Shri. Het Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs & ... vs . Union Of India & Anr. on 20 December, 2022

[Cites 55, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Shri. Het Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs & ... vs . Union Of India & Anr. on 20 December, 2022

     Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.


 IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
02, SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI

Presiding Judge: Sh. Dinesh Kumar.

LAC NO. 116/2016
FILING NO. 16740/2011
CNR No. DLST010003042011

In the matter of :
1.     Shri Het Ram (Deceased) Through LRs:
       (a) Bimlesh @ Balesh
             W/o Shri Ganendra Singh
             D/o Late Het Ram
       (b) Smt. Channo W/o Sh. Mahendra Singh
             D/o Late Het Ram
             Both R/o 365, Khera Dharampura
             Chhaprula, Gautam Budhg Nagar
             Uttar Pradesh201009
       (c) Smt. Birmati W/o Shri Kartar
             D/o 115, Village Bhatola
             New Shiv Mandir
             Faridabad, Haryana
       (d) Smt. Sunita W/o Sh. Sukhvir
             D/o Late Het Ram
       (e) Smt. Geeta W/o Sh. Dheeraj
             D/o Shri Het Ram
             R/o 367, Village Chhaprola
             Gautam Budh Nagar
             Uttam Pradesh

LAC NO. 116/2016
CNR No. DLST010003042011
Page 1 of 55               Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022
      Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.


       (f)    Shri Ranvir S/o Late Sh. Het Ram
              R/o 11/108, Village Ali
              New Delhi
       (g)    Shri Chander Pal
              S/o Sh. Het Ram
              R/o 11/108, Village Ali
              New Delhi
       (h)    Shri Ghanshyam (deceased)
              S/o Late Sh. Het Ram, Through Lrs:
              i.    Smt. Shima
                    Wd/o Late Ghanshyam
              ii.   Harish Kumar @ Harish Chaudhary
                    S/o Late Ghanshyam
              iii. Shri Anil @ Harish Chaudhary
                    S/o Late Ghanshyam
              iv.   Ms. Manisha D/o Late Ghanshyam
              v.    Ms. Poonam D/o Late Ghanshyam
              vi.   Ms. Pooja D/o Late Ghanshyam
                    All R/o 108, Village Ali
                    New Delhi.

2.     Shri Nain Singh
       S/o Late Daulat
       R/o 11/108, Village Ali
       New Delhi.
                                                           ........Petitioners

                                  Versus


1.     Union of India
LAC NO. 116/2016
CNR No. DLST010003042011
Page 2 of 55               Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022
      Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.


       Through LAC/ADM (SouthEast)
       Old Gargi College Building
       Lajpat NagarIV, New Delhi
2.     Chief Engineer
       Irrigation and Flood Control Department
       Shooting Range
       Tughlakabad South Distt.
       New Delhi110044
                                         .........Respondents

Reference received on                                   :07.07.2011
Date of Institution                                     :07.07.2011
Date on which order was reserved                        : 07.12.2022
Date of Award                                           : 20.12.2022

AWARD

(By the Court under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') on reference petition, under Section 18 of the Act, 1894).

1. The present reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') was filed by the petitioners in the office of Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC'). The said reference has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector along with statement under Section 19 of the Act.

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 3 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

2. The petitioners have sought enhancement of compensation / the monetary award given by the Land Acquisition Collector. The reference was received from the office of LAC (South) on 07.07.2011.

3. For answering the present reference petition, the relevant dates, features and facts are given below:

(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act: 19.11.1981 (iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act: 19.11.1981 (iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act: 19.11.1981

(iii) for Project: Planned Development of Delhi

(iv) Location/Name of Village: Ali (va)Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC - 64/198283 & date of Award 23.09.2009 (vb) Area under acquisitionin question: 403/1 (02), 406/2/1 (017), 436/2(01), 437/1/1 (015).

(via) Petition referred to Court on: 07.07.2011 (vib) Date of possession: 23.02.1982

4. The present reference under Section 18 of the Act pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land situated in village Ali which was acquired for the public purpose of 'Planned Development of Delhi'. The land in question was acquired by the LAC vide award 64/198283 LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 4 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

dated 23.09.2009 pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 19.11.1981 which was followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 19.11.1981.

5. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after considering the relevant factors, gave its Award No. 64/1982 83 by determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition @ Rs.3000/ per bigha.

6. Since the petitioners did not accept the award, they preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference filed by the petitioners along with statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector for answering the same.

