Delhi District Court
Ms Fountain Head Motels Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 29 March, 2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
DLST010005622012
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh.
LAC No. 138/2016
FILING No. 14112/2012
CNR No. DLST01-000562-2012
In the matter of :-
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd.
The Claremont 559,
M.G. Road, New Delhi-30.
Through
Its Managing Director
Sh. Krishan Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector (South)
M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001. ......Respondents
Reference received on : 05.06.2012
Date of Institution : 02.07.2012
Date on which order was reserved : 05.03.2025
Date of Award : 29.03.2025
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:35:14 +0530
Page 1 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. 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 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 from the office of LAC (South) on 05.06.2012.
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: 25.07.2007 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act: 08.10.2007 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act: 08.10.2007
(iii) For Project: Construction of Arjan Garh Station Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II
(iv) Date of possession taken: 29.01.2008
(v) Location/Name of Village: Aya Nagar
(vi) Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC: 04/2009-10 & date of Award: 06.10.2009
(vii) Market value of land held by LAC: 17,58,400/- per acre
(viii) Date of reference petition to LAC: 10.05.2011
(ix) Petition referred to Court on: 05.06.2012
3. The present reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:35:24 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 2 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India situated in Village Aya Nagar which was acquired for the public purpose of 'Construction of Arjan Garh Station Qutub Minar- Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II'. The land in question was acquired by the LAC vide award No. 04/2009-10 dated 06.10.2009 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 25.07.2007 which was followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 08.10.2007.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after considering the relevant factors gave its Award No.04/2009-10 by determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition @ 17,58,400/- per acre.
5. Since the petitioners did not accept the award, they 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 their claim the petitioner, the claimant is a company running a Motel by name of Hotel Claremont, which is a unit of Fountain Head Claremont Pvt. Ltd. The claimant is the Managing Director of the said Hotel. The claimant approached Court against the acquisition proceedings with regard to the abovesaid notification in respect of its land situated in Khasra No.558/1 measuring 830 Sq. Meter and Khasra No.576 measuring 1105 Sq Meter. It is stated that the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 266/2010 of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:35:29 +0530 Page 3 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the claimant vide its order dated 12.11.2010 against which the claimant filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6935/2011 before Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 01.04.2011 was pleased to permit the claimant to file reference before this Hon'ble Authority.
6.1. The grievance of the claimant is that Ld. Land Acquisition authority while passing the award in respect of the said acquisitioned land of claimant against the claimed amount of Rs.39 Crore, have calculated the claim of claimant and made the award of Rs.12,49,02,319.57/- at the first instance vide award no.4/2009 and thereafter a award No.4/2009/10 dated 06.10.2009 was passed against the said land of the claimant to the extent of Rs.17,59,824.37/- only and both the awards were communicated to the claimant. The claimant is dissatisfied with the criteria undertaken by the authority for calculating the compensation amount with regards to the said land of the claimant, the claimant is filing the present application under the provisions of the section 18 of Land Acquisition Act for making the reference to the Hon'ble Court.
6.2. The claimant purchased the land bearing Khasra No.558/1 measuring 830 Sq. Mt. and Khasra no.576 measuring 1105 Sq. Mt. situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Aaya Nagar, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The claimant has obtained prior permission of MCD to run a Motels from the said land and consequently the petitioner's predecessor deposited capital conversation charges of Rs.31,47,000/- vide receipt dated Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
LAC No. 138/16 2025.03.29
17:35:33 +0530
Page 4 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 24.04.2003. Thereafter the claimant had obtained necessary permission from the MCD for construction of a Motel building which was also sanctioned vide letter of sanction dated 25.04.2003. The claimant also deposited compounding fee of Rs.1,97,000/- vide receipt dated 22.09.2005. The claimant constructed the motel in the said land and during the construction, the inspection was carried out by the Assistant Engineering (Building) of MCD, who in his inspection report dated 27.07.2004 stated that he has not found any non compoundable deviation upto plinth level. The MCD also issued completion certificate in respect of said Motel vide its Certificate dated 26.9.2005. The claimant was also granted approval by Ministry of Tourism, Govt. of India for setting up Motel vide its approval dated 15.2.2006. The Govt. of NCT has given no objection to run a Motel from the said land vide its letter dated 22.05.2006.
6.3 It is stated that in view of the above permissions and no objections granted by the authorities for construction and smooth running of the Motel, the subject land is no more and agricultural land and especially on accepting the hues amount towards the free and conversion charges. It is submitted that in view of the same the said land is only used for the purpose of running the commercial activities and cannot be used for agriculture or any related purpose. It is further submitted that the land of the claimant cannot be treated as an agriculture land and its user has changed from agriculture to commercial and authority has charge the claimant for its change of user in the form of hues Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:35:56 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 5 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India amount of fee. The claimant filed the present reference on the following other grounds:
(A) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector while passing the award has not considered that the subject land is a commercial land and user of the same has been changed by charging the requisite free by the authority for construction the Four Star Hotel in the said land.
(B) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector while passing the award has proceeded entirely on wrong footing that the subject land is an agriculture land. It is submitted that the basis which has been taken by the Ld. Collector is also not reasonable and cannot be accepted in the case of the claimant.
(C) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector while passing the award has not considered the situation and use of the land and also the factor that a Four Star Hotel is running in the said land. It is submitted that the notice u/s 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition which is said to have be issued to the claimant, has not been received to the claimant till date.
(D) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector for determining the compensation has taken the basis of the notification No.F-9(20)/80/ L&B/LA/6720 dated 30.08.2005 and assess the said land as an agriculture land whereas the predecessor of the claimant has already paid the conversion charge of the said land on 24.04.2003 and thereafter the claimant has deposited Rs1,97,000/- on 22.09.2005 as a compounding fee with regards to the said land and presently a four star Hotel is running in the said land. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:36:00 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 6 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (E) That he Ld. Land Acquisition Collector for determining the compensation has to appreciate the fact that required fee has been paid for commercial use and land is used for the commercial purpose only and is not being used for the agriculture purpose.
(F) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector has wrong taken the recourse of the notification for determining the compensation of the claimant as the same cannot be applied in the case of the claimant and in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(G) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector has not considered that the irreparable loss has been caused to the claimant as well as to the property as the face of he Whole property has been changed and he claimant has suffered a huge financial loss and is still suffering and also will suffer in future.
(H) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector has passed the meager award with out appreciating the true value of the land and loss cause to the claimant. The claimant has claimed the reasonable amount of Rs.39 Crore but the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector with applying the mind, has passed the award dated 06.10.2009.
(I) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector has passed the award with out considering the fact that the similarly place property which have been acquired by the authorities for the purpose of METRO Rail only, the authority have awarded the compensation after considering its situation where the said properties are placed and also its use.
(J) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector has passed the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:36:07 +0530 Page 7 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India award without considering the fact that the property of the claimant is being used for commercial purpose and the claimant is paying the commercial tax in the property. It is submitted that due to the said acquisition the value of the property of the claimant have been reduced many times as the parking area have been reduced and the entrance have been affected.
7. In its written statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed the claim for enhancement in compensation and stated that all the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are wrong and denied. It is stated that the petitioner has not brought any specific and cogent evidence on record to claim a higher compensation. It is also stated that the present reference is barred by limitation; and that the Land Acquisition Collector had correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Respondent No.l, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present reference petition.
8. On behalf of the DDA/respondent No.2 in its Written Statement it is stated that the present reference petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that LAC had correctly and adequately assessed the market value of the land in question. It is further stated that the reference petition is barred by limitation. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed.
9. Separate replications have been filed to the written statements of the respondents, wherein petitioner denied the allegations made by the respondents and reiterated the facts stated in the petition. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:36:12 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 8 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
10. Vide order dated 17.05.2016, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court:
1) Whether petitioner's Reference Petition dated 10.05.2011 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is within prescribed period of limitation? Onus on parties
2) What was the market value of land acquired, on that date of preliminary notification dated 25.07.2007 under Section 4 of the Act 1894 in respect of Award No. 04/2009-10 (dated 06.10.2009) Village Aya Nagar?
