Delhi District Court
Nitin Juneja vs Union Of India on 9 June, 2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
DLST010003562010
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh.
LAC NO. 110/16
FILING No. 28263/2010
CNR No. DLST01-000356-2010
In the matter of :-
Nitin Juneja
S/o Sh. Hariom Juneja
R/o Z-61, Okhla Industrial
Area Phase-II, Delhi-110020.
......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 : 26.08.2010
Reference received on : 26.08.2010
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 110/16 17:12:48 +0530
Page 1 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja 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 26.08.2010.
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: 43.811 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: 13.05.2010
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 110/16
17:12:53 +0530
Page 2 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
(x) Petition referred to this Court on: 26.08.2010
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-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi total admeasuring 672.24 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 LAC 110/16 17:12:57 +0530 Page 3 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India Section 3 of Land Acquisition Act. The said plot was allotted by Delhi Development Authority for industrial purposes and on 05.12.1983, the Delhi Development Authority on behalf of President of India executed a perpetual lease deed in favour of the petitioner, which was duly registered. The petitioner had also raised the construction in accordance with the sanction building plan and the same was being used for the purpose of industrial uses. On 07.11.2007 notification U/s 4 (l) of Land Acquisition Act, in respect of land measuring 43.811 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)/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 43.811 Sq mtrs. out of plot No. Z-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, 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, 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. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:13:00 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 4 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
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 16.12.2009 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 award was made on 11.12.2009. Thus the limitation of making reference in the present case is governed by the provisions of Section 18 (2) (b) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, the present reference petition is within the period of limitation.
6.2. 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 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 Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:10 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 5 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India award No. 08/2009-10 pronounced on 11.12.09 and being 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 same is more advantageous for production and better condition comparing to the other industrial plot in the area. There are many commercial shop 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 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.1,23,000/- on the date of notification issued U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the present case.
B. That the property in question has been 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 the acquired Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:14 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 6 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India property is right opposite to the metro line and the property in question is wide 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 27.07.2007 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 taken 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 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 the same has been assessed as per the valuation assessed by the DMRC through the Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, M-112 Delhi whereas the fact is that the cost of construction Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:13:17 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 7 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India of the building existing on the date of notification U/s 4 of LA Act was more than Rs.1,25,00,000/-.
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.
F. That the acquisition rendered the remaining land in irregular and rectangular 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. 1,67,37000/- in his claim filed U/s 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Collector, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector has not determined the said damages in the award for which Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:21 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 8 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India the petitioner is liable to be paid damages in the award for which the petition 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.60,06,000/- which was even claimed by the petitioner in the claims 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. That the petitioner is also entitled to all the statutory benefits including the Additional amount, interest, solatium etc. in accordance with law. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:13:27 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 9 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
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. 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 and regular disruption of the manufacturing activity at the unit for a sum of Rs.60,06,000/-.
c. Award interest and solatium etc. in accordance with law.
d. Any other relief under law for which the petitioner is entitled to.
9. Written Statement has not been filed on behalf of UOI/respondent No.1.
10. Respondent No.2/DMRC 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 present reference petition is time barred and not maintainable under the ambit of law. It is further stated that present petition was filed after the lapse of five months from the date of passing of award by LAC.
11. No replication has been filed by the petitioner to the written statement of the respondent no.2.
12. Vide order dated 14.10.2015, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor of this Court:
Digitally signedYADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:31 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 10 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
1. Whether the present reference has been filed within the period of limitation?
2. Whether the petitioner has got any right, title or interest in the acquired disputed land and is entitled to compensation. If so, to what extent/share and from which respondents?
3. What was the market value of the acquired disputed land on the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and what enhancement in market value, if any, the petitioner is entitled thereto.
