Delhi District Court
Shyam Sunder Ambwani And Ors vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
LAC 10-2016 Old Case No. LAC 1/2014
1. SH. SHYAM SUNDER B AMBWANI
S/o Late Shri Bhimandas Ambwani
R/o Tower 2, Flat 1402,
Vipul Greens Sector 48,
Gurgaon-122018.
2. SH. MURLIDHAR. B. AMBWANI
S/o Late Shri Bhimandas Ambwani
Since deceased
Through LRs. Smt. Kamla. M. Ambwani (Wife)
W/o Late Shri Murlidhar Ambwani
R/o 12/25, First Floor (Rear Side),
East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(Substituted vide order dated 01.03.2025)
3. SH. DEEPAK AMBWANI
S/o Late Shri Bhimandas Ambwani
R/o 12/25, First Floor (Rear Side),
East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
4. SH. ARUN KUMAR M UBRIANI
Grand S/o Late Shri Bhimandas Ambwani,
S/o Late Smt. Devki Ubriani
R/o H.No. 1257, Sector 10 A,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
5. SMT. BHARTI KHEMANI ALIAS NEENA UBRIANI
Grand D/o Late Shri Bhimandas Ambwani,
D/o Late Smt. Devki Ubriani
R/o A-135, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018.
6. SMT. SAVITRI PESWANI
D/o Late Shri Bhimandas Ambwani,
R/o 139-140, Sector-26,
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India Page No. 1 of 52
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31
14:20:51
+0530
Near Big India, Pradhikaran Nigri,
Pune-411044.
7. SMT. KRISHNA VASWANI
D/o Late Shri Bhimandas Ambwani,
(since deceased)
Through LRs Shri Shewak Lilaram Vaswani (S.L. Vaswani)
(Husband)
R/o B-12, Greater Kailash Enclave-1, New Delhi-110048
(Substituted vide order dated 22.03.2025).
8. SMT. RESHMA BHAGIA ALIAS SMT. PUSHPA AMBWANI
d/o Late Shri Bhimandas Ambwani,
R/o C-106, Oberoi Springs, Andheri West,
Mumbai-400053.
9. SMT. KANCHAN AMBWANI
D/o Late Shri Ashok Ambwani
and Grand D/o LT Shri Bhimandas Ambwani,
C/o 12/25, East patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
..Petitioners
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through The Land Acquisition Collector/ADM South-East,
(South-East District),
Old Gargi College Building, Lajpat Nagar-IV,
DM Office, South-East District, Delhi.
2. UNION OF INDIA
Through Secretary Land and Building,
Vikas Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi.
3. DELHI POWER COMPANY LTD
Through its Chairman-Cum-MD (CEO).
(Deleted vide order dated 26.08.2015).
Digitally
signed by
LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 2 of 52
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31
14:20:56
+0530
4. DELHI TRANSCO LTD
(Formerly known as Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking),
Through its Chairman-Cum-MD (CEO),
Shakti Sadan (ITO),
New Delhi.
..Respondents
Date of Institution 13.03.2014
Date of Reserving judgment : 04.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 25.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18094 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Bhimandas Ambwani for enhanced compensation for land acquired under deemed notification under section 4 of the Act dated 12.02.2013.
2. Before going into the cases pleaded by the respective parties it is important to note down the undisputed facts of the present case.
3. The predecessor in interest of the appellant was the owner of land admeasuring three bigha and three biswas in Khasra number 307 in the revenue estate of Village Killokari Delhi vide conveyance deed dated 06.06.1962.
4. A notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 05.03.1963 notified interest of the government to acquire 139 bighas and 2 biswas of land including the land of the Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 3 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:21:02 +0530 petitioner. The same was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 22.08.1963. The collector made the award with respect to the Section 4 notification on 29.11.1963. However, no award was made in respect of land admeasuring 23 bighas and 7 biswas including the land of the petitioner. The possession of the land notified on 05.03.1963, including the land of the petitioner was handed over to Delhi Electricity Supply Units for construction of staff quarters on 05.07.1966.
5. Another notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 07.10.1968 with respect to total land admeasuring 31 bighas and 15 Biswas which included the land of the petitioners. However, rather than acting upon the notification of 1968, the Collector passed a supplementary award dated 16.02.1974 with respect to the original section 4 notification of the year 1963.
6. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition No. 307 of 1972 whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 26.11.1982 quashed the Supplementary Award dated 16.02.1974 as illegal and directed the respondents to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioners with the liberty to issue a fresh notification under Section four of the Act within one year.
7. Thereafter a third notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.03.1983 with respect to the land of the petitioners. It was followed by declaration under section 6 of the Act on 30.05.1983. However, the acquisition Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 4 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:21:06 +0530 proceedings with respect to the third Section 4 notification were also not completed.
8. The respondents preferred an appeal to the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge by filing LPA No. 46 of 1983. The Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge and also dismissed the review petition filed by the present petitioners.
9. The petitioners challenged the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Supreme Court allowed the civil Appeal Nos. 205-206 of 2004 and directed as follows:
"In such a fact situation, the only option left out to the respondents is to make the award treating section 4 notification as on this date, I. E12.02.20213 and we direct the LAC to make the award after hearing the parties within a period of four months from today. For that purpose, the parties are directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector, C/o The Deputy Commissioner, South M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi on 26.02.2013. The appellants are at liberty to file a reference under section 18 of the Act and to pursue the remedies available to him under the Act. Needless to say that the appellants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits."
10. Thereafter the land acquisition Collector passed the award dated 14.06.2013 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 53 lakhs per acre i.e. Rs. 1,309.66/- per square meter treating the acquired land as agricultural land and awarding the rate on the basis of indicative price fixed by the Government of NCT of Delhi for agricultural land vide letter dated 24.10.2008.
11. Aggrieved by the award and the treatment of the land as agricultural land by the Land Acquisition Collector, the LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India Digitally signed Page No. 5 of 52 by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2025.10.31 14:21:11 +0530 petitioners filed Contempt Petition No. 285-286 of 2013 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 26.08.2013 with the following directions:
"All the Learned Counsel have agreed that as the petitioner/applicant has filed the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it shall be open to the reference court to assess the market value of the land as prevailing on the date of the judgment of this Court in the main matter, taking into account the actual surrounding of the land in dispute, i.e. commercial or residential. Market value shall be determined accordingly and it shall certainly not be assessed treating the land as an agricultural land. As the applicant has been deprived of his land by the State without resorting to any proceeding prescribed by law long ago, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the Learned reference Court to decide the Reference in accordance with law as per the observations made hereinabove as early as possible."
12. In the light of the abovementioned directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the present case has to be analyzed and decided by treating the section 4 notification of the Act to have been issued on 12.02.2013 and assessing the market value taking into account the actual surroundings of the land in dispute that is commercial or residential and not on the basis of the land being agricultural land. Petitioner's case:
13. It is the case of the petitioners that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, late Sh. Bhimandas Ambwani was the absolute owner in respect of land admeasuring 03 bighas and 03 biswas in khasra no.307 situated in the revenue estate of Village Kilokari, Delhi by virtue of registered Conveyance Deed dated 06.06.1962. By virtue of judgment dated 12.02.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 6 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:21:18 +0530 India, the petitioners attended the office of LAC on 26.02.2013, submitted their documents and filed their claim for Rs. 2,89,50,04,199/- on 28.03.2013. The petitioners' individual claims are based upon the Will dated 25.01.2008 of late Sh. Bhimandas Ambwani.
