Delhi District Court
Chander Kant vs Union Of India on 28 March, 2025
Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India
DLST010002532010
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh.
LAC NO. 102/16
FILING No. 21566/2010
CNR No. DLST01-000253-2010
In the matter of :-
1. Sh. Chander Kant
2. Sh. Ravi Kant
Both s/o Sh. Kailash Nath
R/o Uncha Brij Nath Chandani Chowk,
Delhi.
Also at
Varun Garden, Sultanpur,
New Delhi. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India
Th: Land Acquisition Collector
District South,
New Delhi.
2. M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Th: Its chairman/ CEO
Metro Bhawan
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001. ...Respondents
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 18:17:30 +0530 Page 1 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India Date of Institution : 02.07.2010 Reference received on : 02.07.2010 Date on which order was reserved : 30.01.2025 Date of Award : 28.03.2025 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 have sought enhancement of the monetary award given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the assessment of the market value of the acquired land is wholly inadequate and was done on the lower side without considering the relevant factors for correctly assessing the market value of the land in question. The reference was received in this court from the office of LAC (South) on 02.07.2010.
2. For answering the present reference petition, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act: 10.08.2007 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act: 01.11.2007 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act: 01.11.2007
(iii) For Project: Construction of Depot at Ghitorni in connection with Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Ph- II
(iv) Date of possession taken: 16.05.2008 and 27.05.2008
(v) Location/Name of Village: Sultanpur
(vi) Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC: 06/2009-10 & date of Award: Digitally signed by 30.10.2009 YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 18:17:56 +0530 Page 2 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India
(vii) Area under this reference petition: 6465.07 sq. mtrs.
(viii) Market value of land held by LAC: 17,58,400 per acre
(ix) Date of reference petition to LAC: 15.12.2009
(x) Petition referred to this Court on: 02.07.2010
3. The present reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land situated in Village Sultanpur which was acquired for the public purpose of 'Construction of Depot at Ghitorni in connection with Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Ph-II'.
The land in question was acquired by the LAC vide award No. 06/2009-10 dated 30.10.2009 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 10.08.2007 which was followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 01.11.2007.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after considering the relevant factors gave its Award No.06-2009-10 by determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition @ Rs.17,58,400/- per acre.
5. Since the petitioner did not accept the award, it 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 which the Land Acquisition Collector (herein after referred to as the "Collector"), had calculated the compensation contained in the award on his whims and fancies and in the process had completely overlooked/ ignored the cogent Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:18:02 +0530 Page 3 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India documentary and other evidence placed on record by the applicant. It was further claimed that the market value of the land acquired of the claimant, under no circumstances, could have been assessed at less than Rs.5,00,000/- Sq. mtr. by the Collector as claimed by the claimants. It was further contented that the Collector had committed a grave error of law and fact in observing that of the basis of the documents filed by the claimants did not provide the clear and exact market value of the land in question and that the claim of the interested persons was exorbitant. That the Collector committed an error of law and fact in rejecting the documents filed by the claimants in support of their claim being the:-
List of trees.
Letter dated 14.05.2008 by DDA opining the rate of the land in an around Sultanpur, Ghirtorni and Vasant Kunj being Rs.2,70,960 per sq. meter in the year 2008 Copy of the registered Sale deed dated 09.05.2008 in respect of Property bearing Khasra No. 650 min, 646/2, 649/2 Village Sultanpur, New Delhi for a consideration price of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Crores) Case Law on the subject as pronounced by Apex Court and the Delhi High Court.
Location map/ site plan of the property/ land in question depicting the prime location of the land.