Onus on Parties
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, if so at what rate and of statutory benefits? OPP
4) Relief.
11. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. In petitioner's evidence, petitioner examined total 10 witnesses. Sh. Krishan Kumar examined himself as PW1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:
1. Copy of receipt dated 24.04.2003 issued by the MCD for conversion charges as Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of sanction letter dated 25.04.2003 issued by the MCD for construction of Motels as Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of electricity bill dated 05.012007 and property tax receipt dated 31.03.2006 showing payment made as per commercial tariff as Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of receipt dated 22.09.2005 issued by MCD for compounding fees of Rs. 1,97,000/- as Ex.PW1/4.
5. Copy of completion certificate dated 26.09.2005 issued by the MCD as Ex.PW1/5. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:36:19 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 9 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
6. Copy of letter of approval from Tourism Department dated 25.02.2006 for setting up a four star category hotel as Ex.PW1/6.
7. Copy of NOC from Delhi Fire Services (DFS) granted on 22.05.2006 to run a motel as Ex.PW1/7.
8. Copy of certificate/licence from various department with the permission obtained for running the Motel i.e. Health Trade Licence, Sale Tax, Central Sales Tax, Luxury Taxes and Delhi Police as Ex.PW1/8 (colly).
9. Copy of objection filed by the petitioner dated 17.08.2007 before the LAC as Ex.PW1/9 (colly).
10. Copy of first award of LAC dated 09.06.2009, for Rs.12,49,02,319.57 and second award dated 06.10.2009 for Rs. 17,59,824.38 as Ex.PW1/10.
11. Copy of valuation report by accurate surveyor obtained from LAC on 08.03.2016 as Ex.PW1/11.
12. Copy of noting sheet of first award of LAC prepared by LAC and Chief Data of the Award as Ex. PW1/12 (Colly.).
13. Copy of notification dated 18.07.2007 from revenue department for circle rate of Delhi as Ex.PW1/13.
14. Copy of Naksha Mutzamin and statement of compensation as Ex.PW1/14.
15. Copy of gazetted notification dated 26.10.2012 as Ex.PW1/15.
16. Copy of affidavit in perusal of order dated 14.2.2007 in respect of Motels filed by Sh. Parimal Rai and Additional Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:36:23 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 10 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Commissioner, MCD before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Ex.PW1/16.
17. Copy of letter dated 24.11.2006 written by Superintending Engineer (B) HQ, MCD-II, Sh. R.S. Gupta, Member Monitoring Committee as Ex.PW1/17.
18. Copy of letter dated 20.11.2006 written by Chief Town Planner, MCD to Sh. R.S. Gupta, Member Monitoring Committee as Ex.PW1/18.
19. Copy of letter dated 04.03.2002 written by Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation to Vice Chairman DDA and Commissioner MCD with the guidelines of Motels by Govt. of India as Ex.PW1/19.
20. Copy of TOD (Transit Oriented Development) Policy as Ex.PW1/20.
21. Copy of memorandum of settlement and agreement to sell purchase between Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd and Mr. Pradeep Rana for Rs.110 crores as Ex.PW1/21.
22. Copy of form 23 AC obtained from ROC regarding the accumulated year wise loss since 2008-09 to 2011-12 as Ex.PW1/22.
23. Copy of assessment order passed by IT officers dated 31.03.2014 as Ex.PW1/23.
24. Copy of sale deed dated 12.08.2008 of village Shahoorpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, same Motel property for a sale consideration of Rs.130 crores as Ex.PW1/24.Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:36:29 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 11 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
25. Copy of sale deed dated 30.09.2013 for agricultural land of village Sultanpur, Tehsil Mehrauli for a sale consideration of Rs.67 crores as Ex.PW1/25.
26. Copy of judgment passed in LAC no.247/2011 titled as Rajeev Sharma Vs UOI dated 31.03.2014, pertaining to village Yusaf Sarai as Ex.PW1/26.
11.1 PW-1 was duly cross examined at length by Ld. counsel for the Union of India and by Law Officer, DMRC.
12. PW-2 is Sh. Nand Kishore, Record Clerk (Building Department) from the office of SDMC, South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi. He deposed in his examination-in-chief that document Ex.PW1/5 is the completion certificate is correct as per the record available with the department. He stated that conversion charges amounting to Rs.31,47,000/- dated 24.04.2003 has been paid for land conversion for commercial use. He also stated that document Ex.PW1/2 is the sanctioned building plan of the said property is correct as per their record.
He stated that documents Ex.PW1/4 is correct as per their record. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI. Ld. Senior Legal Assistant of DMRC adopted the cross-examination done by respondent no.1/UOI.
13. PW-3 is WSI Khiloni from Licencing Unit, PS: Defence Colony, New Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. certificate of Registration of an eating house issued by DCP, Licencing Defence Colon, New Delhi and exhibited the same as Ex.PW3/1 (OSR). She was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:36:35 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 12 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India for the UOI. Ld. Senior Legal Assistant of DMRC adopted the cross-examination done by respondent no.1/UOI.
14. PW-4 is Sh. Rohit Sharma, DGM, KCC of BRPL. In his examination-in-chief, PW4 admitted that the document Ex.PW1/3 is correct as per their record. He deposed that as per document Ex.PW1/3, the tariff of the document is commercial in nature. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI.
15. PW-5 is Sh. Ram Niwas, Assistant Divisional Officer from Delhi Fire Services, who brought the summoned record i.e. NOC dated 22.05.2006 for setting up motels issued by Delhi Fire Services in favour of the petitioner. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI. Ld. Senior Legal Assistant of DMRC adopted the cross-examination done by respondent no.1/UOI.
16. PW-6 is Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Assistant Zonal Inspector from Property Tax, Head Quarter, SDMC, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. carbon copy of Property Tax Receipt No.382028 dated 31.03.2008 in respect of the property in question and exhibited the same as Ex.PW6/A (OSR). He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI. Ld. Senior Legal Assistant of DMRC adopted the cross- examination done by respondent no.1/UOI.
17. PW-7 is Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, LDC/Record Clerk from the office of Sub-Registrar-V, Mehrauli, Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. Sale Deed dated 30.09.2008 executed by Anant Raj Industries Ltd. in favour of International Institute of Planning and Management Pvt. He deposed that he had compared the certified copy of the summoned record already Ex.PW1/24 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:36:41 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 13 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India with the original brought by him. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI. Ld. Senior Legal Assistant of DMRC adopted the cross-examination done by respondent no.1/UOI.
18. PW-8 is Sh. G. S. Meena who is Record Keeper, LAC (South), office at M.B. road, Saket, D. M. Office, South District, New Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. Award of Village Aya Nagar and exhibited the certified copy of the same as Ex.PW8/1. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI as well as by Ld. Law Officer of DMRC.
19. No other witness was examined by the petitioner in PE and PE was closed vide order dated 01.11.2017.
20. In RE on behalf UOI/respondent No.1, statement of Sh. S.K. Puri, Ld. counsel for the Union of India was recorded whereby he exhibited the Award No.04/2009-10 of Village Aya Nagar Ex.R/1.