14. It is further submitted that the date of the Award of LAC was fixed for 10.06.2013 but it was passed on 14.06.2013 and the petitioners received an amount of Rs.46,64,057/- on 26.06.2013 under Award no. 01/2013-14. It is further submitted that after receiving copy of the Award, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that initially the LAC had prepared an Award for Rs.72,77,15,165/- @ Rs.2,04,600/- per sq. mt. on 29.05.2013 wherein the LAC considered the circle rate of category 'B' as per Notification dated 04.12.2012. But the said award was not approved by the higher authorities.
15. Further on 11.06.2013, an award for compensation of Rs.20,79,78,333/- @ Rs.58,400 per sq. mts was prepared, but the same was also not approved and the impugned award has been passed. It is submitted that the petitioners sought the reference be made under Section 18 of the Act to appropriate court for proper assessment of the market value and compensation of the land on the following grounds:
(i) That for the purposes of determining the compensation, the market value rate has to be considered as per 12.02.2013 and not that of 1963.
(ii) That the land in question falls in Category A whereas the Ld. LAC has wrongly assessed the land in Category B and Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 7 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:21:42 +0530 later assessed the land to be agricultural land. Village Kilokari was notified as Urban Area under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, vide No.F9(2)/66/law/corporation dated 28.05.1966 i.e. prior to taking possession of the land in question on 05.07.1966.
(iii)That the land in question has been shown as residential in MPD-2021.
(iv)That the auction rate of the area is more than the circle rate of Category A.
(v)The observation of the LAC that the status of the land in question would remain agricultural is not correct as even as per the admitted position, the land is being used as residential land on the date of the deemed Section 4 notification under the Act.
(vi)That the damages and other statutory benefits sought by the petitioners were either not considered or refused.
(vii)That the Ld. LAC has not referred to any document i.e. any sale deed of the area to find out the market value.
(viii) That the observations of the Ld. LAC are without any basis and absolutely perverse. That the Ld. LAC failed to appreciate the correct facts on merits and failed to examine the relevant material properly.
16. On these grounds, the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking proper assessment of the market value and compensation of the land.
Written Statement of UOI/respondent no.1
17. Written Statement was filed by UOI wherein the averments of the petitioners were denied. It is submitted Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 8 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:21:48 +0530 that the khasra number and the extent of land of the petitioner is admitted to the extent of statement under Section 19 of the LA Act, 1894. It is further submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the same is barred by limitation which cannot be extended in any circumstances. It is further submitted that the limitation for filing of the reference as per the Act has to be governed under Section 18(2) of the Act only. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not brought any specific and cogent evidence on record to claim a higher compensation. As such, the Award of the Ld. LAC is a reasoned Award and market value as on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act was considered by the Ld. LAC. As such, dismissal of the present petition is sought.Written statement of Respondent No. 3
18. Respond number 3 has filed its written statement and has stated that after the enactment of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act 2000 And Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules 2001, Delhi Electricity Supply Units was dissolved and the present land was in the share of respondent number 4 and not responded no. 3 and as such respondent no. 3 has no concern with the acquired land. Respondent no. 3 has sought deletion from the present petition on these grounds.
Written statement of Respondent No. 419. In its written statement Respondent number 4 has stated that the land acquisition collector has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land and the said Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 9 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:21:55 +0530 amount has already been deposited with the land acquisition collector by the respondent no. 4 and as such the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
20. On merits, it is stated that the possession of the land was taken in the year 1966 and the possession was taken as agricultural land. The Land Acquisition Collector has correctly relied upon the indicative price fixed by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 24.10.2008 for agricultural land. Further it is stated that the land of village Kilokari has been placed by MCD under category E and the respondent number 4 is paying the property tax in the said category only.
21. With respect to the draft award Ex. PW1/6, it is submitted that it was only a draft award and was not published and as such the same has no meaning in the eyes of law. It is denied that the market value rate for the purpose of determination of the compensation has to be considered as per 12.02.2013 and not 1966. It is denied that the acquired land falls in category A. The land acquisition collector had rightly assessed the land to be agricultural land. Further it is stated that after developing the land acquired vide Notification under section 4 of the Act dated 05.03.1963, the government allotted 6.9 acres of land to DESU, now respondent no. 4 for construction of the house of their employees. After receiving the said land proper plan was finalized and space was earmarked for parks roads recreation centers etc. And as such around 60% of the land would go for development purposes and deduction has to be Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 10 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:22:01 +0530 made for the same.
Replication to the Written Statements:
22. The petitioners denied the averments of the respondents with respect to limitation and the fact that the acquired land has to be considered of agricultural nature.
The contents of the petition have been reiterated. Issues:
23. Vide order dated 20.01.2015, based upon pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed:
(i)Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement in compensation at the market rate pertaining to khasra no.307 admeasuring 3 Bighas and 3 Biswas Village Kilokari, Delhi, as prayed for? OPP
(ii)Whether the petitioners are entitled for solatium along with additional amount u/s 23 (1A) from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of award of LAC or possession as per rules? OPP
(iii)Whether the petitioners are entitled for interest u/s 28 of the LA Act for the one year from the date of taking possession @ 9% and thereafter 15% till the date of payment of enhanced compensation? OPP
(iv)Whether the petitioners are entitled for interest on solatium and additional amount in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Sunder Vs. Union of India dated 19.09.2001? OPP
(v)Relief.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India 2025.10.31 Page No. 11 of 52 14:22:06 +0530 Proceedings of the Case:-
24. Vide order dated 26.08.2015, respondent no. 3 was deleted from array of parties. Vide order dated 01.03.2025, an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC with respect to impleadment of legal heirs of late Sh. Murlidhar Ambwani was allowed and his legal heirs were taken on record.
Similarly, vide order dated 22.03.2025, an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC with respect to impleadment of legal heirs of late Smt. Krishna Vaswani was allowed and her legal heirs were taken on record.
Petitioner's Evidence:
25. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1, Sh. Ashish Sharma as PW.2, Sh. Omkar Dutt, Patwari as PW3, Sh. Satbir Singh, Naib Tehsildar as PW4, Sh. Tejender, UDC as PW5 and Sh. Chhatar Pal, Assistant Director as PW6.
26. PW1/petitioner, Sh. Shyam Sunder Ambwani tendered his affidavit in evidence, Ex.PW1/A and proved the following documents :
SL. DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
No.
1 Photographs of the property Ex.PW1/1 (colly)
2 Copy of google map Ex.PW1/2
3 Gazette notification dt. Ex.PW1/3
28.05.1966
4 Certified copy of judgment / Ex.PW1/4
order in Civil appeal nos. 204-
205 of 2004.