7. The petitioners have claimed that they are the owners/bhumidhars of land bearing Khasra No. 403/1(02), 406/2/1 (017), 436/2 (01) and 437/1/1 (015) in all measuring 1 bighas 15 biswas situated in village Ali, Tehsil Mehrauli, which has been acquired by the above mentioned award of the Collector. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector is not acceptable to the petitioners as the Land Acquisition Collector has inadequately and arbitrarily assessed the market value. It has not properly considered and appreciated the potentialities of LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 5 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

the land. The land of the petitioners is fully developed and there is no need of spending any amount for levelling the same. All the civic amenities like water, electricity, telephone line, school, college, hospital, bus terminal, railway station are easily accessible near to the land of the petitioners. The land is situated in the heart of Delhi and is surrounded by posh and developed colonies as well as commercial areas such as Sarita Vihar, Jasola Vihar, Mohan Cooperative, Haldiram Restaurant, Apollo Hospital, Main Mathura Road, Sukhdev Vihar and several group housing societies. The land has great potential value for residential, industrial and commercial purposes. The entire revenue estate of Village Ali was urbanized by the government vide notification No. F2 (49)/65/LSN dated 03.06.1966. There is not a single place in Delhi and village Ali where the rates of the land were less than Rs. 50,000/ per sq.yards on the date of notification in question. The Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Department of Urban Development, Land Division has fixed the rates for the year 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2002 conveyed by letter no. J22011/4/95LD dated 16.04.1999 at the rate Rs. 9240 per sq.metre for commercial areas in the locality of Kalkaji. The land under acquisition is LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 6 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

already in possession of the NTPC long prior to the date of notification under Section 4 and the DDA has constructed developed plots on the said plan. On the land of the petitioner, there were about 200 trees. However, the Land Acquisition Collector has not given any compensation for the same. The Land Acquisition Collector did not issue any notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to the petitioners. They had come to know regarding the pronouncement of the Award on 23.09.2009 when the petitioners received the compensation vide cheque no. 724342 and 724343 amounting to Rs. 3158.94/ each. They immediately filed the reference petition. Therefore, the petition is within limitation. The Land Acquisition Collector has not awarded compensation for structure existed on the land and a compensation in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/ should be given. A sum of Rs.50,000/ per square yards along with statutory benifits should be given. The petitioners have prayed as follows:

"1. Market Value of Land be awarded: @ Rs.50,000/ per sq.yards.

"2. 30% solatium on the Market Value.

"3. 12% additional amount under Section 23(i)(a) form the date of notification under Section 4 to the date of award or possession which ever earlier.

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 7 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

"4. Interest under Section 28 @ 9% for the first year from the date of taking Possession and thereafter 15% till the payment of enhanced compensation.

"5. Claim of damages of super structure at Rs.25 Lacs. "6. Interest on Solatium and additional amount in term of the Judgemnt of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

8. Notices were directed to be issued to the UOI and the NTPC. Union of India and DDA appeared on summons. On behalf of UOI/respondent No.1, one Written Statement had been filed. In its Written Statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed the claim for enhancement in compensation. It is stated that the petitioners have not brought any specific and cogent evidence on record to claim a higher compensation. The present reference petition is barred by limitation and has to be dismissed. The limitation for filing the reference as per the Land Acquisiton Act has to be governed by Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The designated Land Acquisition Court derives its power under the Land Acquisition Act and it has to confine its jurisdiction only to the issue of assessing market value and issue of aportionment, if any. The fair, reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case and the onus of claiming higher compensation is always on the claimant.

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 8 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

9. The DDA also filed its Written Statement. It is stated in the written statement that the physical possession of the land in question was not handed over by the LAC to the Delhi Development Authority and therefore, the DDA is not a necessary party in the present case.

10. Vide order dated 21.05.2013, Ld. Predecessor framed following two preliminary issues which are as under:

"1. Whether the reference forwarded before this Court is within the period of limitation or not? OP Parties "2. Relief."

11. The petitioners were asked to lead evidence. However, they failed to lead evidence. Therefore, vide order dated 03.02.2015 the Court closed the opportunity of the petitioners to lead the evidence.

12. The petitioners moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking opportunity to lead evidence. The said application was allowed vide order dated 29.09.2015.

13. The petitioners also moved an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for amendment of the issues. The said application was also allowed vide order dated 29.09.2015. Additional issues were also framed vide the said order. Issue LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 9 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

No. 2 was renumbered as Issue No. 4. The issues in the present case after the amendment are as under:

"1. Whether the reference forwarded before this Court is within the period of limitation or not? OP Parties "2. What was the market value of the land acquired, on the date of preliminary notification dated 19.11.1981 under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 pertaining to Award No. 64/198283? Onus on parties.