21. DMRC examined Sh. Shekhar Sharma as RW2. RW 2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.RW2/A and relied upon copy of the notification dated 30.08.2005 of GNCTD is Mark A (running into 2 pages); copy of joint survey report dated 28.11.2006 of Arjangarh as Mark B; valuation report of immovable structures dated 03.01.2008 as Mark C (running into 4 pages); copy of judgment dated 26.04.2014 in LAC No. 45/2011 as Mark D (running into 8 pages); copy of judgment dated 26.04.2014 in LAC No. 195/2011 as Mark E (running into 8 pages); copy of judgment dated 26.04.2014 in LAC No. 77/2011 as Mark F (running into 10 pages); copy of judgment dated 26.04.2014 in LAC No. 76/2011 as Mark G (running into 9 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:36:46 +0530 Page 14 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India pages); copy of judgment dated 03.10.2016 in LAC No. 14/2016 as Mark H (running into 35 pages); copy of judgment dated 24.01.2019 in LAC No. 96/2016 as Mark I (running into 15 pages); certified copy of sale deed dated 01.06.2009 having registration no. 6571 in additional book number 1 Volume No. 9282 on page no. 39 to 47 is Ex. RW2/1 (running into 9 pages);
certified copy of the sale deed dated 21.10.2004 having registration no. 3671 in book number 1 Volume No. 4403 on page no. 50 to 57 as Ex. RW2/3 (running into 16 pages); copy of the sale deed dated 21.10.2004 having registration no. 13669 in book number 1 Volume No. 4403 on page no. 34 to 40 as Ex. RW2/4 (running into 11 pages); recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee dated 02.03.2007 along with the map of the Southern Ridge Boundary is Mark L (running into 36 pages); certified copies have been received by the DMRC along with Letter No. SR-V/Misc/2021/1013 dated 30.12.2022 received from Sub Registrar V, Kalkaji, New Delhi as Ex. RW2/2.
22. RW3 is Sh. Ajeet Singh, MTS, Sub-Registrar-V, Mehrauli, New Delhi. He had brought the original sale deed dated 26.08.2004 having registration No. 11301 in Book No.1, Vol. No. 4284 on page 37 to 49 executed by S. Joginder Singh Sethi and S. Sandeep Singh in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar and exhibited the copy of same as Ex.RW3/A (OSR). He was cross- examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
23. RW-4 is Sh. Bakshinder Pal Singh, Range Officer, South Forest Division, New Delhi. He had brought two maps of Village Aya Nagar Notified Reserve Forest and exhibited the same as Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:36:51 +0530 Page 15 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India RW4/1. He had also brought map of Morphological Ridge of Delhi including forest area and exhibited the same as RW4/2.
24. R1W1 is Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Patwari, Land Acquisition Collector, South. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.R1W1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(1) Photocopy of notice u/s 12(2) of the LA Act, 1894 dated 06.10.2009 as Ex. R1W1/1 (OSR) (2 pages).
(2) Copy of map of zonal development plan for the zone J approved by central government on 08.03.2010, downloaded from the official website of DDA i.e. www.ddd.gov.in as Mark R1W1/2.
(3) A copy of the writ petition as Mark R1W1/3 (page no. 9 to
21).
(4) Photocopy of original forwarding letter dated 03.09.2007 as Ex. R1W1/4 (OSR).
(5) Photocopy of internet generated order dated 10.10.2007 as Mark R1W1/5.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
25. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. counsel for UOI, RE on behalf of Union of India was closed on 08.10.2024.
26. During the proceedings, one application under Section 151 CPC for summoning the witness was filed on behalf of the petitioner, which was allowed vide order dated 07.06.2023 and petitioner was given opportunity to examine the witnesses.
27. PW-9 is Sh. Ajay Kumar, SSA, Commercial Land, DDA, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, who brought the summoned Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:36:58 +0530 Page 16 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India record i.e. original allotment letter dated 04.01.2008 in respect of plot no.4, area measuring 15,367 sq. meter situated at Dwarka, Sector 13, City Centre and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW9/1 (OSR); possession letter and exhibited the same as Ex.PW9/2; conveyance deed dated 10.08.2009 alongwith map of the property and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW9/3; original allotment letter dated 17.10.2017 and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW9/4 (OSR); possession letter dated 22.10.2008 and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW9/5 (OSR) and conveyance deed dated 24.10.2008 and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW9/6. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI.
28. PW-10 is Sh. Naresh, JSA, Commercial Land, DDA, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. original allotment letter dated 04.01.2008 in respect of plot No. 3B1, area measuring 11,130.40 sq. meter situated at Rohini Twin District Center and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW10/1 (OSR); corrigendum dated 26.05.2008 of the same property and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW10/2 (OSR); possession letter and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW10/3 (OSR); conveyance deed dated 01.09.2008 alongwith map of the same property and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW10/4 (OSR). He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI.
29. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
30. 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 : Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:37:03 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 17 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Issue No.1: Whether petitioner's Reference Petition dated 10.05.2011 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is within prescribed period of limitation? Onus on parties
31. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present reference petition has been filed within the limitation period after Hon'ble Apex Court granted the permission for filing the reference.
32. Proviso of Section 18 of the Act prescribes period of limitation for filing reference petition. The reference petition was filed on 10.05.2011 before LAC. The copy of award Ex.R-1 was tendered by Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1. The date of award is 06.10.2009. The requirement of Act is that reference application can be made within prescribed period from the date of award/contents of award are made known to interested persons. On behalf of respondent no.1/UOI, witness R1W1 was examined. R1W1 is Patwari from the Office of LAC, South, New Delhi. He tendered his evidence through affidavit Ex.R1W1/A and in order to lead evidence on this issue, he relied upon notice under Section 12(2) of LA Act, 1894 dated 06.10.2009 and the photocopy of the same was exhibited as Ex.R1W1/1 (OSR) (2 pages). During his cross-examination, he answered that it was correct that there was no receiving date mentioned on the notice. He also answered that he had no personal knowledge of the said notice and neither he was present at the time of issuance of notice. He also answered that he did not know who had signed on the notice. Perusal of this document shows that the notice is dated 06.10.2009 and it bears signatures of receiver. On comparison, Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:37:09 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 18 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the signatures of the receiver appears to be similar to the signatures of original claimant Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra as done on reference application under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 and on the affidavit annexed alongwith the application. It is not a case of petitioner that this document was false or claimant Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra did not receive the notice. Moreover, the date as mentioned on the notice was also not disputed during the cross-examination of R1W1. No other evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner in rebuttal of this document regarding the date of the notice. When there is no dispute regarding the receiving of this notice by claimant Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra and notice bears only one date i.e. 06.10.2009, then in these circumstances, the onus shifts on the petitioner to rebut the receiving of notice on 06.10.2009. However, no such evidence was ever led on behalf of the petitioner. Not even this but any evidence was never led on behalf of the petitioner on the issue of limitation period. Accordingly, there is no valid ground to ignore this notice to decide the present issue. As per respondents evidence notice was received by claimant on 06.10.2009. Admittedly, the date of filing of application under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 before LAC is 10.05.2011 i.e. much beyond the prescribed period provided under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894.
33. During final arguments, Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that the present reference under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 was filed with the permission of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 01.04.2011. He submits that thereafter the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:37:14 +0530 Page 19 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India present reference was filed within six weeks of passing the order and accordingly the present reference is within limitation period.
A copy of this order of Hon'ble Supreme Court is found to be annexed as Annexure-A alongwith petitioner's reference application under Section 18 of LA Act as filed before LAC. This order was passed in SLP (C) No. 6935/2011 from the judgment and order dated 12.11.2010 in WP No. 266/10 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Before discussing this order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is important to discuss the abovesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Vide order dated 12.11.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 266/10, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner company with exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. In WP (C) No. 266/10 before the Hon'ble High Court, legality of the award made by the LAC as published on 06.10.2009 while fixing the compensation of the entire acquired land @ Rs.17,59,824.38/- while treating the land of the petitioner as agricultural, was challenged on the ground that first draft award was illegally ignored while passing this second award.
Hon'ble High Court observed in para 4 of this order that the petitioner stated that he received the certified copy of both the Awards on 30.11.2009. The writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the year 2010 while challenging the present Award. Aggrieved by this order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the abovesaid SLP was filed before Hon'ble Apex Court on behalf of the petitioner company and as per order dated 01.04.2011, Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed this SLP as Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:37:27 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 20 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India withdrawn. It was prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner might be permitted to withdraw the SLP with liberty to make an application under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 and to raise all legally permissible ground before the reference court. This order of Hon'ble Apex Court does not mention that any delay in filing the reference before the LAC under Section 18 of LA Act, was condoned. The SLP was disposed off simply with liberty in terms of prayer made and as per the prayer on behalf of the petitioner the prayer was made for withdrawal of SLP with liberty to make an application under Section 18 of LA Act and to raise all legally permissible ground before the reference court. Accordingly, the petitioner was supposed to have the liberty to raise all legally permissible grounds before the reference court and as per this order it cannot be said that the reference court was restricted by Hon'ble Supreme Court to decide the present issue in terms of settled law on the point of limitation period.
