the property is perpetual lease hold? (OPP).
78. Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that Ld. LAC wrongly deducted 25% from the market value for free hold and lease hold property. It was further argued that the petitioner was Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:52:33 +0530 Page 47 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India entitled for conversion of acquired land from lease hold to free hold at the time of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
Perusal of Award R-1 shows that Ld. LAC relied upon judgment in case titled Inder Parshad Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 239 while passing the award.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Parshad case (supra) observed as under:
"5. In this case admittedly the Government being the owner of the land, the appellant held the demised land as lessee with super-structure built thereon and was in possession and enjoyment of the same on the date of acquisition. .... Take a case where the Govt. granted the lease of the open land with permission to the lessee to construct a building for his quiet enjoyment with appropriate covenants and the lessee with permission constructed the building and by complying with the covenants of the lease was in quiet enjoyment. The self-same property, when required for public purpose, the Govt. cannot unilaterally determine the lease and call upon the lessee to deliver the possession. Therefore, the Govt. is required to exercise the power of eminent domain by invoking the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act for getting such land. The Collector shall have to determine the compensation towards the leasehold interest held by the lessee, if assessable separately and determine the compensation. The lessee being the owner of the super structure and the Govt. being the owner of the land, if compensation is determined for both the components, then the same has to be apportioned between them. At what proportion the lessor and the lessee are entitled to receive the compensation has to be determined. In the absence of any covenant in the lease for payment and in the absence of any specific data available to him, the Collector has to determine the respective shares at which the compensation is to be apportioned between the Govt. and the lessee,.... Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:52:37 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 48 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
8. .... The High Court by its judgment and decree under the present appeal has modified the apportionment of compensation payable for land as 75 per cent for the lessee and 25 per cent for the lessor. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the Land Acquisition Collector had determined the compensation only towards the leasehold interest held by the appellant and that, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the entire compensation determined by the Collector.
Therefore, the judgment and decree under appeal does not call for interference and the appeal is, accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs."
79. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Mangat Ram, etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others, etc., in Civil Appeals Nos. 8879-80 of 1996 decided on 22.04.1996 has held as under:
"7. As regards apportionment of the compensation, the High Court has directed to pay 1/4 to the tenant and 3/4 to the Wakf Board. In view of the Judgment in Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal & Ors. Etc. MANU/SC/0738/1994: [1994] 3 SCR87 and Inder Parshad v. Union of India & Ors.
MANU/SC/0790/1994: (1994)5SCC239, the tenants are entitled to 3/4 of the compensation while the landlord is entitled to 1/4 of the compensation. In view of the above law, the order of the High Court in appeals arising from reference under Section 30 is modified to the extent that appellants/tenants - Mangat Ram and Ors. are entitled to 3/4th while the Wakf Board is entitled to l/4th of the compensation amount. The amount awarded in the judgment of the single Judge under Section 23(1-A) also requires to be apportioned accordingly."
80. Respondents also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Devleopment Authority Vs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 16:52:41 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 49 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 34/1995 decided on 26.08.2003 where Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"10. .....DDA is a creature of the Statute and any policy decision or guidelines formulated by such authority will have a binding effect on the parties, in absence of rules to the contrary.
11. Furthermore, clauses 4, 5 and 8 of the lease deed, as extracted, envisage that the lessee cannot sell, transfer or part with the possession of the whole or any part of the commercial plot except with the previous consent of the lessor in writing, with a rider that the lessor can refuse the transfer. It is also provided in proviso to clause 4(b) that in the event of sale or foreclosure of the mortgaged or charged property, the lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover the 50% of unearned increase in the value of the plot. ... "
81. Ld. counsel for the respondents further relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled M/s Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority in Civil Appeal No.8336 of 2009 decided on 05.04.2024, where Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the relevant clause of the lease, which covers involuntary transfers as well for determining unearned income.
82. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that in the present case also, subject land perpetual lease deed Ex.PW1/2 contains relevant clause (6), which provides that the Lessor's right to the recovery of fifty per cent of the unearned increase and the per-emptive right to purchase the property as mentioned herein before shall apply equally to an involuntary sale or transfer whether it be by or through an executing or insolvency court. They argued that this is the fit case where market value of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 16:52:46 +0530 LAC 22/16 Page 50 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India the lease hold land should have been determined after deducting 50% from the market value of the free hold property and not only 25% of the market value for free hold property.
In view of the abovesaid discussion, material on record, evidences, considering clause (6) of the lease deed Ex.PW1/2 which provides for lessor's right to the recovery of fifty percent of the unearned increase on involuntary sale or transfer also and settled legal position, I am of the considered opinion that LAC rightly deducted 25% for lease hold property on the market value for free hold property and there is no reason to interfere with this deduction as made by LAC while passing the award. Accordingly, issue no.5 is decided against the petitioner. Issue No.6: Relief.
83. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition is dismissed. Both the sides will bear their own costs.
84. The reference petition under Section 18 of LA Act is answered in terms of findings on issues no.1 to 6. Statement under Section 19 of the L.A. Act be annexed to the award. Copy be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for information and necessary compliance. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by YADVENDERYADVENDER SINGH Pronounced in the open Court SINGH Date:
on this 9th June, 2025.
2025.06.09 16:52:51 +0530 (DR. YADVENDER SINGH) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI LAC 22/16 Page 51 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025