"3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation?OPP "4. Relief.

14. On behalf of the petitioners, Sh. Chander Pal was examined as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. A1. He has relied upon the following documents:

1) Photocopy of reported judgment titled as Hari Chand Vs. UOI, 91 (2001) DLT 602 (DB) pertaining to Village Tughlakabad as Ex.PW1/1.

2) Photocopy of judgment in LAC No. 13/2000 titled as Giasi @ Ghasi Vs. UOI and Anr. pertaining to village Jasola as Ex.PW1/2.

3) Photocopy of the judgment in LAC No. 119/11 titled as Mawasi Vs. UOI & Anr. pertaining to village Kotla Mahigram as Ex.PW1/3.

4) Photocopy of judgment in Civil Appeal No. 749/2007 titled as Mangal Ram etc. Vs. UOI & LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 10 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Anr. pertaining to villae Kotla Mahigram as Ex.PW1/4.

5) Photocopy of judgment reported titled as Hari Chand Vs. UOI, 45 (1991) DLT 61 (DB) pertaining to village Ali as Ex.PW1/5.

15. The PW1 was duly cross examined on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners did not examine any other witness. Therefore, the PE was closed.

16. The respondent no.1 tendered in evidence award No. 64/198283 pertaining to village Ali which is Ex. R1.

17. The matter was taken up for final arguments by Ld. Predecessor. At this stage, it was noticed that DDA had appeared as respondent no. 2 in the present case. However, as reflected in order dated 18.05.2016, NTPC was added as respondent no. 2 by the petitioners. However, in the copy of Award and the possession proceedings (Kabja Karwayi dated 23.02.1982) name of Irrigation and Flood Control Department was mentioned. Therefore, summons were issued to the said department. One official had appeared on behalf of the department. The department was impleaded as a necessary party / respondent no. 2 vide order dated 04.06.2019. No LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 11 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Written Statement/reply has been filed by respondent no. 2. Thereafter matter was again taken up for final arguments.

18. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners would argue that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was not adequate. The petitioners have proved that they are entitled to receive enhanced compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector had failed to assess the actual potential value of the land in question. He did not consider all the relevant aspects while passing the award. It has been further argued that vide judgment dated 05.08.1991, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 279/1980 titled as "Hari Chand Vs. Union of India" 45 (1991) DLT 61 (DB) has awarded a compensation @ Rs. 21,000/ per bigha in respect of acquisition of land of Village Ali in which the notifications under Section 4, 6 & 17 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 27.07.1973. Hence, it is prayed that as per settled position of law, the base year of 1973 may be considered and by calculating the premium to be paid @ 15 % p.a. with cumulative effect from the date of earlier acquisition in the same village, the enhanced compensation may be directed to be paid to the petitioners. Ld. Counsel further submits that the present petition is not barred by limitation as the petition has been filed within time from the LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 12 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

date of knowledge of the award. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the petitioners may be awarded enhanced compensation. No arguments relating to the other prayers mentioned in the petition have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments :

1) Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 200.

2) Madhusudan Kabra & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 140.

3) Order / judgment dated 04.05.2021 passed in L.A. Appeal No. 612/2008 'Adil Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.' High Court of Delhi.

4) Order dated 30.07.2021 in R.P. No. 109/2021 in L.A. Appeal No. 749/2008 'Tripat Kaur Vs. Union of India & Anr.' High Court of Delhi

5) Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 222.

6) Parsattam Bhai Magan Bhai Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat thorugh Dy. Collector Madras & Ors. (2005) SCCR 801.

7) LAC No. 07/2013 titled as Harish Gulati Vs. Union of India & Ors.

8) LAC No. 22/2016 titled as Karamvir Yadav Vs. Union of India.

19. Ld. Counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, would argue that there are no merits in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the petitioners. The present petition is barred by limitation as it was not filed within time as provided under Section 18 of the Land Acquistion Act. Further, the Land LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 13 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Acquisition Collector had considered all the relevant facts at the time of passing of award. The petitioners are not entitled to any enhanced compensation. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed.