That the Collector had failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that market value means what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having regard to the advantages available to the land and the development activities which may be going in the vicinity and the potentiality of the land. That the land in question was undisputedly situated in the prime area/ locality of Village Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:18:09 +0530 Page 4 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India Sultanpur, South Delhi and a sampler Sale Deed of a similar/ identical land was placed on record which was only about 1 km far from the land in question. The said agricultural land measuring 13 bighas 11 biswas, as per the Sale Deed was sold for Rs.15 crores on 09.06.2008, however the said sale deed was ignored/ overlooked by the Collector. That the Village Sultanpur in South Delhi is virtually urbanized, in as much as, the same has huge building potentiality. That the Collector failed to appreciate the fact that the area of Sultanpur Village was fast developing area, in as much as, the same was situated right on the busy and bustling Mehrauli- Gurgaon road of Delhi. That the Collector also failed to appreciate that the Village Sultanpur was situated between two important roads being Mehrauli Gurgaon road, Mahashay Mangat Ram road thus making the land in question a prime land. That the land in question was very close to the TATA Sky Broadcasting centre, posh green view apartments, c.campus, RP Medical Centre, Ghitorni bus station as also the posh DLF Farms. Village Sultanpur where the land in question is located was situated right adjacent to posh Chatterpur Extension and was well connected to the Vasant Kunj area of New Delhi. The collector also ignored the details of the trees standing in the land of the claimants and also the value of the said trees. The Collector also ignored the average auction rate of the land around Sultanpur which was placed on record by the applicants vide the DDA letter dated 14.05.2008 bearing No. DY No.435/SR.AO(CL)DDA/59. That the collector also failed to consider the total constructed area on the land in question being 444.16 sq feet as placed on record by the claimants and also the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:18:15 +0530 Page 5 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India cost of the iron gate installed on the land in question of the claimants. The collector gave a complete go-by to the building potentiality of the land in question which was manifest from the fact that the Sultanpur area was highly conducive and productive for building construction as is obvious from the Sale Deed of the same area placed on record. The collector committed an error of law and fact in determining the market value of the subject land on the basis of indicative price fixed by Govt. of Delhi as mentioned in the award, which is contrary to the settled proposition of law in this regard, as repeatedly held by the courts which have said that the circle rates, Govt, rates etc. can not be a safe indicator for determining the market value of a land while deciding land acquisition compensations. The acquired land having a good building potentiality, its value, like the value of any other potentiality of the land should necessarily would have been taken into account for determining the market value of the land in question. The acquired land in question was situated in the immensely developing and growing area/ locality of South Delhi, in terms of size, commercial, residential and other prospects. The acquired land was located in a area which was adequately equipped with all modern facilities like roads, water supply, electricity supply, market, metro rail, public transport by way of blue line and DTC buses, etc. The acquired land has in its close proximity, the above mentioned and all important Mehrauli- Gurgaon Road, Delhi Metro Rail line/ network, well laid and developed building plots and houses, well developed residential extensions being Chatterpur Extension, JVTS Garden, Chatterpur Enclave, Sainik Farms, DLF Firms etc. The land in Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:18:22 +0530 Page 6 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India question was very close to the famous RP Medical Centre, Tata Sky Broadcasting Centre, C. Campus. Substantial part of land in and around Sultanpur was in very high demand for building purposes which was manifested from the fact the very close proximity to the said area there are well constructed residential houses and farm houses developed by famous and reputed builders, like DLF etc. It was a oft-repeated proposition of law that the valuation of the land mentioned in the valuation records of govt. authorities for various other purposes like collecting of stamp duty etc. could be of no assistance in determining the market value of the land acquired under the act and the same could not form the foundation to determine the market value of the acquired land. The collector ignored the certified copy of the sale deed dated 09.06.2008 placed on record in respect of the land measuring 13 bighas 11 biswas, situated at Village Sultanpur. The Collector did not conduct a proper and correct inquiry in as much as, the award in question has been made without proper application of mind to material available on record. There was absolutely no mention and discussion in the award as to why claim made by the claimants was not acceptable. The Collector did not obtain any relevant statistics for concerned registering authorities to determine the market value of the land acquired, nor did he consider the fact that the neighborhood areas of the land acquired are very well developed and bustling with activity. The Collector had not even cared to discuss or apply his mind to the detailed affidavit supported by relevant documents filed by the claimants before the Collector and thus has caused gross prejudice and Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:18:31 +0530 Page 7 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India disadvantage to the claimants. The collector had failed to appreciate that substantial damage was caused to the claimants by taking over of the aforementioned trees and also of the constructed portion/super structure over the land in question.