5 Certified copy of order dt. Ex.PW1/5
26.08.2013 in contempt
petition number 285-286/2013
Digitally
signed by
LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 12 of 52
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31
14:22:11
+0530
6 Copy of Award no. 1/2013 of Ex.PW1/6
village Kilokari
7 Copy of circle rate w.e.f. Ex.PW1/7
05.12.2012
8 Copy of circle rate w.e.f. Ex.PW1/8
23.09.2014
9 Copy of auction rate provided Ex.PW1/9
in reply dt. 29.04.2013 of RTI
application
10 Certified copy of sale deed Ex.PW1/10
registered on 23.07.2014 of
village Maharani Bagh
between Major K.S. Dalal and
M/s Chetanya Buildcon Pvt.
Ltd.
11 Certified copy of sale deed Ex.PW1/11
registered on 23.04.2014 of
village Maharani Bagh (New
Friends Colony) between Mrs.
Meenakshi Mehra and Smt.
Sheela Gehlot
12 Copy of judgment in LAC no. Ex.PW1/12
1/2009 dt. 24.05.2014 titled as
Chander Pratap Singh vs.
Union of India & Ors.
13 Copy of judgment in LAC no. Ex.PW1/13
5/1/11 dt. 30.04.2013 titled as
National Cold Refrigeration
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &
Ors.
14 Copy of judgment reported in Ex.PW1/14
2011, IV AD (SC) 383 Om
Prakash vs. State of Haryana
15 Copy of judgment reported in Ex.PW1/15
2012, V AD (SC) 110,
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust
(registered), Faridkot & Ors.
vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
16 Copy of Eicher location map of Ex.PW1/16
Delhi
27. In his cross-examination conducted by Sh. S.K. Puri, Ld. Counsel for UOI/respondent no.1, the petitioner deposed Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 13 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:22:16 +0530 that the land acquired by LAC was not agricultural land but it was residential land. He further deposed that at the time of acquisition, some flats were built up by the Delhi Transco Ltd. on the land in question. He admitted that the land was lying vacant prior to the construction of the flats by the respondent. He denied that the land in question was in the rural area of village Kilokari. He further deposed that the said flats were built during the period of filing of the petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by the petitioner. He deposed that Kalindi Colony is adjacent to village Kilokari and the distance between the Kalindi Colony and Lajpat Nagar is about half a kilometer. He further deposed that ISBT Sarai Kale Khan is at a distance of about two and a half kilometers from the land in question and Sidharth Enclave is situated at a distance of about 200 meters from the land in question. He admitted that Ex.PW1/16, the EICHER Map of Delhi was not prepared in his presence. He further denied that the commercial activities are not going on adjacent to the land in question or that the village Kilokari was declared as urbanised in 1966 but no development has been carried out by the government in any manner. He further denied that the use of the land in question was very much agricultural in nature or that the LAC assessed the market value of the land in question correctly according to the situation.
(i)Sh. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel for Delhi Transco Co.
Ltd./respondent no.4 adopted the cross-examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for Union of India/respondent no.1.
Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 14 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:22:21 +0530
(ii)PW2/ Sh. Ashish Sharma is the attorney holder of the petitioner no. 8. He tendered his affidavit in evidence, Ex.PW2/A and proved the Special Power of Attorney dated 13.11.2014 as Ex.PW2/1. He also relied upon the documents already proved by the petitioner. His cross examination was not conducted and his evidence was not relied upon as petitioner no. 8 later examined herself.
28. PW3 Sh. Omkar Dutt, Patwari from the office of LAC, South East proved the copy of the Notification under Section 4 dated 12.02.2013 pertain to village Kilokari in respect khasra No.307, as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).
29. PW4 Sh. Satbir Singh, Naib Tehsildar proved the certified attested copies of Notification dated 22.09.2014 as Ex.PW4/1. He deposed that as per Ex.PW4/1, the revised rates came into force with effect from 23.09.2014. He also proved the certified attested copies of Notification dated 04.12.2012 as Ex.PW4/2. He further deposed that as per Ex.PW4/2, the revised rates came into force with effect from 05.12.2012.
30. PW5 Sh. Tejinder, UDC, Sub-Registrar V, Mehrauli, New Delhi had appeared in the witness box and proved the sale deed dated 28.07.2014 bearing registration no. 7077 in book no. 1 and volume no. 13415 on pages 7-24 which has already been exhibited as Ex PW1/10. He further proved the sale deed dt. 25.04.2014 bearing registration no. 3547 in additional book no. 1 and volume no. 13262 on pages 176- 185 which has already been exhibited as Ex PW1/11.
31. PW6 Sh. Chhattarpal, Assistt. Director from the office Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 15 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:22:25 +0530 Lease Administration Branch, DDA, INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi had appeared in the witness box and produced the original record of auction register conducted by DDA in respect of property no. C-32B and C-32A, Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 Ex PW6/1. As per record, the said auction was conducted on 17.11.2011 for plot no. C-32A and dt. 28.03.2012 for plot C-32B.
32. PW7 Smt. Kanchan Ambwani has filed her affidavit and adopted the evidence of PW-1 which was led on behalf of petitioner no. 1 to 8. An affidavit in petitioner evidence was also filed through the SPA holder of Mrs. Kanchan Ambwani on 25.02.2015 which was subsequently withdrawn by Mrs. Kanchan Ambwani herself in her statement dt. 03.08.2016.
33. All these witnesses have been cross examined by the opposite counsel.
34. The petitioner's evidence was closed by separate statement of Ld. Counsel for petitioner on 28.09.2016. Respondent's Evidence:
35. In respondent's evidence, Ld. Counsel for Union of India had tendered the Award no. 1/2013-14 pertaining to village Kilokari announced on 13.06.2013 and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex R-1.
36. RW-1 Sh. M.L. Meena, Kanoongo, LAC, South East, Old Gargi College building, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi had produced the original record of Award no. 3/2013-14 and same is exhibited as Ex RW1/1. The witness has been cross examined at length by Sh. Rajesh Yadav, Ld. Counsel Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 16 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:22:33 +0530 for petitioner on 05.09.2018. He has submitted that the Award Ex RW1/1 has been passed treating the acquired land as agricultural land. He has stated that the District Magistrate has no role to play in the passing of the Award and only an approval is granted by the Divisional Commissioner / Secretary, Revenue.
37. Thereafter, Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Halka Patwari, village Kilokari was examined as RW-2. He relied upon the aks- sizra of village Kilokari of the year 1908-09 as Ex RW2/1. He stated that khasra no. 307 is quite far from the ring road and there are three khasras between khasra no. 307 and the ring road. In his cross examination, he has stated that the distance between khasra no. 307 and the ring road is not mentioned in Ex RW2/1.
38. Thereafter, Sh. R.K. Chhabra from SDMC was examined as RW-3 who relied upon the categorization of colonies, uploaded on the MCD website as Ex RW3/1. He denied that he had any knowledge as to which property the present case pertains to. He could not tell whether khasra no. 307 fell in village Kilokari or Kilokari Extension or Kilokari Ring Road as SDMC does not have such record.