20. I have heard the arguments of the parties and perused the material on record. After going through the entire material on record and considering the submissions of the parties, the issuewise findings are as follows:

21. Issue No.1 : This issue is taken up first as it is related to the maintainability of the petition. The issue reads as under: "1. Whether the reference forwarded before this Court is within the period of limitation or not? OP Parties"

22. The respondent no.1 in its WS has taken an objection that the present petition is barred by limitation, on the basis of which the present issue has been framed. The Proviso to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act provide the period of limitation during which an application for reference to the Court can be made to the Collector. The Section reads as under :

"18. Reference to Court 1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 14 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made,

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, subsection (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire."(emphasis supplied)

23. Thus, the Section provides a period of 6 months for making an application of reference within 6 weeks from the date of the award if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award. In other cases, the application has to be filed within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2), or within 6 months from the date of the Collector's Award whichever period shall first expire.

24. In the present case, there is no evidence led by the respondent to show that any of the petitioner was present or represented when the Collector had made the award. The respondent also has not led any evidence to show that any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was issued by the Collector. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Parsattam Bhai Magan Bhai Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat thorugh Dy. Collector Madras & Ors. (2005) LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 15 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

SCCR 801 has held that the limitation under the latter part of Section 18 (2)(b) of the Act has to be completed having regard to the date on which the claimants got knowledge of the declaration of the award either actual or constructive. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

"6. Learned counsel for the appellant rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another :

AIR 1961 SC 1500 and submitted that since the appellants were not present when the award was made, and no notice was given to them under Section 12(2) of the Act, the application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act must be held to be within time if it is filed within six months of the date of knowledge of the declaration of the award. In our view, the submission is sound and must be accepted. This Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) was dealing with a case in which an award was declared under the Act on March 25, 1951. No notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was given to the claimants. It was only on January 12, 1953 that the claimants came to know about the declaration of the award whereafter they filed an application claiming a reference under Section 18 of the Act on February 24, 1953. The High Court of Allahabad held that the case fell under the latter part of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 18 and since the application made by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer for claiming a reference under Section 18 was made beyond six months from the date of the award in question, it was beyond time. This view of the High Court was overruled by this Court and in doing so the Court made the following pertinent observations: "Therefore, if the award made by the Collector is in law no more than an offer made on behalf of the Government to the owner of the property then the making of the award as properly understood must involve the communication of the offer to the LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 16 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

party concerned. That is the normal requirement under the contract law and its applicability to cases of award made under the Act cannot be reasonably excluded. Thus considered the date of the award cannot be determined solely by reference to the time when the award is signed by the Collector or delivered by him in his office: it must involve the consideration of the question as to when it was known to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If that be the true position then the literal and mechanical construction of the words "the date of the award" occurring in the relevant section would not be appropriate.

"(6) There is yet another point which leads to the same conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects the rights of the owner of the property and in that sense, like all decisions which affects persons, it is essentially fair and just that the said decision should be communicated to the said party. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. Thus considered the making of the award cannot consist merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of the Collector; it must involve the communication of the said award to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If the award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it it can be said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the award is commnunicated to the party and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced the award is said to be communicated to the said party even if the said party is not actually present on the date of its pronouncement.

Similarly if without notice of the date of its pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fairply and LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 17 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

natural justice the expression "the date of the award" used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of the Collector's award" used in the proviso to S.18 in literal or mechanical way".

"7. This Court, therefore, held that the limitation under the latter part of section 18(2)(b) of the Act has to be computed having regard to the date on which the claimants got knowledge of the declaration of the award either actual or constructive. This principle, however, will apply only to cases where the applicant was not present or represented when the award was made, or where no notice under Section 12(2) was served upon him. It will also apply to a case where the date for the pronouncement of the award is communicated to the parties and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced by the Court, even if, the parties are not actually present on the date of its pronouncement....."(emphasis supplied)

25. In the present case, as already discussed, there is nothing on record to show that any of the petitioner was present or represented at the time when the award was made by the Collector. Also, there is nothing on record to show that any notice under Section 12 of the Act had been issued by the Collector to any of the petitioner. The petitioner in the petition have stated that they came to know about the pronoucement of the award on 23.09.2009 when the petitioners received the compensation of land vide cheque no. 724324 and 724343. They immediately filed the reference petition. As per the LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 18 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

statement under Section 19 of the Act, the payment was released to the petitioners on 23.09.2009 and therefore, their period of limitation starts from the said date. In the WS, the respondent has not mentioned the date on which the application was received by the LAC. However, there is one noting on the petition which is 13.10.2009. In the affidavit of evidence of PW1, the date of filing of the petition is mentioned as 12.03.2010. Thus, the petition is shown to be filed within time. The petition is not barred by limitation. Hence, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

26. Issue No. 2 & 3. These issues are taken jointly as they are inter connected and they require common discussion. These issues read as under :

"2. What was the market value of the land acquired, on the date of preliminary notification dated 19.11.1981 under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 pertaining to Award No. 64/198283? Onus on parties.