From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it was clear that the award in question passed by the Collector is patently erroneous in terms of law and facts, in as much as, the compensation awarded is too meager and unimaginably low. The award had been passed in a most laconic and mechanical manner without application of mind and appreciation of law holding fields in this regard. In view of the aforesaid facts and details, the award in question was not acceptable to the claimants and by way of the present application the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the concerned courts in terms of the objections raised by the claimants herein above.
7. The petitioner sought following reliefs:
a) The award in question be referred by the learned Collector to the concerned court for determination of the amount of compensation in accordance with law as envisaged under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
b) Grant such other and further relief to the Claimants/ Applicants, as may be found just and proper under the circumstances of the case.
8. In its Written Statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed the claim for enhancement in compensation. It was stated that That the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the village "Sultanpur" was issued on 10.8.2007. The declaration under section 6 and 17 (1) of the Act were issued on 01.11.2007. The land has been acquired for the public purpose YADVENDER Digitally signed by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:18:39 +0530 Page 8 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India namely for "Construction of depot at Ghitorni in connection with Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase- II". Notices under section 9 & 10 were issued and served to the land owners/Interested persons inviting claims of the affected properties. Pursuant to the notices, number of claims, were filed by the affected persons claiming different value of the land and properties. After considering all the claims of the land owners/interested parties the Land Acquisition Collector made and pronounced the award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, being Award No. 06/2009-2010 on 30.10.2009. That claim of the petitioner with respect to measurements, apportionment and compensation of the land is admitted to the extent of section 19 statement of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was sufficient and reasonable and it reflected the true market value prevailing at the time of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Various factors were taken into account while assessing the market value. The petitioner was claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land and structures. However the answering respondent craved leave of this Court to refer and rely upon the Award No. 06/2009-2010 and the statement under section 19 of the Act for the factual aspect of the case. That the structures appurtenant to the land under acquisition were got evaluated by the PWD of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and received through DMRC. The DMRC conducted the evaluation and submitted the evaluation reports after duly vetted by the Public Works Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the Land Acquisition Collector which were accepted after due Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH Page 9 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:18:50 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India consideration. The details of the same were mentioned in the Award no. 06/2009-2010. That the Land Acquisition Collector considered the Market Value of the land at the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act i.e, on 10.08.2007. The Land Acquisition Collector in order to assess the fair market value the Land Acquisition Collector considered the claims filed by the Interested Persons. The claims were rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector as the documents and judgments filed by the claimants were different on merit as such the same did not construe the true market value of the land in question. As per the available records village Sultanpur was rural village, therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the indicative price fixed by the government of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land, vide Notification No. F.9(230)/80/L.&B/LA/6720 dated 30.8.2005 and assessed the market value of the land as at Rs 17,58,400/- per acre for the land as the true market value of the land besides other statutory benefits. That the Land Acquisition Collector rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated under section 23 & 24 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the fair Market Value of the land after considering its current use, potentiality for the future land use, proximity of land to the nearby area. The Land Acquisition Collector also considered the permissive use of the land of the area of the land in question, under the master plan. The market value of the land assessed at Rs. 17,58,400/- per acre. That the respondents dis-satisfied with the said determination of the market value of the land and structures, preferred a reference under section 18 of the Land YADVENDER SINGH Page 10 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Digitally signed by YADVENDER SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:19:02 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation, which was referred to this Court. It was submitted that the land owners/interested persons were claiming exorbitant value of the land structures, which was correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Hence the reference under reply was liable to be dismissed and the petitioners were not entitled to any enhancement over and above the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. That none of the land owner/interested person filed any substantial evidence in support of their claim, which was exorbitantly high. The claim of the land owners/interested persons were duly considered and since the same was without any merit or any documentary evidence the same was rightly rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector.