34. There was no bar on the petitioner to file a reference under Section 18 of LA Act before LAC and also to challenge the second Award simultaneously before Hon'ble High Court. As per Section 9 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963, once time has begun to run, no specific disability or inability to institute a suit to make an application stops it. Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for exclusion of time for proceeding bonafide in court without jurisdiction. It is not a case of the petitioner that petitioner was suffering with any disability or inability during the prescribed limitation period for filing the reference petition before LAC. On 18.11.2024, Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued before this Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:37:50 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 21 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Court that notification under Section 4 of LA Act was challenged before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the year 2007 and on dismissal of the writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the order was further challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and finally the challenge of the Section 4 notification was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the year 2011 and accordingly the present petition was not barred by law of limitation as petitioner was pursuing bonafide litigation before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Apex Court while challenging the notification under Section 4 of LA Act. At first, these submissions are factually incorrect as the challenge by petitioner company before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the form of SLP (C) from the judgment and order dated 12.11.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 266/10 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, was on the validity of passing of second Award by LAC while rejecting the first draft Award. Notification under Section 4 of LA Act, regarding subject land of this case was never challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court by the petitioner company. Secondly, no proof of such bonafides was ever led on behalf of petitioner. To challenge the validity of Award before Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be said to be in court without jurisdiction. Moreover, reference application under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 for enhanced compensation and writ petition to challenge the validity of the Award itself are two separate proceedings and there is no legal bar on filing of one of the proceedings in case of pendency of the other. Accordingly, these submissions on behalf of petitioner are not tenable.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:37:58 +0530 Page 22 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Moreover, filing of the abovesaid writ petition before Hon'ble High Court cannot be considered a ground for condonation of delay in filing the reference as there was no bar in filing the reference application for enchanced compensation simultaneously with the writ petition. Rather it was the petitioner himself who chose not to file reference petition within the limitation period after receiving the notice under Section 12(2) dated 06.10.2009 of LA, Act. Even if the notice under Section 12(2) of LA Act, 1894 is not taken into consideration to calculate the prescribed period then also as abovestated it is an admitted position of the petitioner itself in writ petition filed before Hon'ble HC that the certified copy of the Award was received on 30.11.2009. Accordingly, if as per the petitioner itself, the case is considered to be covered under second part of Clause B of the Proviso below Sub Section 2 of Section 18 of LA Act, 1894, then also the reference petition was necessarily to be filed within the statutory period of six months time from the date of knowledge of the Award i.e. 30.11.2009. After receiving the certified copy of the award, six months' time period expired on 30.05.2010. Accordingly, the present reference petition cannot be said to be filed within the statutory period of six months.
35. The argument of Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the reference was filed after liberty was granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 01.04.2011 does not held ground to consider the reference within presecribed time. In view of the abovesaid discussion, there is nothing in this order in favour of the petitioner regarding condonation of delay in filing the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:38:18 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 23 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reference petition. As per the order, the liberty was granted only to make an application under Section 18 of LA, Act and to raise all the legally permissible grounds before the reference court. Accordingly, Hon'ble Apex Court left it open to the reference court to decide all the issues raised in the reference petition.
36. As abovestated, neither the present reference under Section 18 of LA, Act was field within six weeks of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of LA Act on 06.10.2009 nor it was filed within next six months at the maximum of receiving the certified copies of the Award on 30.11.2011. Rather it was filed much beyond the statutory period as prescribed in Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 and it was the petitioner himself who chose not to file the reference petition well within statutory time and instead of filing the reference petition well within time to claim enhanced compensation, he willfully chose to challenge the validity of Award itself before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and thereafter before the Hon'ble Apex Court. This situation as arises from the inaction of the petitioner can be equated with an another situation, where in a civil suit, the defendant is not permitted to claim the relief of condonation of delay in filing the written statement on the plea that the written statement was not filed within statutory period because an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908 was pending for decision. Here also the validity of the Award itself was challenged but the reference application under Section 18 of the LA Act for enhanced compensation was not filed within statutory period. It is settled position of law that once the limitation period Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:38:24 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 24 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India starts to run nothing can stop it except the particular permitted instances as per law, which is not a situation in the present case. Accordingly, in view of abovesaid discussion and settled legal position, it cannot be said that the present reference petition dated 10.05.2011 under Section 18 of LA Act is within the prescribed period of limitation.
37. Ld. counsel for petitioner also argued that if present petition is beyond limitation period and delay is not condoned then it shall cause hardship to the petitioner.
Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Rohitash Kumar & Ors vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 6157 decided on 06.11.2012 observed as under:
"18. There may be a statutory provision, which causes great hardship or inconvenience to either the party concerned, or to an individual, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it in full rigor.
It is a well settled principle of interpretation that hardship or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature, if such meaning is clear upon a bare perusal of the Statute. If the language is plain and hence allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice. (Vide: Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, West Bengal v. Keshab Chandra Mandal, AIR 1950 SC 265; and D. D. Joshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 420).
19. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 661 it was observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court that, if there is any hardship, it is for the legislature to amend the law, and that the Court cannot be called upon, to discard the cardinal rule of interpretation for the purpose of mitigating such hardship. If the language of an Act is sufficiently clear, the Court has to give effect to it, Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:38:37 +0530 Page 25 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India however, inequitable or unjust the result may be. The words, 'dura lex sed lex' which mean "the law is hard but it is the law." may be used to sum up the situation. Therefore, even if a statutory provision causes hardship to some people, it is not for the Court to amend the law. A legal enactment must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense, as that is the first principle of interpretation.
20. In Mysore State Electricity Board v. Bangalore Woolen, Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1128 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
21. In Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529, this Court, while dealing with the same issue observed as under:- "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A statute must of course be given effect to whether a Court likes the result or not." (See also: The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal I, Calcutta v. M/s Vegetables Products Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 927; and Tata Power Company Ltd. v. Reliance Energy Limited & Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 659). Therefore, it is evident that the hardship caused to an individual, cannot be a ground for not giving effective and grammatical meaning to every word of the provision, if the language used therein, is unequivocal."
The same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Popat Bahiru Govardhane Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer And Anr, 2014 (1) ABR 235 decided on 22.08.2023 while deciding the appeals against the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide which judgment of LAC on the ground of limitation was upheld.
Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:38:42 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 26 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
38. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that none of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is tenable. The plea of inconvenience is also squarely covered by the abovesaid referred judgments. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No. 2: What was the market value of land acquired, on that date of preliminary notification dated 25.07.2007 under Section 4 of the Act 1894 in respect of Award No. 04/2009-10 (dated 06.10.2009) Village Aya Nagar? Onus on Parties
39. In order to prove the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act, PW1 (present petitioner) and 9 summoned witnesses i.e. witness PW2 to PW10 were examined on behalf of the petitioner company. PW1 Sh. Krishan Kumar tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and he relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.Pw1/26.
Ex.PW1/1 is copy of receipt dated 24.03.2003 issued by MCD for conversion charges. This document was not proved independently by calling the concerned official from the MCD. The certified copy of the same has also not been placed on record. This document is merely a photocopy and not properly legible. Moreover, this document is a simple receipt for payment of an amount of Rs.31,47,000/- through cheque and it has nowhere been mentioned in the document that the same was for conversion charges and was paid by the claimant or on behalf of the petitioner company. The summoned witness PW2 from SDMC during his cross-examination dated 25.04.2017 answered Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:38:48 +0530 Page 27 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India that he has not brought the conversion charges receipt in original but the same can be produced on the next date of hearing. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 09.08.2017 also neither any such document was produced nor any further efforts were made by the petitioner for production of this document by PW2 or by any other concerned official. Accordingly, this document is of no help to consider the petitioner's claim for enhanced compensation.
