Delhi District Court
Shanti Saroop And Ors vs Union Of India on 22 April, 2026
In The Court of Ms. Shuchi Laler,
District Judge-02, (East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
LAC No.1/2023
CNR No. DLET01-005880-2023
In the matter of :-
1. Shanti Sarooop Deceased S/o Kale
through his legal heirs.
i) Smt. Bimla W/o Late Shanti Saroop
ii) Sh. Rishi Sharma S/o Late Shanti Saroop
iii) Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shanti Saroop
iv) Sh. Shiv Shankar Sharma S/o Late Shanti Saroop
All are resident of:
House No. 91, Pandit Chowk,
Village Mandawali Fazal Pur,
Delhi-110092.
2. Shish Ram Deceased S/o Kale through his Legal heirs
i) Smt. Kailasho Devi W/o Late Shish Ram
ii) Braham Prakash Deceased S/o Shish Ram through his Legal
heirs
a) Sushila Sharma W/o Late Brahm Prakash
b) Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Brahm Prakash
c) Meena Sharma D/o Late Brahm Prakash
All are resident of:
House No. 91, Pandit Chowk,
Village Mandawali Fazal Pur,
Delhi-110092.
d) Anita Sharma D/o Late Brahm Prakash,
W/o Ashwani Bhardwaj,
R/o H.No. 146, Ghoga Village,
Delhi-110039.
......Petitioners.
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Land Acquisition Collector,
L.M. Bandh, D.C. Office, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi.
LAC No. 1/2023
Shanti Saroop & Ors Vs. Union of India.
Page No.1 of 10
2. DDA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi-110023.
.....Respondents.
Award No. : 49-C/70-71/Suppl. Name of Village : Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi. Announced on : 27.12.1982.
Notification u/S4 : F.15(111)/59 dated 13.11.59 Notification u/S6 : F.4(19)/65/L&H dated 12.07.66.
Date of Institution : 20.11.1987
Date of Reserving Order : 18.04.2026
Date of Decision : 22.04.2026
AWARD
1. A farmer deprived of his livelihood-his agriculture land, has approached this Court, invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act'), praying for adequate compensation.
2. The present reference, which was initiated on the petition of Sh. Shishram and Sh. Shanti Swaroop, who were aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the LAC, was received on 20.11.1987 from the Office of Land Acquisition Collector (MSW), Delhi.
3. As per the reference, the petitioners' land at Village Mandawali, Fazalpur was acquired for public purpose. The notification u/s 4 of LA Act as mentioned on the index page was issued. The declaration u/s 6 was made as LAC No. 1/2023 Shanti Saroop & Ors Vs. Union of India.
Page No.2 of 10mentioned on the index page. Thereafter, above referred award was announced by LAC, wherein the compensation was fixed @ Rs.3000/- per bigha.
4. The petitioners, being aggrieved with the compensation amount determined by the LAC, filed the petition under Section 18 of the LA Act, seeking reference to this Court. The LAC forwarded the same to this Court for adjudication.
5. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners land bearing Khasra number No. 232/1 & 232/2 as mentioned in the admitted Statement u/s 19 of LA Act, are situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Mandawali, Fazalpur, Delhi. The petitioners have challenged the said award, inter alia, on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and incorrect assessment of market value of land due to non-consideration of relevant factors like the land being close to Delhi-Meerut road, heavy processing plant of mother dairy being installed, government senior school is near the said land and there are residential quarters of railway employees etc. The petitioners have prayed for compensation at enhanced rate besides interest thereon and solatium in addition to the compensation.
6. The Respondent no.1/the Union of India (UOI) had filed the reply and the present reference was decided by the Ld. Predecessor vide judgement dated 09.09.1999. Thereafter, an application was filed on 20.03.1999 for LAC No. 1/2023 Shanti Saroop & Ors Vs. Union of India.