9. Respondent No.2/DMRC also filed its written statement. It was stated in the written statement that there was no cause of action arose to file the present reference/petition under reply, hence, needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. That the reference/ petition under reply was not maintainable as such the Ld. LAC has assessed the correct market value of the land in question. The value determined by the Ld. LAC was exact, appropriate and is quite fair and reasonable. That the reference/ petition under reply was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed as such the Petitioner had failed to furnish and supply any evidence in his favour in respect of the relief claimed by him. That the reference/petition under reply was barred under Order VI Rule 15 of C.P.C.
10. Vide order dated 27.09.2011, following issues were Digitally signed by framed by the Learned Predecessor of this Court: YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 18:19:14 +0530 Page 11 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India
1. What was the market value of acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of LA Act?
2. To what enhancement in compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled? OPP
3. Relief.
11. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. Petitioner examined Sh. Ravi Kant as PW1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and adopted the evidence led in case bearing LAC no. 150/11 titled Gulab Singh vs. UOI pertaining to village Sultanpur, Award no. 6/2009-2010. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsels for the respondents.
12. Petitioner also examined Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Chaudhary, Signing Authority, M/s. Aarken Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as PW2. He submitted that he had executed the registered Sale Deed dated 09.06.2008 on behalf of the aforesaid company as its authorised signatory, by way of which a farm house was purchased from Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra, the Vendor. The Sale Deed (already exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/1 in connected matter in LAC No. 150/11 titled as Gulab Singh vs. UOI & Anr.) bears his signatures at points A on all pages. Exhibit PW-1/1 in LAC No. 150/11 had been shown to the witness who identified the same. The document Exhibit PW-1/1 was also signed by the Vendor by Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra in his presence and as such he identified her signature which are at points B on all pages. The said Farm house/ agricultural land was in the ownership of the aforesaid company. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsels for the respondents. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 18:19:23 +0530 Page 12 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India
13. No other witness was examined on behalf of the petitioners. The PE was closed on 16.09.2014.
14. 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.06/2009-2010 of Village Sultanpur as Ex.R1. The evidence on behalf of Union of India was closed on 25.11.2014.
15. Vide order dated 14.09.2016, the respondent no. 2's evidence was closed and the opportunity is treated as availed.
16. During the proceedings, an application under Section 151 CPC for re-opening the evidence of DMRC was filed and the same was allowed vide order dated 11.09.2024 and respondent no.2 was granted opportunity to lead evidence.
17. In RE on behalf of DMRC/respondent No.2, R2W1 Sh. A.S. Rao, Law Officer, DMRC was examined. During his examination-in-chief dated 11.09.2024, R2W1 relied upon the following documents:
(i) certified copy of sale deed dated 21.10.2004 having registration no. 13671 in Book No. I Vol no. 4403 from page no. 50 to 57. Same is now exhibited as Ex. R2W1/1;
(ii) certified copy of sale deed dated 21.10.2004 having registration no. 13669 in Book No. I Vol no. 4403 from page no. 34 to 40. Same is now exhibited as Ex. R2W1/2; and
(iii) certified copy of sale deed dated 26.08.2004 having registration no. 11301 in Book No. I Vol no. 4284 from page no. 37 to 49. Same is now exhibited as Ex. R2W1/3.Digitally signed by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 18:19:28 +0530 Page 13 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
18. No other witness was examined by DMRC. Therefore, evidence on behalf of DMRC was closed on 01.10.2024 and matter was listed for final arguments.
19. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. My issue-wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1: What was the market value of acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of LA Act?