39. Sh. Sumesh Tangri, DGM Technical of respondent no. 4 was examined as RW-4. He relied upon letter dt. 24.11.2016 as Ex RW4/2 and its reply i.e. letter dt. 30.11.2016 as Ex RW4/2. In his cross examination, he has stated that respondent no. 4 has been filing property tax return w.r.t. the residential colony of respondent no. 4 under category E and the same has never been disputed by the Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 17 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:22:39 +0530 MCD.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
40. Ld. counsel for petitioners has submitted that the present reference is with respect to the land of the petitioners acquired vide notification under section 4 dated 12.02.2013. It is submitted that the land of the petitioner was initially acquired in the year 1963 but the acquisition was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The litigation challenging the initial acquisition culminated with the order dated 12.02.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 204-205/2004.
Vide the said order, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the respondents have to make the award treating the Section 4 notification as on date of the said order i.e. 12.02.2013.
41. Thereafter, the petitioners filed their claim before the Ld. LAC on 26.02.2013 for an amount of Rs. 2,89,50,04,199/-. The award was passed by the LAC on 14.06.2013 being award no. 01/2013-14, Ex R-1 and the petitioners received an amount of Rs. 46,64,057/- as compensation on 26.06.2013. The said award was made on the basis of the acquired land being agricultural land.
42. Thereafter the petitioners filed contempt petition bearing No. 285-286/2013 whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court held that since the petitioners had filed reference under Section 18, the reference court shall assess the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, taking into account the actual surrounding of land and not as agricultural land.
Digitally
signed by
LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 18 of 52
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31
14:22:43
+0530
43. It is further submitted that as per the records obtained through RTI application, it is revealed that initially an award was passed by the LAC on 29.05.2013 treating the land as residential in category B and awarded an amount of Rs. 72,77,15,165/-. However, the said award was not approved by the Divisional Commissioner/Revenue Secretary and was sent back for re-consideration to the LAC. It was recommended by the higher officials that the award be revised to reflect category E rates. Thereafter, the award was again sent to the Deputy Commissioner, South who recommended that although the date of notification was to be taken as 12.02.2013, however, the land should be considered as it was on the day when the Government took possession. As such, the impugned award on the basis of the land being agricultural was passed.
44. It is submitted that the acquired land is situated in a prime locality and is surrounded by various residential and commercial hubs and as such the LAC did not consider the potentiality of the land. It is submitted that the land is situated on the Ring Road and is very near to posh South Delhi localities including Maharani Bagh and Friends Colony. It is submitted that the land on the date of Section 4 notification could have easily fetched a rate of more than Rs. 7 lacs per sq. yards. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following sale instances as exemplars to show the market value of the acquired land on the date of Section 4 notification:
(i) Sale deed registered on 23rd of July 2014 in respect plot Digitally signed by RAHUL LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL BHATIA Page No. 19 of 52 BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:22:49 +0530 measuring 800 square yd of C-100, Southern Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi for a total sale consideration @ Rs. 16,25,00,000/- (Rupees sixteen crores twenty five lacs only).
(ii) Sale deed registered on 23rd of April 2014 in respect of property No. B-387, New Friends Colony, New Delhi measuring 534.10 square yd for a total sale consideration @ Rs. 29,25,00,000/-.
(iii) Vide judgment dated 30th of April 2013 passed in LIC No. 5/1/11 titled "National Cold Storage Pvt Ltd Vs. UOI & Ors" in the court of Sh. Ajay Goyal Learned Additional District Judge-14 Central Delhi.
(iv) Plots auctioned by DDA on 17.11.2011 and 28.03.2012 in Friends Colony plot No. C-32 A, Area 334.3 SQM for Rs.
22,33,00,000/- (F-9/Misc/13/R51 L and B R DDA/155 dated 19.04.2013).
45. Ld. counsel for petitioner has stated that the land is situated in category A and is available for commercial activities and as such petitioners are entitled to market rate of commercial properties on the date of Section 4 notification.
46. It is further submitted that no effective cross examination of PW1 was conducted by the respondents and as such the testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and therefore has to be accepted as the correct version of the facts. It is submitted that PW4 has proved notification of circle rates dated 22.09.2014 as Ex PW4/1 and notification of circle rates dated 04.12.2012 as Ex PW4/2. It is submitted Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 20 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:22:54 +0530 that as the acquisition was very near in time to the notification Ex PW4/1, the same can be considered as one of the factors while determining the market rate as on date of Section 4 notification.
47. Further, all the exemplars relied upon by the petitioners have been proved as per law and the same are proximate in time and are for comparable properties and as such the highest of such exemplars is to be taken as the market rate in the present case.
48. The various witnesses examined by the respondent could not dispute the case of the petitioner that the land was in category A and was having huge potentiality. The reliance of the respondents on the testimony of RW2 is misplaced as the witness could not tell either the dimensions of the Khasra No. 307 containing the acquired land or its distance from the Ring Road. He has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i)Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2015) 15 SCC 200.
(ii) Madhusudan Kabra & Ors. Vs. State of Maharasthra & Ors (2018) 1 SCC 140.
(iii) Tirpat Kaur Vs. UOI & Anr LA App No. 749/2018.
(iv) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (2012) 5 SCC 432.
(v) Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC
(vi) Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789.
(vii) Sabhia Mohammad Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla & Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & ors (2012) 7 SCC Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 21 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:22:59 +0530
595.
(viiii) Krishan Kumar Vs. UOI ( 2015) 15 SCC 220.
(ix) Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Vs. Ram Sang Bhailaibhai & Ors (2015) 11 SCC 483. Arguments of the Respondents:
49. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 has submitted that the acquisition of the land was first notified under section 4 of the Act on 06.03.1963 for the construction of flats for the employees of DESU. The compensation was fixed at Rs. 30 per sq. yards and the amount was deposited by the erstwhile DESU on 25.05.1966 and the possession was handed over to DESU
05.05.1966. Thereafter, the Section 4 notification was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and vide order dated 26.11.1992, the writ petition was allowed and it was decided that the possession of the land be returned to the petitioner by 31.12.1983.
50. The LAC again issued notification under section 4 on 26.03.1983. On 22.03.2001, the Division Bench allowed DESU appeal and found that the petitioner was entitled to damages for use and occupation up to 26.03.1983. During this period, neither the UOI nor Delhi administration took steps to pass any award despite the Section 4 notification dated 26.03.1983.
51. The SLP filed by the petitioners was allowed vide order dated 12.02.2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the said date was fixed as the deemed date of Section 4 notification under the Act for the calculation of market rate.
Digitally
signed by
LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 22 of 52
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31
14:23:12
+0530
52. It is submitted that the market value was correctly assessed by the collector based on the indicative price set by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 24.10.2008. It is stated that the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioners have no value in the present case as all the sale deeds are after the date of Section 4 notification. Further the said sale deeds are of an area different from the acquired land and do not reflect the market value of the acquired land as on date of Section 4 notification.
53. It is submitted that the land on the date of taking over the possession was of agricultural nature and it was not converted for any other use by seeking appropriate permission or payment of conversion charges. The petitioners have not been able to prove that the acquired land was ever urbanized or lost its agricultural status.
54. It is further submitted that even if it is assumed that the land was residential on the basis of existing residential colony on the date of section 4 notification, it has come on record that the property tax for the flats of the respondent no. 4 is filed under category E and as such the land at best can be considered under category E only. Further, the land when acquired was agricultural undeveloped land and in case compensation has to be granted on the basis of residential land, a deduction needs to be made for development of roads, parks, public utilities etc. He has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Kripalu Shankar & Ors. 1987(3) SCC 34.