Document Ex. PW1/2 is a sanctioned letter dated 25.04.2003 issued by MCD for construction of Motels. The summoned witness PW2 from the office of SDMC deposed during his examination that the document Ex.PW1/2 was correct as per their record. This document is found to be in the name of one Smt. Krishna Kumari Bhanot and not in the name of Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra (original claimant) or the present petitioner. The completion certificate Ex.PW1/5 which was also proved by PW2 is also found to be issued in the name of one Sh. Jitender Singh Chopra and not in favour of the original claimant or in favour of the present petitioner. Moreover, the name of the petitioner company is also not found to be mentioned in this document. Document Ex.PW1/3 is electricity bill and it was proved by concerned witness PW4 from the office of BSES Bhawan in order to show that the tariff was commercial in nature and accordingly the acquired land must be treated as commercial land and not agricultural land. However, this document is also found to be in the name of one Sh. Jitender Singh Chopra. Ex.PW1/4 as proved by summoned witness PW2 is copy of Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:38:55 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 28 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India receipt dated 22.09.2005 issued by MCD for compounding fees of Rs. 1,97,000/-. This document is also found to be in the name of Sh. Jitender Singh Chopra. Document Ex.PW6/A is photocopy of property tax receipt dated 31.03.2008 in respect of subject land. However, again this document is also found to be made in the name of Sh. Jitender Singh Chopra. Any of the abovesaid documents do not find any mentioning of the name of original claimant Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra or the present petitioner Sh. Krishan Kumar or the petitioner company M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, any evidence showing the ownership of original claimant or present petitioner during this time period were also not produced on behalf of the petitioner due to the reasons best known to him. No document showing the change of land use approved by the concerned authority like DDA or Ld. LG was also not produced to show that the subject land was converted from agricultural to commercial use by the competent authority. Moreover, as per the petitioner's own document Ex.PW1/21 itself the property was sealed due to unauthorized use. The unauthorized use of the subject land as per their own document was never explained by the petitioner due to the reasons best know to him. Accordingly, these documents are of no help in order to prove the nature of land use being commercial instead of agricultural.
Document Ex.PW1/6 is letter of approval from Tourism Department for setting up a four star category hotel. This document is a photocopy and allegedly addressed by the Department of Tourism to the Director of Claremount Hotel, Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:39:00 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 29 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Khasra No. 559/1, Aya Nagar. As per this letter, approval of Department of Tourism, Government of India was granted for setting up a hotel project on khasra No. 559/1, Aya Nagar, M.G. Road, New Delhi. However, as per statement under Section 19 of LA Act in the present case and the Award No. 04/2009-10 dated 06.10.2009 as sent to this court by LAC, the subject land of this reference is Khasra No. 558/1 and 576. The award also shows acquisition of land out of one another Khasra No. 557. However, none of the khasra number is 559/1. As per petitioner's own document Ex.PW1/6 it appears that either a fraud was committed on behalf of the petitioner on the concerned government authorities for issuance of abovesaid sanctions, approvals and letters while setting up a hotel on different khasra number instead of only on the sanctioned khasra number or fraud was committed on the court for claiming enhanced compensation for Khasra No. 558/1 and 576 by claiming the nature of land use as commercial instead of agricultural while misleading the court on the basis of abovesaid documents as issued by various govt. authorities in respect of khasra No. 559/1 or fraud was committed on the concerned government authorities as well as on the court by the petitioner. When the approval of Department of Tourism was regarding setting up a hotel project at Khasra No. 559/1 then there arises no occasion for the petitioner to claim enhanced compensation for the land of Khasra No. 558/1 and 576 while relying upon this document. Ex.PW1/21 is copy of Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement to Sell dated 28.03.2011 for sale of petitioner company to one Sh. Pradeep Rana. As per this Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:39:05 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 30 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India document also the address of petitioner company is Khasra No. 559/1, Aya Nagar. It confirms that there was no approval for setting up of hotel project at Khasra No. 558/1 and 576.
Accordingly, this document is also of no help for the petitioner to claim that the approved use of subject land i.e. Khasra No. 558/1 and 576 is commercial in nature for setting up of hotel.
Document Ex.PW1/7 is NOC from Delhi Fire Services granted on 22.05.2006 to run a motel. Summoned witness PW5 from Delhi Fire Services has proved this document. This document is also regarding Khasra No. 559/1 and not regarding the subject land. This document also cannot be considered in favour of the petitioner to decide the nature of subject land use due to the abovesaid reasons as discussed for Document Ex.PW1/6.
Document Ex.PW3/1 is certified copy of certificate of Registration of an eating house issued by DCP, Licencing Defence Colony, New Delhi and it was proved by summoned witness PW3 from Licencing Unit, PS: Defence Colony. Perusal of this document also shows that this document is regarding the Khasra No. 559/1 and not regarding the acquired land in the present case. Accordingly, this document is also of no help for the petitioner due to the abovesaid reasons discussed for document Ex.PW1/6.
Document Ex.PW1/8 (Colly.) (7 pages) are copies of certificates issued from various departments. These documents were not independently proved. Otherwise also, only some of the documents mentions Khasra number of the property for which Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:39:14 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 31 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India necessary certification has been issued and the khasra number mentioned in these documents is 559/1 and not the khasra numbers as of the subject land of the present case. Accordingly, these documents are also of no help in view of the abovesaid reasons discussed for document Ex.PW1/6.
Document Ex.PW1/9 is copy of objection dated 17.08.2007 filed on behalf of the petitioner before LAC. Some of the annexed documents alongwith the objections were not independently proved while the remaining documents are the same, which were filed by PW1 during his examination before this court. These documents have already been discussed in detail and need not to be discussed again. Accordingly, this document is of no help for the petitioner to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/10 is copy of first draft Award dated 09.06.2009 of LAC on acquisition of the subject land while assessing compensation for Rs.12,49,02,319.57/- and second Award dated 06.10.2009 for Rs. 17,59,824.38/-. Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that the second Award is a nullity because the first draft Award was signed by the LAC while considering the subject land as commercial but it was not approved by the Secretary Revenue. It was further argued that it was illegal for Divisional Commissioner/Secretary Revenue for not approving the first draft Award prepared by LAC. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that a writ petition WP (C) No. 266/2010 on the similar issue was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by the petitioner and same was dismissed with exemplary Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:39:20 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 32 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India cost of Rs.1,00,000/- vide its order dated 12.11.2010. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court through SLP (C) No. 6935/2011 and same was withdrawn by the petitioner. However, it was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the observation made in the impugned order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi shall not prejudice the rights of either party in reference made under Section 18 of the Act.
Respondents also relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in State Of Bihar And Ors. vs Prem Kumar Singh And Ors., a judgment rendered in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 7837/1993, deciding on 30.11.1993 reported in MANU/SC/0963/1998; (1998) 2 SCC573 and in the case of The State Of Bihar & Ors vs D. N. Singh (Dead) By L.Rs & Ors., MANU/SC/0961/1998, (1998) 2 SCC 572 in civil appeal no. 7695/1997 decided on 13.011.1997, where it was observed that competent authorities by the State government by notification under Section 11 (1) of LA Act for approval of the Award could reduce the compensation fixed by the Collector. They argued that this was exactly what had happened in the present case where the competent authority called upon the LAC to reduce the compensation as prescribed use of the land was agriculture and the LAC followed suit.
Perusal of the order dated 12.11.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 266/10 in case titled 'Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.' shows that the same issue was also raised subsequently in Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:39:25 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 33 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr vs Land Acquisition Officer & Anr and a larger bench of three judges was constituted and the Hon'ble Larger Bench chose to dispose of the appeal in terms of order dated 12.02.2004, where Hon'ble larger bench decided not to interfere the matter due to the reason that the appellants had already challenged the Award by sending reference to the civil court and matter was pending adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal in that case was dismissed without going into its merit and the views expressed by earlier two benches of two Hon'ble Judges each in the abovesaid cases of State of Bihar (supra) were not overruled.