20. The petitioners examined total 2 witnesses in PE to prove their case. Petitioner no.2 examined himself as PW1 and deposed through his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A on 20.03.2012 and adopted the evidence led in LAC 150/11 titled as Gulab Singh Vs. Union of India pertaining to the land of Village Sultanpur, which was also acquired vide same award as of the present case. Vide court order dated 20.03.2012, Ld. Predecessor of this court allowed the submissions of Ld. counsel for the petitioner regarding adopting the evidence led in matter bearing LAC No.150/11 in the present case on the ground that award was same in both the matters. The present petitioner is not a party in LAC 150/11 and he was also not examined as a witness in that matter. In LAC 150/11 total four witnesses were examined i.e. Gulab Singh as PW1; Sh. Amar Dev as PW2 being summoned witness alongwith record from the office of Director, LC, DDA, Vikas Sadan; Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chaudhary as PW3 to prove Sale Deed (Ex.PW1/1) and Sh. Yogesh Aggarwal as PW4 as a summoned witness alongwith record from LAC Branch, South, Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH Page 14 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:19:33 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India M.B. Road, Saket. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chaudhary, who was examined as PW3 in LAC 150/11 on 27.05.2013 was separately examined as PW2 on the same date in the present matter also. In LAC 150/11, PW1 relied upon the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 09.06.2008 (Ex.PW1/1), Sale Deed dated 04.02.2008 (Ex.PW1/2), Sale Deed dated 18.06.2008 (Ex. PW1/3) and Sale Deed dated 18.06.2008 (Ex.PW1/4). PW2 also relied upon latest map of Delhi (Ex.PW1/5). He also relied upon the documents i.e. his detailed affidavit filed before LAC (Mark-A), building plan (Mark-B), photocopy of letter dated 14.05.2008 (Mark-C) as issued by DDA and photocopy of list of trees filed on record of LAC (Mark-D). The subject land in both the cases is same. However, the petitioner Sh. Gulab Singh in LAC 150/11 is owner of 1/2 share in the subject land falling in Khasra No. 432, 433, 463 and the present case petitioners namely Sh. Chander Kant and Ravi Kant are the owners of 1/2 share in these khasra numbers. However, Sh. Gulab Singh filed a separate reference petition for his claim for enhanced compensation in LAC 150/11. Like Sh. Gulab Singh filed an additional affidavit (Mark-A) as PW1 in LAC 150/11, an additional affidavit was also filed on behalf of the present case petitioners before the LAC regarding their separate claim for their share in the subject land. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submitted regarding consideration of this additional affidavit also in view of the abovesaid order of the Ld. Predecessor of this court regarding adoption of evidence in LAC 150/11 in the present case. He submitted that except the name of claimants, the additional evidences are verbatim same in both of these case. This submission was not objected by Ld. YADVENDER SINGH Page 15 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Digitally signed by YADVENDER SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:19:37 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India counsel for the respondents. The additional affidavit (Mark-A) of PW1 in LAC 150/11 was exhibited as PW4/1 (OSR) during the evidence of summoned witness PW4 from LAC office.
21. Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 are the sale deeds dated 09.06.2008, 04.02.2008, 18.06.2008 and 18.06.2008 respectively. All these four sale deeds are of Village Sultanpur. However, sale deeds Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 are for commercial properties located in the Lal Dora of Village Sultanpur. On the other hand, during the cross-examination dated 16.09.2014, PW1 Sh. Ravi Kant in the present case answered that it was wrong to suggest that there was no facility of irrigation in the land acquired. He voluntarily answered that there was tube well. He again said that there was boring for irrigation facility in the land of Chander Kant. He also answered that it was correct that at the time of acquisition of land, the land was lying vacant. Sh. Gulab Singh, who was examined as PW1 in LAC 150/11, during his cross- examination dated 15.04.2014 admitted that the acquired land was agricultural land while answering that it was correct that acquired land was agricultural land and there was irrigation facility by way of tube well in the land. He also answered that it was correct that land acquired falls in rural area. He also answered that there was no tube well in the acquired land. Regarding existence of the tube well on the acquired land, Sh. Ravi Kant PW-1 in the present case, during his cross- examination answered that there was single boring in the land of Sh. Gulab Singh and of Chanderkant etc. He also answered that he had no documentary record to the effect that boring was got done in the land. YADVENDER by Digitally signed YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:19:41 +0530 Page 16 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India Accordingly, when the subject land in the present case is agricultural land then any exemplar regarding commercial land cannot be relied upon in order ascertain actual market value of the subject land.