4. Relief.
13. Order dated 18.09.2012 of Ld. Predecessor Court reflects that that day Ld. Predecessor Court allowed the adoption of evidence led in connected case bearing LAC 33/11 titled 'Arun Kumar Vs. UOI & Anr. in the present case also at request of Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
14. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. Petitioner examined himself as PW1. During his examination-in-chief he deposed that he is not leading any separate evidence and relying on the evidence led in the LAC No. 33/2011 titled as Arun Kumar Vs. UOI & Anr. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for UOI and Law Officer for the DMRC. Thereafter, petitioner closed his evidence on 31.05.2017.
15. On 09.01.2018, Sh. S.K. Puri, Ld. counsel for UOI was examined as RW1. He 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.
16. Respondent no.2/DMRC examined Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer, DMRC as RW2 in RE. He relied upon photocopy of sale Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 110/16 17:13:35 +0530 Page 11 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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 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.
17. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of respondents no.2/UOI was closed on 09.01.2018 vide separate statement of Law Officer.
18. 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.
19. 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).Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:40 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 12 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of respondent no.2/DMRC was closed on 09.07.2024 vide separate statement of Law Officer, DMRC.
20. 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.
21. Written statement on behalf of DDA alongwith documents was filed on 04.12.2024.
22. Replication on behalf of petitioner to the written statement of respondent no.3/DDA was filed on 22.01.2025.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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 LAC 110/16 17:13:44 +0530 Page 13 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
ii) Copy of notice under Section 12(2) & 32(1) of L.A. Act as Ex.RW2/D (OSR).
iii) Copy of requisition dated 15.06.2007 submitted by DMRC to Secretary, Land and Building Department for acquisition as Ex.RW2/E (OSR).
iv) Copy of representation dated 10.06.2008 submitted by Sh. Nitin Juneja as Ex.RW2/F (OSR).
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, RE on behalf of DMRC was closed on 04.03.2025.
26. Vide order dated 04.03.2025, Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that RW2 has led evidence regarding limitation period and sought further opportunity for PE on the ground that earlier no evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner on this issue. Accordingly, further opportunity to lead PE on the issue of limitation was granted to the petitioner.
27. Thereafter, on 01.04.2025, petitioner/PW1 tendered his additional affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/2. He was duly cross- examined by Sh. A.S. Rao, DGM, DMRC and Ld. counsel for the UOI. Thereafter, vide separate statement of the petitioner, his evidence was closed on 01.04.2025.
28. 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: Whether the present reference has been filed within the period of limitation?
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:13:47
+0530
LAC 110/16
Page 14 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
29. Vide order dated 11.02.2025, respondent no.2/DMRC was allowed to lead additional evidence and thereafter during additional evidence on 04.03.2025 RW2 tendered the documents Ex.RW2/C to Ex.RW2/F. Ex.RW2/D (OSR) is copy of notice under Section 12(2) & 32(1) of L.A. Act. This document was filed on behalf of DMRC in order to prove that the petitioner was served with the notice on 11.12.2009. Perusal of this document shows that it bears the signatures of the receiver on its backside.
Thereafter, petitioner was also given opportunity for further PE pertaining to the issue of limitation period as RW2 led evidence on this issue through additional evidence dated 04.03.2025. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 on 01.04.2025 through additional evidence and tendered the additional affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/2. In the additional affidavit, the fact of receiving of the abovesaid notice Ex.RW2/D was not denied, however, it has been averred by the petitioner in the additional affidavit that the said notice did not communicate any of the material and essential contents of the award and petitioner came to know about the market value assessed by the LAC only on 20.04.2010 through other persons whose land had been acquired in the same award and after consulting the lawyer filed petition under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 on 13.05.2010. It has been averred that reference petition is within the period of limitation.
During his cross-examination on 01.04.2025, petitioner/PW1 answered that on 16.12.2009, he visited the LAC Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:53 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 15 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India office and there he came to know about the passing of the award and the same day the notice under Section 12(2) was supplied to him. He further answered that except notice under Section 12(2) LA Act he did not receive any information from the office of LAC. He admitted that he had not applied for the certified copy of the award.
30. Section 18(2) of The Land Acquisition Act provides that the application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken.