In view of the settled legal position on this issue, I am of the considered opinion that the second Award was validly executed while not approving the first draft Award and in these circumstances, the first draft Award dated 09.06.2009 cannot be taken into consideration to assess the actual market value of the subject land on the date of Section 4 notification of LA Act, 1894.
Document Ex.PW1/11 is copy of valuation report prepared by Surveyor namely Accurate Surveyors in respect of Khasra No. 558/1, 576 , Aya Nagar for the purpose of fair market value for compensation. However, valuation report was not independently proved by examining the Surveyor. Moreover, neither the original nor any certified copy of the record was produced. Accordingly, this document also cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/12 is noting sheet of the first draft Award prepared by LAC and chief data of the first draft Award.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:39:31 +0530 Page 34 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India These documents were not independently proved by examining the concerned officials. The original or certified copy of these documents were also not produced. Moreover, these documents are base of the first draft Award dated 09.06.2009, which has already been not relied upon in view of the settled legal position during the discussion of abovesaid documents Ex.pw1/10. Accordingly, Ex.PW1/12 also cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
Documents Ex.PW1/13 is copy of notification dated 18.07.2007 regarding circle rates for properties under residential use, commercial and industrial uses. This document cannot be relied upon in absence of any proof of the approved use of subject land as commercial. No document regarding change of subject land use from the concerned authority was ever produced by the petitioner in support of his claim of subject land use being commercial in nature. This document was also not independently proved and accordingly cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/14 is Naksha Muntazim and statement of compensation. Neither this document was independently proved by the concerned official nor this document was explained on behalf of the petitioner in support of its claim for enhanced compensation. Perusal of this document shows that this document pertains to the first draft Award, which has already been neglected while discussing the document Ex.PW1/10. Accordingly, this document also cannot be relied upon for assessing the actual market rate of the subject land.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:39:36 +0530 Page 35 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
40. Document Ex.PW1/15 is gazette notification dated 26.10.2012, whereby the modification in the Master Plan for Delhi 2021 was effected from the date of publication of this gazette notification. Apparently, this notification was issued much after the date of Section 4 notification of LA Act.
Section 24 of the LA Act 1894 provides that certain matters to be neglected while determining compensation. Section 24 of LA Act provides that any increase of value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired is required to be neglected while determining compensation.
Honbl'e Apex Court in case titled Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda & Ors. Decided on 26.04.2010 has observed as under:
"33. A Bench of this Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors. [(2007) 9 SCC 447], while discussing on this aspect of the Act and its relevancy to the market value of the land, held as under :-
22. In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded, the LAO shall be guided by the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. As per Section 22 of the Act, the market value of the land has to be determined at the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 25-8-1994. As per Section 24, the LAO shall also exclude any increase in the value of land likely to accrue from use to which it will be put once acquired. The market value of the land means the price of the land which a willing seller is reasonably expected to fetch in the open market from a willing purchaser. In other words, it is a price of the land in hypothetical market.Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:39:40 +0530
Page 36 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India During the site inspection, it has been observed that the land under acquisition is situated in Sancoale and Cortalim Village adjacent to the land already acquired for the same purpose earlier."
34.This was also reiterated by this Court in the case of Mohammad Raofuddin v. The Land Acquisition Officer, [ (2009) 5 SCR 864 ] stating that Section 23 contains a list of positive factors and Section 24 has a list of negative, vis-`-vis the land under acquisition, to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation, the first step being the determination of the market value of the land from the date of publication of Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act." It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the potentiality of the acquired land should not be limited to the near future and even the post notification development in the vicinity of the acquired land must also be considered for the purpose of determination of the market value.
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 this contention made on behalf of the petitioner. 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)."
As per Section 24 of LA Act, 1894 and the settled law in case tiled Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda & Ors. (Supra) and State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:39:47 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 37 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra), the increase in the value of land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put once acquired is required to be neglected while determining the compensation and the consideration should alone be confined to the market value prevailing as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of LA Act, 1894 except in prevailing circumstances, which are missing in the present case. Moreover, it was also not explained on behalf of the petitioner that how this notification is applicable in respect of the subject land. Accordingly, this document cannot be relied upon for assessment of actual market value of the subject land.
41. Document Ex.PW1/16 is copy of affidavit allegedly filed by one Sh. Parimal Rai, Additional Commissioner (Engg.), MCD before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 4582/2003 in respect of motels.
At first, this affidavit was not proved by calling the concerned deponent. No original or certified copy of this affidavit was produced. It was also not explained that how this affidavit is relevant in determining the actual market value of the subject land. Perusal of copy of this affidavit shows that it pertains to the monitoring committee constituted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 18.05.2006 related to unauthorized construction in the city of Delhi and to remedies to curb the same. Accordingly, this document cannot be relied upon for assessment of actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/17 is a photocopy of letter dated 24.11.2006 allegedly written by Superintending Engineer (M) Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:39:52 +0530 Page 38 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India HQ, MCD to Sh. R.S. Gupta, Member Monitoring Committee for the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. This document was also neither proved independently by examining the concerned official nor any original or certified copy of this document was ever produced. It was also not explained on behalf of the petitioner that how this document is relevant to determine the actual market rate of the subject land. Accordingly, this document cannot be relied upon for assessment of actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/18 is photocopy of letter dated 20.11.2006 allegedly written by Chief Town Planner MCD to Sh. R.S. Gupta, Member Monitoring Committee constituted by the Hon'ble High Court. This document was neither proved independently by calling the concerned official nor any original or certified copy of the document was ever produced. It was also not explained on behalf of the petitioner as how this document is relevant to ascertain the actual market rate of the subject land. So, this document also cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/19 is copy of letter dated 04.03.2002 regarding revised guidelines for permissibility of motels in NCT of Delhi. However, on the similar grounds as discussed in respect of documents Ex.PW1/17 and Ex.PW1/18, this document Ex.PW1/19 also cannot be relied upon to ascertain the actual market rate of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/20 is copy of TOD (Transit Oriented Development) Policy. On the similar grounds as of document Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:39:58 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 39 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Ex.PW1/17, Ex.PW1/18, Ex.PW1/19, this document is also of no help to ascertain the actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/22 is copy of Form 23 Account obtained from ROC in order to prove accumulation yearwise loss to the petitioner company since 2008-09 to 2011-12. At first, this document was prepared by one Nahata Jain and Associates and the concerned Auditor was not examined to prove this document. The original or certified copy of the same document was never produced. Moreover, this document mentions losses incurred by Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. since the year 2005-06 and not only from the year 2008-09. As per this document in the year 2008-09 the company incurred losses for the amount of Rs.41,70,508/-. However, as per this document itself, the company incurred losses during the year 2006-07 of Rs.34,49,326/- and during the year 2007-08 of Rs.33,53,457/-. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the heavy losses to the petitioner company started since 2008-09 only after acquisition.
Document Ex.PW1/23 is copy of assessment order passed by IT Officer dated 31.03.2014 . Neither this document was independently proved by examining the concerned officials nor any original or certified copy of this document was ever produced. Moreover, as per this document, the income of Rs.Nil by M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. was filed on 20.08.2012 and the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Be earlier document Ex.PW1/22 showing losses of income to the petitioner company or the present document Ex.PW1/23, the petitioner had hidden one fact very smartly that as per the Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:05 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 40 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India petitioner's own document Ex.PW1/21 i.e. Clause (c) of the agreement to sell dated 28.03.2011, the petitioner company was sealed due to its unauthorized use. However, PW1 during his cross-examination falsely answered that no civic agency had ever sealed the premises at any time. It is pertinent to mention here that PW1 was also a party to this agreement to sell. It appears that these facts were not disclosed before this court in order to mislead the court while deciding the present reference. The actual date of sealing of the petitioner company was not revealed willfully by the petitioner before this court. Accordingly, when the petitioner company was sealed, it was very natural that it suffered with losses. The unauthorized activities on the premises by the petitioner company lead its sealing and for the consequential losses, the acquisition of the subject land by the government cannot be blamed.