22. However, sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 are for agricultural land of Village Sultanpur.
PW-2 in the present case who appeared as PW3 in LAC 150/11was examined to prove the sale deed Ex.PW1/1. He deposed that he had executed the sale deed dated 09.06.2008 (Ex.PW1/1) on behalf of company M/s Aarken Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as its authorized signatory and vendor Sh. Surjit Kaur Chopra also singed the document in his presence. During his cross-examination, he answered that original Sale Deed Ex.PW1/1 was with the company and he had not brought the same that day in the court and Ex.PW1/1 was lying at the record room of the company. He answered that he had not seen the same for the last 2-3 weeks. He also answered that he did not bring any document to prove his employment with the company as signing authority. He answered that he has not brought any resolution in his favour to depose on behalf of the company. He also answered that he did not know whether any resolution in his favour was passed to depose in the present case. He also answered that he had not brought any resolution by which he had been given authority to depose on behalf of company. He answered that land in question was an agricultural land. He answered that he had not brought any receipt to show that property tax of the land to the municipal authority was given by the company. Considering these answers of PW2 in his cross-examination, it is hard to rely YADVENDER SINGH Page 17 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Digitally signed by YADVENDER SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:19:47 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India on evidence of PW-2 in order to assess the situation of willing seller and willing purchaser regarding this transaction. Moreover, original Sale Deed Ex.PW1/1 was not produced despite availability. It is not a case of the petitioners that original of the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 was not available, however, it was never produced before the court despite availability due to the reasons best know to the petitioners. However, in the interest of justice, this sale deed shall also be discussed on its merits for assessment of the actual market value of the subject land in the present case.
Sale Deed Ex. PW1/1 is found to be executed on 09.06.2008 in respect of agriculture land measuring 13 bighas 11 biswas situated at Village Sultanpur together with Farm House constructed therein alongwith appurtenant thereto, boundary wall, two tubewells, two electricity meters, two DG sets of 62 KVA and 25 KVA, air conditioners, various other fittings and fixtures in the said farm house for total sale consideration of Rs. 15 Crore. This sale deed cannot be relied upon due to many reasons. Firstly, sale consideration amount of the exemplar sale deed includes many more things other than the vacant land. However, as per PW1 Sh. Gulab Singh in LAC No. 150/11 during his cross-examination dated 15.04.2014 that there was no construction on the acquired lands and the said lands were vacant. The vacant land cannot be compared with farm house alongwith appurtenant, boundary wall, two tubewells and other fittings and fixtures. Secondly, exemplar sale deed Ex. PW-1/1 as relied upon by the petitioner is for a total sale consideration of Rs. 15 Crore. As per the sale deed itself the said property was earlier sold by the previous owners on 10.09.2003. Form A as YADVENDER SINGH Page 18 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Digitally signed by YADVENDER SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:19:51 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India annexed alongwith sale deed shows that the earlier consideration amount was Rs. 2,25,00,000/-. Subsequently, the property was resold within the next 5 years, however, the subsequent sale consideration was six times higher on its resale within less than 5 years. The nature of land is agriculture. This is significant increase in the value of this agriculture land. Any of the party to the sale deed was not examined by the petitioner in order to show that the said transaction was between the willing seller and willing purchaser and the sale was a genuine transaction. Considering the earlier sale consideration for the exemplar land this subsequent sale consideration seems to be exorbitant. Even if this sale consideration is considered to be genuine and considered to be reflecting the actual market value of the agricultural land at the given point of time then also this sale consideration cannot be relied upon to decided the actual market value of the subject land in the present case on the date of notification u/s 4 LA Act, 1894 because an earlier notification u/s 4 of the Act, 1894 for the same purpose in same area of Village Sultanpur was also issued. Judicial notice of award No. 4/2008-09 may be taken whereby the notification under Section 4 of LA Act 1894 was issued on 09.05.2007 for the same purpose as of the present case and market value of the acquired land was determined by LAC @ Rs.17,58,400/- per acre. The notification under Section 4 of LA Act in the present case was issued after a period of three months from this notification. Hon'ble Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Satpal & Ors. etc. etc., as decided on 09.02.2023 observed that sale deed executed after first notification of a series Digitally signed by YADVENDER Page 19 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 18:19:56 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India of acquisition for the same purpose cannot be used for market value determination as they are not reliable indication. In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court also observed as under: -
"Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the sale deed produced as Ex. P4 is dated 2.11.2006 and the acquisition of the same villages commenced vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and therefore the sale deed after the first notification dated 30.06.2005 could not have been the basis for assessing / determining the compensation with respect to the subsequent acquisition."