Provided that every such application shall be made,
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12 (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
So, it is clear that the person interested, who has received the compensation from protest, is required to state in his application for reference the grounds on which he objects the compensation awarded by the Collector within six weeks of the date of award when either he was present or represented by a counsel or agent, or within six weeks from the the date of receipt of the notice from the Collector sent under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the award made by the Collector, which ever period shall first expire.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:00 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 16 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
31. In the backdrop of the abovesaid provisions of the land and the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the question of bar of limitation, as prescribed in clauses (a) & (b) of the proviso below sub section 2 of Section 18 of The Land Acquisition Act will have to be considered.
32. In the case of State of Punjab v. Mst Qaisar Jehan Begum and another, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1604, where the Collector made an award on 25-10-1953, the amount of compensation was paid on 22-7-1955, and on 30-9-1955, the respondents made an application to the Collector for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, alleging that they knew about the award on 22-7-1955 when they received the compensation amount. Ld. Reference Court came to the conclusion that the reference was barred by time by expressing a doubt as to whether the respondents were entitled to count the period of limitation from the date of knowledge, but even if it is assumed to be so, the date of knowledge must be taken to be 24- 12-1954, when the respondents made an application for interim payment and, therefore, the reference sought was barred by time. Hon'ble High Court allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Ld. Reference Court and directed dealing of the reference on its own merits. This was the subject-matter of challenge before the Apex Court.
33. A three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act and the decision in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh's Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:04 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 17 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500, earlier decided by it. On interpretation of clause (a) in the proviso under Section 18, it is held that when a party is present in a 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. Hon'ble Apex Court recorded the finding in respect of clause (b) of the proviso that admittedly the award was never communicated to the respondents. While dealing with the contention that the date of knowledge must be taken to be 24.12.1954, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the 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 which must be made known either actually or constructively. If the award is communicated to a party under Section 12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of award whether it reads it or not. It was held that the date of knowledge in the said case should be taken as 22-7-1955 when the amount of compensation was paid and, therefore, the application for reference made on 30-9-1955 was clearly within a period of six months from the date of that award and it was not barred by time within the meaning of the second part of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 18 of the said Act.
34. Coming back to the present case, the award was passed on 11.12.2009. The date of reference petition to the LAC is 13.05.2010. The petitioner admitted the receiving of notice under Section 12(2) of LA Act on 16.12.2009. However, petitioner Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 LAC 110/16 17:14:08 +0530 Page 18 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India contended that except the notice under Section 12(2) LA Act he did not receive any information from the office of LAC and the said notice Ex.RW2/D did not mention any of the material and essential contents of the award and thereafter the petitioner came to know about the market value assessed by the LAC only on 20.04.2010 through other persons whose land had been acquired in the same award. However, petitioner's contention that he came to know about the market value assessed by the LAC only on 20.04.2010 is factually incorrect because as per statement under Section 19 of the LA Act, 1894, the awarded compensation was received by the petitioner on 25.03.2010 and as per the abovesaid judgment of State of Punjab v. Mst Qaisar Jehan Begum and another (supra), the date of knowledge should atleast be taken as the date when the amount of compensation was paid. However, even if the date of receiving compensation is taken as the date of knowledge then also the reference filed before LAC is found to be filed within the statutory period of six months. But the bone of contention here is that whether the petitioner's case shall fall under the first part or second part of Clause (b) of the Proviso below sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the Act, 1894. It is an admitted position of the petitioner that he received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on 16.12.2009 and if the date of receiving of the notice is considered to be the date of knowledge of the Award to count the statutory period then the petitioner's case must fall under the first part of Clause (b) of the Proviso below sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and in that case the reference was required to be filed before LAC within 6 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:11 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 19 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India weeks of receipt of the notice. However, the petitioner claims that copy of award and information of material and essential contents of the award was not provided to him at the time of receiving of the notice and accordingly, he claims his case under later part of Clause (b) under which the statutory period of 6 months is provided for filing of reference and for that purpose he claims the date of knowledge regarding the essential contents