"3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation? OPP"

27. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the land of the petitioners is situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Ali, Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector has LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 19 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

awarded a compensation @ Rs. 3,000/ per bigha for the acquired land of the petitioners. It is also an admitted fact that the acquisition of the land was done for the planned development of Delhi. Award made under Section 11 by the LAC was not acceptable to the petitioners who filed reference thereto under Section 18 of the LA Act containing the grounds of objection to award which was then forwarded to Court for adjudication.

28. Section 23 of the LA Act enumerates the factors to be considered in determining compensation. The Section reads as under:

"Section 23 (Matters to be considered on determining compensation. (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration first, the marketvalue of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, subsection (1); secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 20 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

to such change, and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.

"1A In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation. In computing the period referred to in this subsection, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.

"(2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

29. Section 24 of the LA Act, 1984 contains matters to be neglected in determining compensation. The Section reads as under:

"24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. But the Court shall not take into consideration first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired; thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit; fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put; fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 21 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

when acquired; sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put; seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub section (1); or eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy.

30. In the present matter, entire stress has been made upon assessment of market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act. The mandate of the entire exercise is that a person who was compulsorily deprived of his land for public purpose must be paid adequate compensation by the State in accordance with the law. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union of Territory Chandigarh 1985 AIR 1576, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 949 has held that where land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value.

31. Assessment of market value of the land is a prime factor qua determination of the compensation payble under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Market value is the LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 22 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

price of property which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to get from a willing purchaser as on the date of notification considering the position of the land on such date as well as its future potentiality. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Bholanath Sharma through LRs. v. UOI through LAC & Anr. in LA. APP. 109/2013, decided on 23.03.2016 has discussed as to who can be classified as a 'willing Seller' and a 'willing purchaser'. It has held as under:

"75. A "willing seller" is a person who is not acting under any acting under any pressure to sell his property (in distress sale), he knows the advantages of his property and sells the same after ascertaining the prevailing market prices at fair and reasonable value. Correspondently a willing purchaser is a person who has a choice in the matter of purchase of different properties and not of the choice, he voluntarily decides to buy a particular property by assessing its advantages and disadvantages and the prevailing market value thereof."

32. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bhule Ram vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 June, 2010: (2010) 117 DRJ 145 has discussed the law in this respect. The said judgment is also related to the land of the same village for the notification under Section 4 dated 31.10.1996. It has held as under:

"17....The law mandates that when the State compulsorily deprives a person of his land for public purpose, by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, he must be paid compensation in accordance with law, i.e., he must be paid the LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 23 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

true market value of the acquired land. It has been held in a catena of decisions, that the market value as postulated in Section 23(1) of the Act, is deemed to be the just and fair compensation for the acquired land and that the words "market value" would be the price of the land prevailing on the date of publication of the preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The acid test for determining the market value of the land is the price, which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. In determining the market value, the factors enumerated in Section 23 are to be taken into consideration, and those set out in Section 24 are to be excluded. For ascertaining such a market value, the Court can no doubt rely upon such sale transactions, which would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price, for which purpose, sale transaction relating to smaller parcel of land for the purpose of assessing the market value in respect of a large tract of land can also be taken into consideration after making appropriate deductions such as for development of land for providing space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a layout, lumpsum payments as well as the waiting period required for selling the sites that would be formed and other expenses involved therein, but before doing so, the evidentiary value of such a sale deed is required to be carefully scrutinized. As held in the case of Nookala Rajamallu (supra), in order to adopt the price reflected in the sale deed, the following conditions are required to be met:

"9. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made: "(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1);

"(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; "(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and "(iv) it should possess similar advantages LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 24 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

"10. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case (see Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T.Adinarayan Setty AIR 1959 SC 429)."

33. It is also settled position of law that the onus is upon the claimants to prove that the assessment made by LAC is inadequate and there must be positive variance to the market value of the acquired land. In Kanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI (1998) 8 SCC 136 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:

"6.....It is for the claimants to prove and demonstrate that the compensation offered by the Collection is not adequate and the same does not reflect the true market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. This, according to the Apex Court, could only be done by the claimants by adducing evidence to the effect that on the relevant date, the market value of the land was in question was such at which the vendor and the vendee were willing to sell or purchase the land. The question whether the compensation offered to the land owner reflects correct market value of the land on the date of notification or not, has to be determined on the basis of the evidence produced before the Court. This principle of law was reiterated by Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3838 of 2010, when the Court observed that the onus primarily is on the claimant, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for awarding of compensation which they rely upon.