(ii) Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 23 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:23:16 +0530 Authority Vs. Vishnudev Coop. Housing Society & Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 212.
(iii) Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 212.
(iv) Mohd. Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, 2009 14 SCC 367.
(v) Shaju Kuriakose Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors 2001 7 SCC 650.
(vi) Krishan Kumar Vs. UOI 2015 15 SCC 220.
(vii) Lal Chand Vs. UOI & Anr (2009) 15 SCC 769.
(viii) Bhule Ram VS. UOI & Ors. LA. A. No. 173/2007 and Batch Matters. Neutral Citation: 2010: DHC:3090.
(ix) Dal Chand & Anr Vs. UOI & Anr. LAC 06/2019.
55. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 4, after stating the facts of the case has submitted that the LAC has correctly relied upon the letter dated 24.10.2008 and has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land. It is submitted that the status of the land remains agricultural land and in order to convert the same for residential purposes, conversion charges were to be paid and it was to be decided as to how much area is to be left for utility purposes. Since the purpose of the land was never converted, the award was made on the basis of circle rate for agricultural land. She has relied upon other awards of agricultural land to substantiate her arguments.
56. It is submitted that the total land acquired vide notification dated 05.03.1963 was 139 bighas in village Kilokari and the petitioners land was included in the same. The award with respect to the said acquisition was Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 24 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:23:21 +0530 announced on 29.11.1963 and the amount awarded was between Rs. 30/- per square yard.
57. The LAC has rightly proceeded on the basis of the land being agricultural as the land held that character on the date of initial date of notification i.e. 05.03.1963 and till 12.02.2013 the land has remained agricultural only. Admittedly, the petitioners have made no efforts for conversion of the land from agricultural to residential/commercial. As no such activity was conducted and no areas out of the acquired land was earmarked for parks, roads and other utilities, the contention of the petitioner as to the land being anything other than agricultural land cannot be accepted.
58. Even if it is assumed that the land was of residential nature, it is a matter of fact that the residential flats fall in category E and property tax is charged on that basis only. As such, comparisons cannot be made with already developed colonies like Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh etc, as the nature of land in the said colonies is not same as the acquired land. As such, none of the exemplars relied upon by the petitioners can be looked into. Further, the DDA auction and document dated 29.04.2013 cannot be relied upon as the same has not been proved in accordance with law. Further the auction and the sale deeds are for already developed plots in localities having all the necessary utilities services and hence cannot be relied upon by the petitioners. Strong reliance has been placed on the fact that the acquired land falls under category E and thus the exemplars with respect to category A cannot be relied upon.
Digitally
LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 25 of 52
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31
14:23:26
+0530
59. The reliance of the petitioners on the alleged draft award Ex PW1/6 is also misplaced as the said document was internal communication between the various officials of respondent no. 1 and never took the shape of an award under the Act.
60. As such, it is submitted that the LAC has rightly determined the market value of the land on the date of section 4 notification and does not deserve to be interfered with. She has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kripalu Shankar & Ors. 1987 (3) SCC 34.
(ii) Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority Vs. Vishnudev Coop. Housing Society & Ors. (2018) 8 SCC 215.
(iii) Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. UOI & Anr (2015) 2 SCC 212.
(iv) Mohd. Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquistion Officer, (2009) 14 SCC 367.
(v) Shaji Kuriakose Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Ors (2001) 7 SCC 367.
(vi) Krishan Kumar Vs. UOI (2015) 15 SCC 220.
(vii) Lal Chand Vs. UOI & Anr (2009) 15 SCC 769.
(viii) Bhule Ram Vs. UOI & Ors. LA.A. No. 173/2007 and Batch Matters. Neutral Citation:2010:DHC:3090
(ix) Dal Chand & Anr. Vs. UOI & Anr. LAC 06/2019. ANAYSIS AND REASONING:
61. The main issue to be decided in the present case is whether the land acquisition collector has rightly decided the market value of the acquired land on the basis of it being Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 26 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:23:31 +0530 an agricultural land and on the basis of indicative prices of 2008 or whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation and if so what is the market rate of the acquired land on the date of the presumed notification under section four of the Act i.e. 12.02.2013 and the same is covered by issue number 1.
ISSUE NO. 1:Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement in compensation at the market rate pertaining to khasra no.307 admeasuring 3 Bighas and 3 Biswas Village Kilokari, Delhi, as prayed for? OPP
62. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award Ex.R1 has awarded the market rate of the acquired land on the basis of the assumption that the acquired land, being agricultural land at the date of taking over of the possession, has to be treated as agricultural land and has awarded the rate for agricultural land.
63. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that vide order dated 12.02.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that the market value of the land has to be decided on the assumption that the Section 4 notification under the Act was issued on 12.02.2013. As such the market value of the land as prevailing on that date has to be granted to the petitioners and as the land on the date of the presumed notification under section 4 of the Act was residential land and had the potential of being used as a commercial land, the same has to be treated as commercial land and not as agricultural land.
64. He has further relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Contempt Petition No. 285-286 LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India Digitally Page No. 27 of 52 signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:23:35 +0530 of 2013, Ex. PW1/5 to state that the acquired land cannot be treated as agricultural land and it has to be decided whether the same falls under the residential category or the commercial category.
65. Per Contra learned counsels for the respondent number 1 and respondent number 4 have submitted that on the date when the possession of the land was taken over by the respondent no. 4, the same was agricultural land and as such the Land Acquisition Collector has correctly categorized the acquired land as agricultural land. It is further submitted that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Ex. PW1/5 only directs this Court to decide the market value of the acquired land based upon its surroundings as on date of presume notification under section four of the Act and does not declare the acquired land as either residential or commercial.
66. As mentioned here in above the first section for notification in the present case was issued on 05.03.1960 which was superseded by notification under section 4 of the Act dated 07.10.1968. The said notification was again superseded by the third notification under section 4 of the Act dated 26.03.1983. However, even the third notification was not acted upon and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 12.02.2013, Exhibit PW1/4 has directed to treat the date of the order i.e. 12.02.2013 as the date of the notification under section four of the Act and to determine the market value of the acquired land based upon that date.
67. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters which have to be considered while fixing the compensation to be LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India Digitally Page No. 28 of 52 signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:23:40 +0530 awarded to the person whose land has been acquired and the first requirement is to assess the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the Section 4 notification. The market value of the land has to be assessed on the date of the section four notification and based upon the condition of the land on that date. Any future likely improvements in the land based upon the evidence on record can be considered while determining the market value of the land however the improvement which has already been built into the land as on the date of the section four notification cannot be negated and acquired land cannot be deemed to be of a lesser value than it actually is on the date of the Section 4 notification.
68. As on the date of the deemed Section 4 notification undisputedly the acquired land was being used for the residential quarters of the staff of the respondent no. 4 and as such on the date of the presumed Section 4 notification the land was actually being used for residential purposes. Moreover, village Kilokari was urbanized by notification under section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 dated 03.06.1965, exhibit PW1/3 and thus lost its character as agricultural land after becoming urbanized.
69. This position is further strengthened by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Contempt Petition Civil No. 285-286 of 2013, Exhibit PW1/5 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that the market value has to be determined according to the actual condition and surrounding of the land and it shall not be assessed treating the land as agricultural land.