Page No.3 of 10calling revised statement under Section 19 of the Act from LAC, which was submitted on 09.07.2001. Vide order dated 11.09.2001, Ld. ADJ dismissed the application under Order IX Rule 9 R/W Section 151, 152 and 153 CPC and observed that there is no mistake or error in the judgement dated 09.09.1999.
7. The aforesaid order was challenged before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the revision petition bearing No. 1408/2001, wherein, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate relief in the matter after proceeding under Section 30 & 31 of LA Act are decided.
8. In the reference under Section 30-31 LA Act, vide Award dated 01.04.2019, Ld. Predecessor observed that the petitioners would be entitled to 50% share in Khasra No.1234/201. Vide Award dated 03.12.2020, in reference under Section 30 & 31 of LA Act, Ld. Predecessor observed that the compensation of land in Khasra No. 1221 (201) (5-0), 108/2(2-5), 906(2-8) and 1204/924(2-8) is to be shared by the petitioners and late Sh. Bahadur.
9. Thereafter, a fresh application for revival of reference under Section 18 of LAC was filed, which was listed on 21.12.2016. Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 21.08.2019, observed that since the reference under Section 30-31 of LA Act has already been decided, therefore, the present reference is being revived.
LAC No. 1/2023Shanti Saroop & Ors Vs. Union of India.
Page No.4 of 1010. The respondent No.2/DDA was impleaded as a party on 13.02.2026. In its reply, the respondent No.2/DDA has admitted that the physical possession of the land in question has been handed over to DDA, however, it is claimed that the LAC had taken into consideration the market value of the land while passing the Award.
11. Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 17.10.1988 framed issues reading as under:-
1. Whether the application is time barred?
2. Whether the applicants are legal heirs of the deceased?
However, this Court vide order dated 13.02.2026 observed that in the issues framed, as above, it has nowhere been mentioned upon whom the onus has been placed. Accordingly, the issues framed on 17.10.1988 were modified to the extent that the onus of Issue No.1 was placed on respondent No.1 and onus of Issue No.2 was on the LRs of petitioner. Therefore, this Court while exercising powers under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, framed following additional issues:
3. What was the market value of the land acquired on the date of preliminary notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on parties.
4. Whether petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation in respect of land in question and if so, at what rate? OPP.
LAC No. 1/2023Shanti Saroop & Ors Vs. Union of India.
Page No.5 of 105. Relief.
12. The petitioners examined Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma in support of their case as PW1, who tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the documents mentioned as under:-
1. The certified copy of Order dated 31.03.2003 passed by Hon'ble High Court at New Delhi as Ex.PW1/1.
2. The certified copy of order dt./judgement dt. dated 03.12.2010 as Ex.PW1/2.
3. The certified copy of order/judgement dt. 1.04.2019 as Ex.PW1/3.
4. The copy of judgement dt. 11.04.1991 as Ex.PW1/4.
5. The copy of judgement dt. 20.05.1992 as Ex.PW1/5.
13. PW1, in his cross-examination on behalf of the respondent No.2/DDA, deposed that on the basis of the documents on record, he stated in his evidence that the petitioners were not present at the time of announcement of the award nor any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on them. PW1 further deposed that the awarded land in the present reference petition is approximately far from 500 meters from DTC Depot, Patparganj and approximately far from one KM from the mother dairy plant. He further deposed that the awarded land in the present petition is approximately far from one KM from the Railway Line. He denied the suggestion that the LAC has correctly quantified the rate of the awarded land while passing the reference award.
14. In his cross-examination on behalf of the Respondent No.1/UOI, PW1 deposed that Lt. Sh. Shanti LAC No. 1/2023 Shanti Saroop & Ors Vs. Union of India.
Page No.6 of 10Saroop is the elder brother of his grandfather Shishram, from whom he had devolved the interest in the awarded land. He could not tell as to whether there was any construction when notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was notified with respect to the awarded land. He volunteered and stated that he was not born on the date of notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. He denied the suggestion that since he was not born on the date of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, hence, he was not in a position to say that the compensation has not been quantified properly of the awarded land.