Accordingly, document Ex.PW1/22 and Ex.PW1/23 also cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market rate of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/24 is a sale deed dated 12.08.2008 of Village Shahoorpur for a sale consideration of Rs.130 Crore. On 09.08.2017, a summoned witness from the office of Sub- Registrar-V alongwith the summoned record was examined as PW7 to prove this sale deed. However, during his cross- examination on behalf of the UOI, he answered that the said sale deed had been cancelled in view of the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and same was endorsed vide order/approval of the Registrar /DM (South East) Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:09 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 41 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India dated 27.02.2017. In rebuttal, neither the said witness was re- examined on behalf of the petitioner nor any other evidence was led to prove that this sale deed was not cancelled. It was also not pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was unaware regarding cancellation of this sale deed. The filing of a cancelled sale deed in evidence before the court appears to be done only with one intention to mislead this court to get the intended relief for enhanced compensation. Such act of the petitioner amounts committing fraud on the court. Accordingly, this document also cannot be taken into consideration to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/25 is also a sale deed dated 30.09.2013 for agricultural land of Village Sultanpur Tehsil Mehrauli for sale consideration of Rs.67 Crores. At first judicial notice of the fact may be taken that there is a distance of more than 4 kms. between Sultanpur Metro Station and Arjan Gargh Metro Station at Aya Nagar. The subject land pertains to village Aya Nagar for the purpose of Arjan Garh Metro Station and the exemplar sale deed is of Village Sultanpur. Secondly, this sale deed pertains to the year 2013 i.e. more than six years later from the date of notification in the present case on 25.07.2007. In view of the abovesaid provision of Section 24 of the Act, 1894 and Special Land acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda & Ors. (supra) and State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. (supra) , the increase in the value of land acquired likely to accrue post notification under Section 4 of LA Act, 4894 cannot be taken into consideration.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:14 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 42 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Accordingly, this sale deed cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/26 is Award by the reference court in LAC 247/2011 for the subject land of Village Yusuf Sarai for which notification under Section 4 of LA Act was issued on 17.12.2007. At first judicial notice of the fact may be taken that there is a distance of more than 13 kms. between Arjan Garh Metro Station and Village Yusuf Sarai.
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 petitioner can be applied to the acquired land. There is no deliberation with respect to the 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.
Accordingly, these documents cannot be considered to determine the actual market value of the subject land.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:18 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 43 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
42. The petitioner examined PW8, who appeared alongwith the summoned record from the Office of LAC, South. During his examination, certified copy of abovesaid first draft award was exhibited as Ex.PW8/1. This document needs not to be discussed again as the earlier first draft Award has already been discussed above and in view fo the above discussion, settled legal position and considering that this document has already been discarded, the document Ex.PW8/1 cannot be taken into consideration to ascertain the actual market rate of the subject land.
43. Summoned witnesses PW-9 and PW-10 from DDA, INA, Vikas Sadan were also examined by the petitioner in order to bring on record the documents related to allotment in respect of certain properties located in Dwarka and Rohini. PW9 produced documents Ex.PW9/1 (OSR) to Ex.PW9/6 and PW10 filed documents Ex.PW10/1 (OSR) to Ex.PW10/4 (OSR).
Document Ex.PW9/1 (OSR) is allotment letter dated 01.01.2008 in respect of Plot No.4 at Dwarka, Sector-13. Document Ex.PW9/2 is possession letter dated 07.08.2009 of the same property. Document Ex.PW9/3 is conveyance deed dated 10.08.2009 regarding the same property. Document Ex.PW9/4 is allotment letter dated 17.10.2007 in respect to commercial Plot No.3 at Sector-10 Dwarka. The possession letter dated 22.10.2008 and conveyance deed dated 24.10.2008 of this property were exhibited as Ex.PW9/5 and Ex.PW9/6 respectively.
Document Ex.PW10/1 is copy of original allotment letter dated 04.01.2008 in respect of Plot No.3 B1 at Rohini Twin Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:40:23 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 44 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India District Centre. Document Ex.PW10/2 is a corrigendum dated 26.05.2008 regarding the same property. Documents Ex.PW10/3 and Ex.PW10/4 are possession letters dated 01.09.2008 and conveyance deed dated 01.09.2008 respectively of the same property. It is pertinent to mention here that these properties were sold in auction and these documents were executed subsequent to the issuance of Section 4 notification of LA Act for the subject land in the present case.
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 © 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 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:40:28 +0530 Page 45 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 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 immediate vicinity or in the neighbouring areas at the relevant time of issuance of notification.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:32 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 46 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 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 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.
44. The petitioner also claimed in its affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A that the entire revenue estate of Village Aya Nagar had been declared urbanized by the government vide notification dated 03.06.1966. However, no evidence in support of this contention was ever led on behalf of the petitioner. Per contra, DMRC examined RW4 from Range Officer, South Forest Division, New Delhi, who produced two maps of Village Aya Nagar Notified Reserve Forest and exhibited the same as Ex.RW4/1 and map of Morphological Ridge of Delhi including forest area and exhibited the same as RW4/2 in order to show that the subject land falls within the ridge area boundary. This Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:40:39 +0530 Page 47 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India contention that the subject land is an agricultural land and falls within the ridge area boundary was made by DMRC witness RW2 through his affidavit of evidence Ex.RW2/A. Accordingly, this plea of petitioner regarding urbanization of the Village Aya Nagar is not sustainable in absence of any supportive evidence.
Accordingly, no positive evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner in order to show that the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation for the subject land.
45. RW2 filed document Mark-I i.e. copy of Award dated 24.01.2019 of the reference court in LAC 96/2016 in case titled Santosh Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. in which Section 4 notification was issued on 09.05.2007 for acquisition of land of Village Sultanpur. In this case, Ld. Reference Court answered the reference under Section 18 of LA Act while upholding the compensation award by LAC @ Rs.17,58,400/-.
It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the land was acquired for the same purpose as of the present case and the date of notification is around two months prior to the Section 4 notification in the present case. It was argued that Village Sultanpur was more developed area than the Village Aya Nagar, where subject land of this case locates, at that time also and even for the land of Village Sultanpur the compensation @ Rs.17,58,400/- as awarded by the LAC was upheld in this case.
46. In view of the abovesaid discussion, evidences and settled legal position, I am of the considered opinion that no cogent evidence is found to be led to show that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.39 Crores on the date of notification of Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:43 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 48 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Section 4 of LA Act. Exemplars of the comparable land and of the relevant period were also not led in evidence by the petitioner. Consequently, it has to be held that LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification of Section 4 of LA Act. Issue no.2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.3: Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation, if so at what rate and of statutory benefits? OPP
47. OWNERSHIP OF THE PETITIONER/CLAIMANT Sh. Krishan Kumar examined himself as PW1 being Director of the petitioner company. During his cross-examination dated 25.04.2017 on behalf of UOI, he answered that he was Director of the company and he and his wife purchased the said Motel in the year 2010 and 2011 and in this way they had taken the possession of M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. During his cross-examination dated 01.11.2017 on behalf of DMRC, he answered that he was working as Director of the petitioner company since 2010. He further answered that he had submitted Section 18 application in the year 2011 and he purchased the share of company in two tranches i.e. 46% share was purchased on 03.08.2010 and remaining 24% share was purchased on 15.09.2011.
On 18.11.2024, Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that PW1/Sh. Krishan Kumar alongwith his wife purchased 100% share of the petitioner company from Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra (original petitioner) and his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur in the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 17:40:47 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 49 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India year 2010. He submitted that no document showing this transaction was produced by the petitioner Sh. Krishan Kumar.
Perusal of the record shows that application under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 before LAC was filed by claimant Sh.
