Delhi District Court
Udam Singh (17/04-05) vs Union Of India And Ors. (Alipur ) on 9 January, 2026
DLNT010066292022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDHARTH MATHUR
DISTRICT JUDGE (NORTH-01): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
LAC No. 90/2022
In the matter of :-
1. Sh. Udam Singh
2. Sh. Anand Singh
Both S/o Sh. Dan Singh
Both R/o V.P.O. Alipur, Delhi.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India through
Land Acquisition Collector
North, DC I Office, Alipur, Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority
through its Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
.... Respondents
Award No. 17/DC (NW)/2004-05
Village Alipur
Date of possession 16.04.2003
Notification U/S 4 LA Act F.10(43)/96/L&B/LA/3172
dt.23.05.2002
Notification U/s 6 LA Act F.10(43)/96/L&B/LA/15568
dt.17.12.2002
Date of Announcement of LAC Award 13.10.2004.
Date of Receipt of Reference : 14.11.2022 Date of Arguments : 09.01.2026 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 LAC no. 90/22 page 1 of 9 Digitally signed by SIDHARTH SIDHARTH MATHUR MATHUR Date: 2026.01.09 16:19:08 +0530 REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 AWARD:
(BY THE COURT U/S 26 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT- 1894 ON REFERENCE PETITION U/S 18 OF THE ACT):
1. This is a reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC') under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act'). The reference was initiated on a petition made by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the LAC vide above-referred award.
2. As per the reference, a large tract of land measuring 814 bigha 19 biswas of village Alipur, Delhi, was acquired by the Government for a public purpose namely "Freight Complex (Narela), under Planned Development of Delhi". A notification under Section 4 of The LA Act was issued on 23-05-2002. A Declaration under Section 6 was made on 17-12-2002. Thereafter, above-referred award was announced by the LAC. The LAC determined the market price of the acquired land as Rs. 15.70 lacs per acre.
3. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the market value determined by the LAC, filed the present petition u/s LAC no. 90/22 page 2 of 9 Digitally signed SIDHARTH by SIDHARTH MATHUR MATHUR Date: 2026.01.09 16:19:14 +0530 18 of the LA Act, seeking reference to this court. The LAC forwarded the same to this Court for adjudication.
4. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners are/were the co-owner / co-bhumidhar in possession of the land bearing khasra numbers as mentioned in Statement u/s 19 of the LA Act that was annexed with the present reference and admitted by the counsel for the petitioner during admission-denial of documents, situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Alipur, Delhi (the said land). The said land was acquired vide notification dated 23.05.2002.
5. The petitioner has challenged the said award inter alia on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and incorrect assessment of market value of land inter-alia due to non-consideration of relevant factors like potentiality and fertility of the suit land, the surrounding colonies and developed areas, the market value of the adjoining areas/villages, the sale deeds of other lands of the contemporary period, nearness to the National Highway and industrial areas, the amenities available in the suit land etc.
6. The petitioner has prayed compensation at enhanced LAC no. 90/22 page 3 of 9 Digitally signed SIDHARTH by SIDHARTH MATHUR MATHUR Date: 2026.01.09 16:19:20 +0530 rate besides interest thereon and solatium in addition to the compensation.
7. The respondent no.1/the Union of India (UOI)/Land Acquisition Collector and respondent no.2/D.D.A contested the reference petition by filing their respective Written Statements.
8. The petition has been contested mainly on the ground that the LAC awarded adequate compensation to the petitioner after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and therefore, LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the land after taking into account the market rates prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
In written statement R-2/DDA also supported the contention of R-1/UOI.
9. During admission-denial of documents, counsel for the petitioner admitted the said statement given u/s 19 of the Act. The following issues were framed :-
i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount?
ii) Relief.
10. In evidence, the petitioner has relied upon the LAC no. 90/22 page 4 of 9 Digitally signed by SIDHARTH SIDHARTH MATHUR MATHUR Date: 2026.01.09 16:19:25 +0530 judgment in a case Harpal Singh Vs. UOI and also the evidence led in said case. However, the leading case of Village Alipur is Jai Singh Vs. UOI LA No.266/08, decided on 23.08.2011 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
11. The respondent no.1/Union of India, in its evidence, tendered the award as Ex. R1. The respondent no.2/Delhi Development Corporation (DDA) adopted the evidence led by respondent no.1/UOI.
12. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have also carefully considered the record. My issue-wise findings are given as under:-
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1 :-
13. Petitioner has contended that valuation of land determined by LAC is not reasonable as LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation. However, he has not led any evidence to show as to how the LAC was wrong in fixing market value of land. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has only relied upon the judgment Jai Singh Vs. UOI, LA No.266/08, decided on 23.08.2011 (Delhi High Court) and conceded that award be passed in terms of the said judgment and the same enhancement which was granted in the said judgment be also granted to LAC no. 90/22 page 5 of 9 Digitally signed by SIDHARTH SIDHARTH MATHUR MATHUR Date: 2026.01.09 16:19:29 +0530 petitioner. The respondents have also not disputed to the adjudication of the market value in at par with the other villages that were acquired through the notification of even date.
14. In Jai Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble High Court, in the para 94 itself discussed the topography of the villages, the lands for which were under acquisition. The para 94 is being produced herein for convenience:
Village Ali Pur Notification dated 23-5-2002
94. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at `18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per ‗GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to`18,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well.
15. The village Alipur was one of the villages under consideration in Jai Singh's case. The villages namely Shahpur Garhi, Holambi Kalan and Alipur that came under acquisition through notification dated 23-05-2002 LAC Digitally no. 90/22 signed page 6 of 9 by SIDHARTH SIDHARTH MATHUR MATHUR Date:
2026.01.09 16:19:33 +0530 were adjudicated a uniform compensation of Rs.18,65,500/- per acre.
16. Since no different evidence has been led by the petitioner or the defendant in the present case, I have no reason to deviate from the amount adjudicated in respect of other villages in the Jai Singh's case (Supra). The fair market value of per acre of the acquired land is accordingly adjudicated @ Rs.18,65,500/- per acre for land. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner would be entitled to the said market value as per the applicable category of his land.
17. Petitioner has also claimed compensation for crops, tree, tubewell etc. However, the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim or to establish that he was not awarded sufficient compensation for same. Accordingly, I hold that petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement in compensation on this count.
18. Besides above, petitioner shall be entitled to other statutory benefits under the LA Act viz. 12% additional amount [as per section 23 (1A)] and 30% solatium [u/s 23 (2)] and will be entitled to interest under Section 28 of L.A Act on the fair market value @ 9% per annum for the first LAC no. 90/22 page 7 of 9 Digitally signed by SIDHARTH SIDHARTH MATHUR MATHUR Date: 2026.01.09 16:19:37 +0530 year and @ 15% for subsequent year till the making of payment of enhanced compensation by LAC as per provision of Section 28 of the Act. Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
19. Findings on Issue No.2 - RELIEF In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioner/s are granted the following reliefs: -
1. fair market value @ Rs.18,65,500/- per acre for the acquired land as per statement u/s 19 of the LA Act;
2. additional amount @ 12% per annum on the fair market value u/s 23 (1A) of the LA Act , from the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
3. solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of market value;
4. interest under Section 28 of L.A Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till its payment ;
LAC no. 90/22 page 8 of 9
Digitally signed by
SIDHARTH SIDHARTH MATHUR
MATHUR Date: 2026.01.09
16:19:41 +0530
20. The share(s) of the petitioner(s) would be determinable as per the statement u/s 19 of the L.A. Act proved on record and the said statement shall constitute a part of this award.
21. Reference petition stands answered. Parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this award be sent to the LAC for necessary information, action and expeditious compliance for remittance of the amount. File be consigned to record room.Digitally signed
by SIDHARTH
SIDHARTH MATHUR Announced in the MATHUR Date:
2026.01.09 Open Court on 09.01.2026 16:19:48 +0530 (Sidharth Mathur) District Judge-01/North District, Rohini Courts/Delhi Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS LAC no. 90/22 page 9 of 9