of the award as 20.04.2010 when he allegedly came to know about the market value assessed by LAC from other persons whose land had been acquired under the same award. However, to the surprise of this court despite the fact that claimants of the other lands acquired under the same award, who also challenged the market value assessed by LAC in this award through their separate reference petitions and are represented by the same counsel as of the present case then also neither the name of these persons has been mentioned in the affidavit as well as in the reference nor any of these persons were examined by the petitioner in support of his contentions regarding the knowledge about the contents of the award from them on 20.04.2010. It makes the contentions of the petitioner highly doubtful that he remained unaware about the material and essential contents of the award at the time of receiving of the notice. Except bald statement no cogent evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner to prove his contention. The notice Ex.RW2/D is not disputed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner's case for the purpose of limitation period must fall within first part of Clause (b) of the Proviso below sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the Act, 1894.Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:15 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 20 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India Accordingly, the petitioner was bound to file the reference petition within six weeks of the receipt of the notice under Section 12(2) of LA Act from the date of Collector's Award. The date of notice on the document Ex.RW2/D is 11.12.2009. However, as per the petitioner's own admission he received notice on 16.12.2009. Even if the relevant date is considered to be 16.12.2009 then also the reference before LAC (as filed on 13.05.2010) is found to be filed much beyond the expiration of 6 weeks' time period.
It is highly improbable that a person who went to the LAC office and received the notice under Section 12 (2) of LA Act shall not inquire about the market value assessed by the LAC in the award for his acquired land. It is petitioner's case that he received the notice under Section 12(2) of LA Act when he visited the LAC office on 16.12.2009. During his cross- examination dated 01.04.2025 as PW1, the petitioner also answered that he visited the office of LAC many times to know the contents of the award, however, he had not applied for the certified copy of the award. These answers of the petitioner makes his stand highly doubtful in respect of his knowledge about the essential terms of the award/market value assessed by the LAC. It also appears to be highly improbable that he did not discuss this issue with other claimants after receiving the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act 194 well within time as they have been neighbours not for years but for many decades. It is more doubtful in the circumstances where petitioner is not an illiterate person rather allegedly a business man. Once the receiving of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 LAC 110/16 17:14:18 +0530 Page 21 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act, 1894 has been admitted by the petitioner then the onus shifts on the petitioner to prove his unawareness about the award to which he miserably failed due to non production of any admissible evidence on this issue.
35. Now the question arises, whether the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine the market value of the land, has power to condone the delay caused in filing reference beyond the period stipulated in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso below sub-section (2) therein.
In fact, the point is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das & Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 1532, Division Bench Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it has been held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 18(2) of the said Act. While considering the bar of limitation under Section 18 of the said Act, it is not the question of condonation of delay, which is required to be considered, but it is the question of starting point of limitation, which is required to be considered.
36. It is also settled law that reference court cannot exend the limitation period beyond the period prescribed in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act itself.
37. In view of the abovesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the reference petition is found to be filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation period as permissible Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:25 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 22 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner has got any right, title or interest in the acquired disputed land and is entitled to compensation. If so, to what extent/share and from which respondents?
38. Statement u/s 19 of the Act, 1894 as sent to this court by LAC alongwith reference application u/s 18 of the Act mentions the name of petitioner to whom compensation was awarded by LAC. The Award no. 08/2009-10 also mentions name of petitioner as name of claimant. No objection by any of the party regarding the right, title or interest of the petitioner in the acquired land was ever raised. Accordingly, issue no.2 stands established in favour of petitioner.
Issue No.3: What was the market value of the acquired disputed land on the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and what enhancement in market value, if any, the petitioner is entitled thereto.
Petitioner's Evidence:-
39. 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. He also relied upon evidences of certain officials from the government offices as PW2 to PW8 tendered in case LAC No. 22/16 titled Arun Kumar Vs. UOI.
40. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. He also relied upon documents Ex.PW1/2 to PW1/13 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:14:29 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 23 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India and Mark-A to Mark-H tendered in case LAC No. 22/16 titled Arun Kumar Vs. UOI.
41. 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. 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.
42. 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)."