Harbhajan Singh Chopra on 10.05.2011. PW1/Sh. Krishan Kumar filed the amended petition under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 on 17.05.2016. As per this record, it is clear that he falsely said on 01.11.2017 during his cross-examination due to the reasons best known to him that he had submitted Section 18 application in the year 2011 as in the year 2011 the application under Section 18 of LA Act was filed by Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra and not by Sh. Krishan Kumar/PW1.
48. During his examination dated 25.04.2017, he relied upon copy of Memorandum of Settlement and Agreement to Sell between Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Pradeep Rana for consideration amount of Rs.110 Crores and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW1/21.
Perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 28.03.2011 shows that the same was executed between total seven parties, out of which Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra (original petitioner) and his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur were jointly referred as second party and Sh. Krishan Kumar (present petitioner/PW1) is fourth party. The Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. through Sh. H.S. Chopra has been referred as third party. As per this Memorandum of Settlement, it was resolved that the third party M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. would be sold to the seventh party i.e. Sh. Pradeep Rana in terms of Agreement to Sell Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:57 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 50 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India annexed herewith. The Agreement to Sell dated 28.03.2011 is annexed alongwith this document shows that it was agreed between M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. as first party and Sh. Pardeep Rana as second party and Sh. Devender Sharma alongwith his wife Smt. Seema Sharma as third party that first party had agreed to sale the property to second party and the second party had agreed to purchase the said property for a total sale consideration of Rs.110 Crores out of which Rs.70 Crores shall be paid to the first party and balance amount shall be paid to the third party for his efforts for the present sale. The receiving of total amount of Rs. Seven Crores as part payment by the first party has been mentioned in the agreement itself and the balance amount to the first party was agreed to be paid within 90 days from the date of permanent de-sealing of the Hotel. It was also agreed that total sale consideration of Rs.40 Crores by the third party shall be paid after paying the total payment to the first party and third party would handover all papers related to the property to the second party. It was also agreed upon that if second party failed to make the balance amount within 90 days from the date of this document then the advance money paid under this agreement shall forfeit automatically. It was also mentioned in Clause (c) of this agreement that the said property was sealed at that time due to unauthorized use and it was agreed that the first party should get the said property de-sealed from the MCD, monitoring committee of the Supreme Court or any other concerned authorities.
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:41:02
+0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 51 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India As per contents, terms and conditions of these documents, it is nowhere found to be mentioned that PW1/Krishan Kumar alongwith his wife was owner of 100% share or atleast 76% share of the petitioner company at the time of alleged execution of these documents in the year 2011. However, as already observed during his cross-examination dated 01.11.2017, he answered that he purchased 76% share of the company on 03.08.2010. Moreover, Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted on 18.11.2024 that Sh. Krishan Kumar alongwith his wife purchased 100% share of the property from Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra and his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur in the year 2010. These claims are contrary to the contents of their own documents which nowhere mentions about their said ownership. Moreover, neither original of these documents were produced before the court nor any of the witness of these documents was examined in order to prove these documents. The alleged purchaser Sh. Pradeep Rama was also not examined to prove these documents.
If these documents are considered to be admissible just for the sake of arguments then also as per these documents, the owner of the petitioner company was Sh. Pradeep Rana and not Sh. Krishan Kumar/PW1 and his wife.
Moreover, it is settled legal preposition that any agreement to sell does not confer title rather it is a registered sale deed which confer title. However, any such sale deed executed in pursuance of these documents was never produced before this court by the petitioenr due to the reasons best known to him.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:41:07 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 52 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India During his cross-examination dated 01.11.2017, PW1 answered that no civic agency has ever sealed the acquired premises at any time. However, to the contrary, as per the document of the petitioner himself, clause (c) of agreement to sell dated 28.03.2011, the said property was sealed at that time due to unauthorized use and the first party assured that it should get the said property de-sealed from MCD monitoring committee of Supreme Court or any other concerned authority. It was within the best knowledge of the petitioner that why he deposed falsely before the court on oath.
Different details of the Directors of the petitioner company M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. are found to be there in the Memorandum of Settlement and Agreement to Sell and Purchase. As per the Memorandum of Settlement, M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. was acting through Sh. H.S. Chopra. However, to the contrary, as per Agreement to Sell and Purchase of the same date, M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. was claimed to be represented by its Directors namely Sh. H.S. Chopra, Smt. Surjeet Kaur, Sh. Krishan Kumar, Smt. Meenakshi and Sh. Vinod Kumar. The different details of the Directors in these documents was never explained on behalf of the present petitioner/PW1 Sh. Krishan Kumar.
No document showing share purchase agreement to prove the alleged ownership in favour of present claimant Sh. Krishan Kumar and his wife was ever produced by him due to the reasons best know to him.
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:41:12
+0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 53 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India No board resolution authorizing him to pursue this case on behalf of the petitioner company was also produced by the present petitioner to show his locus standi in the present case.
The change in directorship - As and when needed the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 read with Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules 2014 sets down the procedure for change in the Directors. As per the present petitioner/PW1, he and his wife purchased M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2010 and 2011 and he was working as Director of the petitioner company since 2010. During his cross-examination, he also answered that he has placed on record board of resolution. However, except the abovesaid alleged Memorandum of Settlement and alleged Agreement to Sell no such document showing resolution passed by board is found to be placed on record. No appropriate document showing change in Directors of the petitioner company was also produced to show that the present claimant has been director of the company.
No proof of payment for the alleged sale consideration of Rs.110 Crores as per document Ex.PW1/21 was ever filed by the present petitioner to prove the abovesaid sale.
Admittedly no document showing purchase of 100% shares of the petitioner company from Sh. H.S. Chopra and his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur was ever filed by the present petitioner/PW1 due to the reasons best known to him.
In absence of any sale deed regarding subject land or specific agreement between Sh. Krishan Kumar, his wife on one Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:41:17 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 54 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India hand and Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra and his wife on another hand regarding transfer of their right of enhanced compensation in respect of subject land in favour of present petitioner/Sh. Krishan Kumar and his wife, the claim of the present petitioner/Sh. Krishan Kumar regarding enhanced compensation is not maintainable. In absence of any documentary proof, the claim of ownership in favour of Sh. Krishan Kumar and his wife remains only bald claim.
49. Document Ex.PW1/21 i.e. Memorandum of Settlement dated 28.03.2011 mentions in Clause 8 that the second party i.e. Harbhajan Singh and his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur had initiated criminal action against first party i.e. Devender Sharma and his wife Smt. Seema Sharma and sixth party i.e. Smt. Raj Sharma and her husband Sh. Dharnvir Sharma and a FIR No. 12/2008 under Section 384/420/466/468/471/477/506/120B/34 of IPC against Devender Sharma & Ors. was lodged with Crime Branch. However, on inquiry on 05.03.2025 by this court, Ld. counsel for the petitioner had shown his ignorance about the FIR proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here that the present petitioner is fourth party to the memorandum of settlement. The submissions of Ld. counsel for the petitioner regarding his ignorance about the abovesaid FIR is a surprise for this court because this document was filed during the evidence of PW1/Sh. Krishan Kumar on 25.04.2017 i.e. at the time when he was representing the present petitioner in this matter.
In view of the abovesaid discussion regarding the evidences led by the present petitioner/PW1 to show his Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:41:22 +0530 Page 55 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025 M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India ownership and legality to get the enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land in the present case and false deposition of the petitioner on oath before this court and considering that issues no.1 and 2 have already been decided against the petitioner, the petitioner is held not entitled to any enhancement for the compensation already awarded. Accordingly, issue no.3 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.4: Relief.
50. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition is dismissed. Both the sides will bear their own costs.
51. The reference petition under Section 18 of LA Act is answered in terms of findings on issues no.1 to 3. 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. Pronounced in the open Court on this 29th March, 2025.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:41:30 +0530
(DR. YADVENDER SINGH)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
LAC No. 138/16
Page 56 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025