Digitally
LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 29 of 52
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31
14:23:48
+0530
70. Thus, it is clear from the above discussion and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the nature of the land as on the date of acquisition cannot be treated as agricultural land.
71. The petitioners have further relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Udho Dass (supra) to submit that while determining the market rate of an acquired land, potentiality of the land has to be seen and in the present case the land had the potential to be developed into a commercial land and as such commercial rates should be awarded to the petitioners. However, the petitioners have not placed on record any evidence to support the contention that acquired land had the potential to be developed at the commercial land and as such without any evidence to the effect it cannot be held that the acquired land had the potential of being converted to commercial land.
72. Thus, the fact of the matter is that the acquired land as on the date of the deemed notification under section four of the Act was actually being used for residential purposes and nothing has come on record to suggest that the acquired land was of commercial nature. Even the sale exemplars relied upon by the petitioners are of residential areas only. Thus, the conclusion which can be drawn is that the acquired land on the date of presumed section four notification was of residential nature and the market value of the land has to be determined on the basis of the land being of residential nature.
73. Once it is found out that the acquired land was residential land, the next step is to find out the market value Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 30 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:23:53 +0530 of the acquired land on the date of the deemed notification under section 4 of the Act.
74. Once it is found out that the acquired land was residential land, the next step is to find out the market value of the acquired land on the date of the deemed notification under section 4 of the Act.
75. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present land is surrounded by localities like Maharani Bagh and Friends Colony which are within a distance of 5km from the acquired land and they fall in category A and as such the present land being in close proximity to the category A land has to be held to be of category A. It is submitted that once it is decided that the land is of category A, the highest of the sale exemplars near in time to the section four notification has to be taken as the market value of the land and it is not permitted that average of all the sale deeds be taken as the market value. It is submitted that the highest exemplar has to be further enhanced at the rate 15% per annum to ascertain the market value on the date of the section four notification. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the rate prevalent in category A localities. As per the highest exemplar filed by the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to market rate at the rate of Rs. 7,74,000/- per square meter.
76. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the acquired land falls in village Kilokari which is under category E as per the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is further submitted that the respondent number 4 is paying property tax to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 31 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:23:59 +0530 with respect to the residential complex built on the land including the acquired land under category E and the same has been accepted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and as such at the maximum the acquired land can be held to be under category E and not Category A.
77. Petitioners have claimed that the acquired land falls under category A and because the respondents did not lead any evidence to show that the acquired land falls under category E, the assertion of the petitioner that the acquired land falls under category A has to be accepted.
78. The petitioners have themselves led no evidence as to the fact into which category the acquired land falls under. The petitioners have filed one map downloaded from Google Maps as Ex. PW1/2 showing the location of the residential property of the respondent number 4 but the same does not disclose the khasra numbers or the land owned by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. Copy of Eicher map of Delhi has also been relied upon by the petitioners as exhibit PW1/16. However, the same also does not disclose the location of the land of the petitioner or even village Kilokari.
79. The petitioners have relied upon notification of circle rates Dated 04.12.2012 as Exhibit PW1/7 and the same has also been proved by PW4 the concerned official as Ex. PW4/1. As per the categorization of the land, Kilokari and Kilokari Extension fall under category E and Kilokari Ring Road falls under category B.
80. Thus, what has to be decided is that whether the acquired land formed part of Kilokari or Kilokari Extension Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 32 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:24:04 +0530 or Kilokari Ring Road.
81. The onus to prove an entitlement to enhance compensation was on the petitioners and as the petitioners have claimed that the acquired land falls under category A, it was for the petitioners to prove that the said land actually belonged to category A. The only explanation given by the petitioners to claim that the acquired land falls under category A is that the nearby area of Maharani Bagh and New Friends Colony falls under category A and the same being within 5 km from the acquired land makes the acquired land as category A. However, no evidence has been led by the petitioners to show whether the land fell in category A or the actual category in which the present land falls.
82. The respondents examined RW2 halka Patwari for village Kilokari, SDM Defense colony who brought on record the aks sizra with respect to Khasra number 307 as Exhibit RW2/1. He stated that Khasra number 307 is quite far away from the ring road and there are three khasras between 307 and the ring road. In his cross examination he admitted that he did know when exhibit RW2/1 was prepared. He admitted that the distance between Khasra number 307 to the ring road was not mentioned in exhibit RW2/1. He denied knowledge about the current structure and buildings of the adjoining properties of the acquired land.
83. Thus, what is clear from the testimony of RW2 is that khasra number 307 was some distance away from the ring road but it does not make it clear whether acquired land LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India Digitally signed Page No. 33 of 52 by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2025.10.31 14:24:09 +0530 form part of Kilokari or Kilokari Ring Road.
84. Thereafter the official from South Delhi Municipal Corporation was examined as RW 3 who produced record of letter dated 15.12.2016 along with the categorization of colonies uploaded on MCD website as RW3/1. In his cross examination he denied any knowledge as to whether the acquired land fell under village Kilokari, Kilokari Extension or Kilokari Ring Road. He further stated that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi does not maintain such record and he did not visit Khasra no. 307. Thus, he could not also testify whether the acquired land fell in Kilokari Ring Road and therefore in category A or it fell in Kilokari village which would mean that the acquired land is in category E.
85. Respondent No. 4 examined its deputy general manager as RW4 who relied upon the fact that the respondent number 4 is paying the property tax of the acquired land forming part of its residential colony under category E and the same has been accepted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as no order has been passed or any communication made to revise the property tax returns with respect to the residential colony of the respondent number 4 including the acquired land.
86. Thus, the only evidence before the court with respect to the category of the land is the Self-assessment property tax returns filed by respondent no. 4 with respect to its residential colony which includes the acquired land.
87. As mentioned hereinabove, the onus of the present issue was on the petitioners and it was upon the petitioners to show that the acquired land was of a higher category for Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 34 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:24:13 +0530 which they are entitled. No such evidence has been led by the petitioners which would show that the present land is a part of Kilokari Ring Road and would form part of category B. In fact, the petitioners have claimed the land to be of category A which is completely unsustainable. The Petitioners have not even made any pleadings or led any averments, evidence or arguments to show that the acquired land was of category B.
88. The only document purporting to support the contention that the acquired land falls under category B is the draft award, Ex. PW1/6 prepared by the land acquisition collector which was not passed or announced and as such has no legal sanctity.
89. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v. Vishnudev Coop. Housing Society, (2018) 8 SCC 215 while dealing with the issue of reliance on internal noting and communications of the government has held as follows:
35. The question is whether the order dated 10-
6-2004 passed by the then Revenue Minister directing release of the acquired land in question has the attributes of an order within the meaning of Section 48 of the Act or, in other words, whether the order in question created any right in favour of the landowners so as to enable them to claim mandamus for enforcement of such order against the State.