15. No evidence was led by the Respondents, accordingly, respondents' evidence was closed on 27.03.2026.
16. Rival submissions advanced at bar have been heard and record perused.
17. Issue-wise findings are as under.
ISSUE No.1 "Whether the application is time barred?"
Issue No.2 "Whether the applicants are legal heirs of the deceased?
18. Both these issues are taken up together as they are interconnected and can be disposed off by way of a common discussion. Perusal of record reveals that in reply to the application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, the LAC No. 1/2023 Shanti Saroop & Ors Vs. Union of India.
Page No.7 of 10respondent No.1/UOI had taken an objection that the application being time barred is not maintainable and the names of all legal heirs are not mentioned in the application, accordingly, Ld. Predecessor had framed the aforesaid issues on 17.10.1988. The said application was allowed by Ld. Predecessor on 18.03.2023, hence, both these issues have already been decided in favour of the petitioners. No findings on the aforesaid issues need to be recorded.
Issue No.3 "What was the market value of the land acquired on the date of preliminary notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894?"
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The petitioners have alleged that the valuation of land determined by LAC is unreasonable as LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation. Ld. Counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgement titled as Kesu Dass Vs. Union of India, 45 (1991) DLT 20 (DB) wherein, the market value of land was fixed at Rs.8064/- per bigha for entire land of village Mandawali Fazalpur.
20. The respondents have not contended that the said judgement has been either overruled or modified. Further, the petitioners have not adduced any evidence to demonstrate that their land was superior in quality or potential to that involved in Kesu Dass (supra). Likewise, no evidence has been led by the respondents to establish that the land of the petitioners was inferior in any respect LAC No. 1/2023 Shanti Saroop & Ors Vs. Union of India.
Page No.8 of 10to the land considered in the aforesaid case.
21. In Nand Ram vs. State of Haryana, JT 1988 (4) SC 260, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once compensation has been determined for a particular piece of land, the same rate of compensation should ordinarily be applied to the other landowners whose lands, similarly situated and adjacent, have been acquired under the same notification.
22. In view of the foregoing, it is held that the market value of the land in question shall be same as determined in Kesu Dass (supra). Accrodingly, the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs.8064/- per bigha, being reasonable market value at that time.
RELIEF:-
23. In view of the findings on Issue No.1, the petitioners are entitled to the following reliefs:-
(i) The market value is assessed to be Rs.8064/- per bigha for the acquired land as per the revised statement under Section 19 of LA Act and references under Sections 30-31 of LA Act.
(ii) On the said amount, the petitioners shall be entitled to an additional amount @ 12% p.a. to be calculated on the aforesaid market value from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act to the date of Award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of LAC No. 1/2023 Shanti Saroop & Ors Vs. Union of India.Page No.9 of 10
the land, whichever is earlier.
(iii) Additionally, petitioners shall be entitled to a solatium @ 30% of market value under Section 23(2) of LA Act.
(iv) Further the petitioners shall also be entitled to interest under Section 28 of LA Act on the aforesaid amounts (in the light of ratio of Sunder vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211) @ 9% p.a. for the first year and @ 15% p.a. for subsequent years till making of payment of enhanced compensation by LAC as per provisions of Section 28 of LA Act.
(v) The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest (under Section 34 of LA Act) on the aforesaid amounts, detailed hereinabove (in the light of ratio of Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211) @ 9% p.a. for the first year and @ 15% p.a. for subsequent years till making of payment by LAC as per the provisions of Section 34 of LA Act.
(vi) The aforesaid amounts shall be apportioned into two equal sums with petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2.
24. Reference petition stands answered. No order as to cost. A copy of this order be sent to LAC for necessary information, direction and compliance, for remittance of the amount.
25. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court
On this 22.04.2026 (Shuchi Laler)
District Judge-02, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
LAC No. 1/2023
Shanti Saroop & Ors Vs. Union of India.
Page No.10 of 10