43. 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:34 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 24 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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 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.
44. 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 LAC 110/16 17:14:38 +0530 Page 25 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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 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.
45. 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:14:41 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 26 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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 the petitioner of a connected case in LAC No. 22/16 titled Arun Kumar Vs. UOI 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 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.
46. 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:45 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 27 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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.
47. 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 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:50 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 28 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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."
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
LAC 110/16 2025.06.09
17:14:59 +0530
Page 29 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
acquired land enjoys similar locational advantages and
disadvantages.
51. 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 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."
52. 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. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:15:05 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 30 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
53. 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 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.
54. 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:15:09 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 31 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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 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.
55. 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:15:19 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 32 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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.
56. 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:15:22 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 33 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:15:26 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 34 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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 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.
57. 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. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:15:31 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 35 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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.
58. 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 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:15:35 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 36 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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.
59. Document Ex.PW1/13 was relied upon by the petitioner only in order to show the calculation method for abovesaid conversion charges and it is also not relevant to decide the actual market value of the subject land.
60. 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.
61. Petitioner also examined summoned witnesses i.e. PW2 to PW9.
62. 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:15:39 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 37 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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 discussed. Accordingly, these documents are of no help to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
63. 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.
64. 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 Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:15:42 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 38 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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.
65. PW5 appeared from MCD office on 18.09.2012 and his examination-in-chief was deferred for want of certified copies of 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.
66. 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.
67. 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:15:47 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 39 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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 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:-
68. 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.Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 LAC 110/16 17:15:52 +0530 Page 40 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
69. 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. 101/16 titled 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 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.
70. 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 notice under Section 12 (2) & 32(1) of LA Act as Ex.PW2/D (OSR), copy of DMRC's requisition dated 15.06.2007 Ex.RW2/E (OSR) and copy of representation dated 10.06.2008 as Ex.RW2/F (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. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:15:55 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 41 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
71. Document Ex.RW2/E 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.
72. Document Ex.RW2/F (OSR) is also not helpful in assessing the actual market value of the subject land as it is merely a copy of representation unrelated to the valuation of the property.
73. Document Ex.RW3/A is a Sale Deed for an industrial plot bearing No. 129, Block-A measuring 1226.5 sq. yards 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:15:59 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 42 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India party to the sale deed was also not examined to prove the bonafideness of the transaction.
74. 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.
75. Document Ex.RW2/C is certified copy of Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.2006 entered into between one Sh. Arun Bhatia and Sh. Nitin Juneja. This Agreement to Sell pertains to the subject land of the present case. 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 titled 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 LAC 110/16 17:16:03 +0530 Page 43 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India documents of abovesaid 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 in the connected LAC No. 22/16 titled Arun Kumar Vs. UOI, it was submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that there were five other connected matters alongwith that case and that case be treated as a lead case and prayed for leading his evidence in that case. Thereafter, on submissions on behalf of the petitioner common evidences were led only in that case. During the final arguments also, Ld. counsel for the petitioner requested to read the evidence of that 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 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." Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:16:07 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 44 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India Accordingly, the judicial notice of sale transactions of the subject land of abovestated connected cases and of the present case 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 the present case 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 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:16:11 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 45 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India 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 and of the present case 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 consideration amount remain lesser to the compensation awarded by the LAC for the acquired land in the present case.
76. 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 and of the present case, 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 Digitally signed Section 4 of LA Act, 1894. YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.09 17:16:16 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 46 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India In view of the abovesaid discussion and considering the fact that market value of the acquired land as assessed by the Ld. LAC has been upheld, so the petitioner is held not entitled for any enhanced compensation. Accordingly, issue no.3 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.4: Relief.
77. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition is dismissed. Both the sides will bear their own costs.
78. The reference petition under Section 18 of LA Act is answered in terms of findings on issues no.1 to 4. 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 Pronounced in the open Court YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: on this 9th June, 2025. 2025.06.09 17:16:20 +0530 (DR. YADVENDER SINGH) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI LAC 110/16 Page 47 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025