36. Our answer to the question is "no". It is for the reasons that : first, a mere noting in the official files of the Government while dealing with any matter pertaining to any person is essentially an internal matter of the Government and carries with it no legal sanctity; second, once the decision on such issue is taken and approved by the competent authority empowered by the Government in that behalf, it LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India Page No. 35 of 52 is required to be communicated to the person concerned by the State Government. In other words, so long as the decision based on such internal deliberation is not approved and communicated by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed in that behalf to the person concerned, such noting does not create any right in favour of the person concerned nor it partake the nature of any legal order so as to enable the person concerned to claim any benefit of any such internal deliberation. Such noting(s) or/and deliberation(s) are always capable of being changed or/and amended or/and withdrawn by the competent authority."
90. Thus, what is clear is that a party cannot rely upon and take any advantage of any internal communication of the government until and unless such communication has resulted in an order passed and approved by the relevant competent authority and is communicated to the interested person.
91. Section 11 of the Act reads as follows:
"11. Enquiry and award by Collector.--1[1] On the day so fixed, or any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land and 2[at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1)], and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of--
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him:
Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 36 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:24:21 +0530 [Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf:
Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.
...................."
92. Thus, a bare reading of the proviso to sub section 1 would show that the Collector cannot make an award without the previous approval of the officer authorized by the Government.
93. In the present case, the draft award, Ex. PW1/6 was sent to the appropriate officer by the collector and the same was not approved. As such, after approval, the impugned award, Ex. R1 was passed and that is the only award in the present case in the eyes of the law.
94. Thus, the only evidence on record shows that the acquired land fell in category E and not in category A or category B.
95. The petitioners have relied upon Circle Rate dated 04.12.2012 as Exhibit PW1/7 and circle rate with effect from 23.09.2014 as Exhibit PW1/8 along with sale deed dated 23.07.2014 of Maharani Bagh, Exhibit PW1/10 and sale deed dated 23.04.2014 of New Friends Colony, Exhibit PW1/11.
96. All the sale exemplars relied upon by the petitioners are of category A localities and thus are not of similar land to the acquired land. As the acquired land falls in category Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 37 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:24:29 +0530 E and cannot be termed to be in the same category and potentiality as of category A land, both cannot be equated and as such it is clear that the petitioners have not placed on record any evidence with respect to similarly situated land of near the time of the Section 4 notification.
97. Thus, the only indicator of market value at the time of Section 4 notification are the notifications of circle rate dated 04.12.2017, Ex. PW1/7 and notification dated 22.09.2014, Exhibit PW1/8.
98. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide exhibit PW1/4 has directed that the Section 4 notification has to be treated to have been issued on 12.02.2013. Ex. PW 1/7 the notification of Circle Rate dated 04.12.2012 is the only market rate indicator which has come on record by either of the parties, the same has to be seen while determining the market value of the acquired land on the date of the deemed section four notification.
99. The petitioners have relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot (supra) and Viluben Jhajejar Contractor (supra) to contend that the highest sale exemplar has to be seen while deciding the market value. However, as only one exemplar in the form of Notification of Circle Rate, Ex. PW1/7 has come on record, there is no question of averaging the sale instances or relying on the highest bonafide sale transaction does not arise.
100. The petitioners have also sought increment at the rate of 15% per annum from the applicable sale exemplar. However, in the present case the only indicator of market Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 38 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:24:33 +0530 value is the notification dated 04.12.2012 which is just two months prior to the notification under section four of the Act and as such for a short period of two months no enhancement can be granted from the rates mentioned in the notification exhibit PW1/7.
101. The reliance f the petitioners on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashok Kumar (supra), Madhusdan Kabra (supra) and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Tirpat Kaur (supra) is misplaced as in all those cases the time lapse from the sale exemplar or the previous award was more than 5 years and as such cumulative increase was granted. As in the present case, the time lapse between the deemed notification under section 4 of the Act and the circle rates EX PW1/7 is only 2 months, no increase from the circle rate is warranted.
102. Next point to be determined is whether any deduction needs to be made from the market rate for the development of the acquired land. It is the case of the respondents that on the date of taking over of possession of the acquired land by the respondent number 4, the acquired land was of agricultural nature and the respondents had to undergo development of the land which had resulted in huge cost and the same needs to be deducted from the amount to be awarded to the petitioners.
103. Per Contra learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, exhibit PW1/5, the market value of the acquired land has to be determined on the basis of the actual surroundings of the acquired land whether they are Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 39 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:24:38 +0530 residential or commercial and not on the basis that the acquired land is of agricultural nature. As such, once it is established that the acquired land was of residential nature, no amount needs to be deducted for the development of the acquired land.
104. It is undisputed fact that on the date of the handing over of the possession of the acquired land, the land was of agricultural nature. Thereafter, the respondent number 4 developed a residential colony for its employees on a parcel of land which comprised of the acquired land. In case the petitioners were in possession of the acquired land on the date of notification under section four of the Act, to convert it into residential use they would have needed to get the relevant sanction plans approved, develop the plot into small residential plots, leave out areas for roads and connectivity purposes and thereafter would have been able to sell portions of the acquired land and would not have been able to sell the whole of the acquired land. Moreover, the acquired land measures 2633.8 square metres and it might not have been feasible to convert the said land into an authorized and sanctioned colony. At best, the petitioner could have developed the acquired land as an unauthorized/unsanctioned colony and the respondent number 4 after acquisition of it would have been further required to develop the area suitable for residential purposes of its employees.
105. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has on numerous occasions dealt with the issue of developmental charges to be deducted from undeveloped or underdeveloped land. In Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 40 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:24:43 +0530 the case of Lal Chand versus Union of India, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
"13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated.
14. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc.
15. The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying water lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.
16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of "deduction for development" may be far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 41 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:24:48 +0530 all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots.
17. The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout.
18. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.
19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.)
20. Therefore the deduction for the "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure.
21. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout--whether it is residential, residential-cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community facilities, parks and playgrounds provided.
Digitally
LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 42 of 52
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31
14:24:53
+0530
22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%."
106. Similarly in Sahiba Mohammed Yusuf Abdu Hamid Mulla (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the general rule of deduction of 1/3rd owards development charges and held as follows:
19. In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired.
In Kasturi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354] the Court held: (SCC pp. 359-60, para 7) "7. ... It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; maybe the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 43 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:24:58 +0530 the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose."
(emphasis supplied) The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. [(2003) 10 SCC 525] , V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India Digitally Page No. 44 of 52 signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:25:03 +0530 Acquisition Officer [(2003) 12 SCC 642] , H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi [(2004) 2 SCC 184] and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority [(2004) 10 SCC 745]." (emphasis in original)
107. While dealing with semi development land in the area of Vasant Kunj in Delhi the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kapil Mehra versus Union of India has held as follows:
"41. In the instant case, having regard to the extent of the land acquired and the development in and around Vasant Kunj area, in our view, it is appropriate to make 35% deduction towards utilisation of the land area in the layout for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities. So far as the expenditure for development of the large extent of land into a developed area by construction of proper roads, underground drainage, sewerage and erection of electricity lines, it is appropriate to make further deduction of 25%, though 35% of the value was deducted in Lal Chand case [Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769 :
(2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 766] towards development charges. Two components taken together, the total deduction to be made would be 60%. 60% of Rs 35,937 works out to Rs 21,562 and deducting the same, the value of the land would be Rs 14,375 per square yard. What was awarded by the High Court was Rs 14,974 per square yard. Since SLP (Civil) No. 15272 of 2011 filed by DDA was dismissed by this Court on 12-5-2011 [DDA v. Kapil Mehra, (2015) 2 SCC 289] and the sale has become final as against the appellants, we are not inclined to further reduce the value of the acquired land from Rs 14,974 per square yard as determined by the High Court and the compensation awarded by the High Court at Rs 14,974 per square yard is maintained."