In the present case also the exemplar relied upon by the petitioner was executed after the earlier notification u/s 4 of LA Act, 1894 for acquisition of the land of the same village in the same area and for the same purpose.
As abovestated before notification u/s 4 of LA Act dated 10.08.2007 through Award no. 6/2009-10, the previous notification u/s 4 of LA Act in Award no. 4/2008-2009 was issued on 09.05.2007. Accordingly, in the the present case, sale deed relied upon by the petitioner is found to be executed after the previous notification so this sale deed cannot be relied upon in view of abovesaid discussion and case law.
23. Moreover, 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 Digitally signed 26.04.2010 has observed as under: YADVENDER by SINGH YADVENDER SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:20:01 +0530 Page 20 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India "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.
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. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 18:20:05 +0530 Page 21 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India 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. (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 cast. Documents Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 were executed after issuance of notification under Section 4 of LA Act on 10.08.2007 and accordingly cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the land in question. Moreover, any of the party to the sale deed was not examined by the petitioner in order to show that that the transaction in sale deeds Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 were between the willing seller and willing purchaser and the sale was the genuine transaction. Accordingly, these Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Page 22 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Date:
2025.03.28 18:20:10 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India documents cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the land in question.
24. Mark-B is photocopy of site plan of Varun Farm. This document was not proved independently. The PW1 in LAC No. 150/11 through his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A deposed in para 7 of the affidavit that this wall/building plan shows constructed area on the acquired land to the extent of 441.16 sq. feet qua which he claimed an amount of Rs.4,11,000/-. However, the claimed amount in the construction of the wall or even any extension of the wall was not independently proved on behalf of the petitioners through evidences. Moreover, no separate issue for any compensation for the constructed area/wall was framed in the present case. Accordingly this document cannot be considered for the enhanced compensation.
25. Mark-D is list of trees as filed on record of LAC. It is deposed through abovesaid affidavit Ex.PW1/A that LAC ignored the list of trees filed on record regarding standing of the trees on the subject land on the date of acquisition. However, again no independent evidence except this photocopy of list mentioning 34 trees of Neem, Sahtoosh, Seesam, Ficus, Samyel and Peepal in Varun garden, to prove the existence of these trees at the relevant time, was led on behalf of petitioner. Moreover, no independent evidence to prove document Mark-D was ever led on behalf of the petitioners. PW-1 Sh. Gulab Singh in LAC No. 150/11 answered during his cross-examination dated 15.04.2014 that the information regarding the list of trees filed by him which was Mark D had been received from DMRC. However, he further answered that it was correct that Mark D neither bears any Digitally signed by Page 23 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 18:20:15 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India stamp of DMRC nor does it bear signature of any of the officials of DMRC. He also answered that he had not filed any photographs to show that trees were planted on said land. These answers of PW1 create doubt regarding existence of these trees on the acquired land. No issue regarding compensation for trees was also framed in the present case. Accordingly this document cannot be considered for the enhanced compensation to the petitioners.