108. Thus, what is clear from the above discussion is that Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 45 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:25:07 +0530 the potentiality of the land is different from the amount required to develop it. In Case the land is not fully developed as per the requirement of the acquiring authority, the acquiring authority would have to incur certain charges to develop the land and make it usable for the purpose it was acquired.
109. In the present case, if the land had not been acquired it is clear that at best there would have been a residential colony on the land whereby the petitioner themselves would have to undertake certain charges to develop the same. The said charges have actually been borne by the respondent number four which has developed a residential colony for its employees on the acquired land.
110. Thus, based upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned cases and the fact that the Respondent number four would have had incurred development charges to develop the acquired land, it is felt appropriate that a deduction of 1/3rd is made from the market value assessed in the present case.
111. As discussed hereinabove, the market value of the acquired land has to be taken as per circle rates dated 05.12.2012, Ex. PW1/7. The same for residential land in category E is Rs. 58,400/- per square meter. 1/3rd of the same comes out to Rs. 19,467/- and after deducting the same from the circle rate would give us the value of the land as Rs. 38,933/- per square meter.
112. Thus, based upon the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to a compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 38,933/- per Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 46 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:25:12 +0530 square meter.
ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the petitioners are entitled for solatium along with additional amount u/s 23 (1A) from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of award of LAC or possession as per rules? OPP
113. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that as the benefits accrue from the statute itself, the petitioners are entitled to all statutory benefits which the law provides.
114. Since the issue of enhanced compensation is decided in favour of the petitioners, hence, it can be fairly held that petitioners are entitled for statutory benefits as well.
115. No evidence was led by respondents to disprove this issue. Rather, it is argued that petitioners are entitled for statutory benefits, only if they establish their case successfully for enhancement in compensation under the Act.
116. Accordingly, it is also decided that petitioners are found entitled for 30% solatium under section 23(2) of the Act in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land and interest @ 12% per annum under section 23 (1A) from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC. ISSUE NO. 3: Whether the petitioners are entitled for interest u/s 28 of the LA Act for the one year from the date of taking possession @ 9% and thereafter 15% till the date of payment of enhanced compensation? OPP ISSUE NO. 4: Whether the petitioners are entitled for interest on solatium and additional amount in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 47 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:25:17 +0530 Sunder Vs. Union of India dated 19.09.2001? OPP
117. Since both these issues pertain to interest, both are being decided together.
118. Section 28 of the Act deals with the issue of interest on amount enhanced by the Court. Section 28 reads as follows:
"28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation.
If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of (9 per centum) per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. (Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into the Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry)."
119. Thus, in a normal situation, the petitioners are entitled to interest from the date of disposition till the amount is actually paid to the petitioners or deposited in court. In the present case, the possession of the land was taken in the year 1966, however, due to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, exhibit PW1/4, the deemed date of notification under section four of the Act is 12.01.2013. As such the petitioners have been granted market rate of the acquired land as on that date.
120. Prior to the issuance of the deemed notification under section four of the Act, the petitioners were the owners of the acquired land as per law and they have been found Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 48 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:25:22 +0530 entitled to market rate as on the date of deemed notification under section four of the Act. As such in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners would be entitled to receive interest on the market value only from the date of Section 4 notification and not from the date of the dispossession as in case interest is paid from the date of taking over of the position, the petitioners would be granted market rate of 2013 but interest from 1966 which would result in dual benefit to the petitioners which was not the intended object of the Act.
121. This view is supported by the judgment of the honorable Supreme Court of India in LAO v. M. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2011) 11 SCC 648 where it has been held:
"12. This appeal raises yet another issue. The Reference Court has awarded interest under Section 28 of the Act from the date of possession, that is, 8-6-1988, and not from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The High Court has not interfered with the award of such interest. The appellant relied upon the decisions of this Court in R.L. Jain v. DDA [(2004) 4 SCC 79] and in Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda [(2010) 5 SCC 708 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 531] to contend that interest could be awarded only from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, even where possession had been taken on a date prior to the date of preliminary notification. We, therefore, hold that interest under Section 28 of the Act could have been awarded only from the date of preliminary notification, even if possession was taken prior to the date of the preliminary notification.
13. Though the respondents are not entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Act, from a date prior to the date of preliminary notification, they are entitled to damages for wrongful use and damages of the lands from the date of possession till the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
Digitally
LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 49 of 52
RAHUL
RAHUL BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31
14:25:29
+0530
14. In R.L. Jain [(2004) 4 SCC 79] , this Court held : (SCC pp. 93-94, para 18) "18. In a case where the landowner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the landowner. It is fully open for the landowner to recover the possession of his land by taking recourse to appropriate legal proceedings. He is, therefore, only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the landowner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition of the property. The provisions of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded."
The above position is reiterated in Karigowda [(2010) 5 SCC 708 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 531] .
15. It is clear that even if the landowner may not be entitled to interest from the date of possession but only from the date of preliminary notification, he will be entitled to compensation for wrongful use and occupation from the date of actual dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In this case, there is already a clear finding that the loss of income per year is Rs 94,500 from the acquired lands. Therefore, instead of relegating the parties for a further enquiry in regard to damages for wrongful use and occupation from the date of dispossession to the date of preliminary notification, we proceed to determine the same at Rs 94,500 per annum for the period from 8-6-1988 to 27-8-1993 (which is rounded off to five years) with interest at 6% per annum from 30-6-1994 to the date of payment."
Digitally signed by LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India RAHUL Page No. 50 of 52 RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:25:34 +0530
122. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to 9% interest on excess amount (including solatium) awarded by court from the deemed date of notification under section 4 of the Act (i.e. 12.02.2013) to payment of excess amount in the Court for/within one year and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in Court. The amount, if any, already received shall be subject to adjustment as per rules. RELIEF:
123. Based upon the above discussion, the compensation amount is enhanced from the rate of Rs. 53 lakhs per acre as awarded by LAC and compensation amount is fixed at Rs. 38,933/- per square meter in respect of petitioners' land acquired (as detailed in the statement filed under section 19 of the Act, 1894). The petitioners are further granted solatium under Section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land, interest @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1A) from the date of notification upto the date of award by LAC. The petitioners are further found entitled to and granted 9% interest on excess amount awarded by Court (including solatium) from the date of deemed notification under section 4 of the Act i.e. 12.02.2013 to payment of excess amount in the Court, for/within one year and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in Court.
124. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, South East, Delhi, for necessary information, Digitally LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India signed by Page No. 51 of 52 RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:25:39 +0530 action and immediate compliance for remittance of amount
125. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.10.31 14:25:44 +0530 Announced in the open Court on 25.10.2025 (RAHUL BHATIA) District Judge 01(SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi LAC 10//2016 Shyam Sunder Ambwani Vs. Union of India Page No. 52 of 52