26. It was deposed by PW1 in LAC No. 150/11 that LAC ignored average auction rate of the land area of Sultanpur which was placed on record by the claimant vide aforementioned letter of DDA dated 14.05.2008 (Mark-C) This DDA letter was further exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 (OSR) during the evidence of summoned witness PW2 from DDA office in LAC 150/11. It was argued on behalf of petitioners that auction rates of DDA can be very well taken into consideration. ExPW1/A (OSR) is information supplied under RTI Act as per which DDA had not conducted any auction in respect of any plot in and around Village Sultanpur Ghitorni. However, it has further been mentioned in this document that one plot of General Commercial in Vasant Kunj was auctioned in the year 2006-07 and average auction rate was at the rate of Rs.2,70,960/- per sq. meter for 100 FAR and one plot at LSC, Sector-A, Pocket 2, Vasant Kunj. No evidence was produced by the petitioners for comparison of the subject land with the auctioned land in respect of similarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land, situational and locational angle and advantages and disadvantage occurring therein amongst others. Perusal of this document which contain the Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH Page 24 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:20:20 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India details of auction in Vasant Kunj shows that details are regarding commercial plot. Details are not regarding agricultural land. It is not the case of the petitioners that the subject land in the present case is a commercial plot.
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 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 Digitally signed by Page 25 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 18:20:25 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India 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.".
Accordingly, in view of the abovesaid discussion and case laws, the document Ex.PW2/1 (OSR) cannot be relied upon in favour of the petitioners to determine the market value of the land in question.
27. Document Ex.PW1/5 is latest Map of Delhi. Neither the subject land was identified on this map by the petitioner nor it was explained by the petitioner that how this map can be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the subject land.
Accordingly, this document is of no help to assess the actual market rate of the land in question.
In respondent's evidence, the award was tendered as Ex.R- 1 on behalf of UOI. On behalf of respondent no.2/DMRC Sh. A.S. Rao, Senior Law Officer was examined as R2W1 and he relied upon these sale deeds dated 21.10.2004 and 26.08.2004 Ex.R2W1 to Ex.R2W1. During his cross-examination on 01.10.2004, he answered that Ex.R2W1/1 to Ex.R2W1/3 do not bear the stamp or signature of the concerned Registrar whereby certifying the same as certified copies. He also admitted that he had not placed on record the covering letter under which the said alleged certified copies were issued by the concerned Sub- Registrar. No party to the sale deed was also examined on behalf of DMRC to prove the willingness of the transaction.
Page 26 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:20:30 +0530 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India
Accordingly, these sale deeds cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market value of the land in question.
28. It was argued on behalf of respondents that present matter is also a covered matter as reference petitions bearing LAC no. 96/16 in case titled Santosh Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. as passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court and LAC No. 27/16 in case titled M/s Summit Inport Services Ltd. Vs. Union Of India Ans. relating to the same award have already been dismissed vide orders dated 24.01.2019 and 19.12.2024 respectively while upholding the market value @ Rs.17,58,400/-.
29. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled UOI vs. Shri Har Kishan etc. in RFA no. 205/1977 dated 18.07.1995, observed that "when the land is acquired under same notification, there cannot be compensation at different rates...".
In the abovestated references, the compensation assessed by the Ld. LAC was upheld by Ld. Reference Court. In this case also, land was acquired under Section 4 of LA Act for the same project from the same area and vide the same award as of the subject land in the present case.
30. In view of the abovesaid discussion, material available on record and in view of the abovesaid settled law and also considering that the present case is a covered case in the abovestated reference, I am of the considered opinion that LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the subject land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act, 1894. Hence, issue no.1 is decided against the petitioner. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 18:20:34 +0530 Page 27 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025 Chander Kant Vs. Union Of India Issue No.2: To what enhancement in compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled? OPP
31. As issue no.1 is decided against the petitioner, so the petitioner is held not entitled to any enhancement for the compensation already awarded. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.3: Relief
32. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition is dismissed. Both the sides will bear their own costs.
33. 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.
Digitally signedPronounced in the open Court YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH on this 28th March 2025. SINGH Date: 2025.03.28 18:20:40 +0530 (DR. YADVENDER SINGH) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI Page 28 of 28 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/28.03.2025