34. It is also settled position of law that while assessing the market value of the acquired land, it is important to take into LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 25 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

consideration the geographical situation of the land, its location or any other existing use or any other advantages or special value which can be attached with the acquired land. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vyricherla Narayana Gajpatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer AIR 1939 PC 98 has laid down various principles in this regard. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ravinder Narayan & Anr. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 481 has held that it is an accepted principle as laid down in the case of Vyricherla Narayana Gajpatiraju (supra) that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which are willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with this land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded, neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what is worth. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 26 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guesswork involved while determining the potentiality.

35. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Hari Chand v. UOI :

LA Appeal No. 127/2004, decided on 29.05.2013 has laid down the principles for assessment of market value of acquired land. It has held as under:

"7. The following, in my view, are the broad methods to determine the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

"(a) If evidence of bonafide and genuine sale transaction in respect of the acquired land or adjoining similarly situated land in the same village, transacted nearabout the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act are not LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 27 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

available, the Court would be justified in looking for awards/ judgments in respect of the adjoining similarly situated land in the same village, which was notified near about the same time when the land in question was notified.

"(b) If neither such sale instances nor such awards/ judgments are available, the Court would be justified in relying upon the genuine and bonafide sale transactions in respect of the similarly situated land in adjoining villages provided such transactions took place on or about the time the land in question came to be notified. If such sale instances are not available, the Court would be justified in relying upon the awards/judgments in respect of the land which is similarly situated and was notified on or around the time the land in question was notified.

"(c) If there is time lag of more than 45 years between the transactions evidenced by the sale deeds produced before the Court and the date on which land in question was notified, the Court may not be justified in relying upon such transactions.

Similarly, if the land in an adjoining village, which was subject matter of an award or decision was notified more than four or five years before the land in question came to be notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, it would not be appropriate to rely upon such awards/judgments.

"(d) Even if the sale transactions were entered into on or around the time the land in question came to be notified, the person relying upon such sale transactions needs to further establish that the land subject matter of those transactions was similar in situation and potentiality etc to the land in question, at the time it came to be notified under Section 4 of the Act.

Similarly, where the reliance is placed upon the award of judgment, it has to be shown that the land subject matter of such an award/ judgment was similar in situation and potential to the land in respect of which the Court is called upon to determine the compensation.

"(e) In case reliance is placed upon the awards/judgments in respect of the land in adjoining or nearby village, it has to be shown that such an award or judgment was based upon the LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 28 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

evidence of sale instances in that village and was not based upon the award/ judgment given in respect of the land comprised in some other village. If, for example, while determining the compensation in respect of the land situated in Village 'A', reliance is placed upon the award/ judgment fixing compensation in respect of the land situated in village 'B', it has to be shown by the person relying upon such a judgment/ award that the said award/ judgment was based upon the sale instances of village 'B' entered into on or about the time the land in question in village 'A' was notified. If, however, the award/ judgment in respect of the land in village 'B' was based upon the award/ judgment in respect of the land situated in village 'C', it would not be appropriate to rely upon the award in respect of the land situated in village 'B' unless it is shown to the Court that the land in village 'C' was also adjacent to or adjoining village 'A' was similarly situated and had similar potential. Taking any other view would amount to using the sale instances of village 'C' for the purpose of determining compensation of the land situated in village 'A', though village 'C' may not be adjoining or adjacent to village 'A'. To take an example, if the Court is required to determine compensation in respect of the land situated in village 'A' and the award/ judgment relied upon before it is in respect of land situated in adjoining village 'B' but the award /judgment given in respect of land in village 'B' is based upon the award/judgment given in respect of the land situated in village 'C', which is say at a distance of 3 kms from village 'A', the compensation fixed in respect of the land situated in village 'C' is based upon the compensation fixed for the land in adjoining village 'D', which is at a distance of say 6 Kms. from village 'A'., accepting such an award/judgment for determining compensation in respect of the land situated in village 'A' would amount to treating the land in village 'A' at par with the land in village 'D' though village 'D' is situated at a distance of 6 Kms from village 'A'. It is this kind of comparison which the Supreme Court has disapproved in Kanwar Singh (supra). In that case, the contention of the appellant before the Court was that for their land in Rangpuri, they should be awarded the same compensation as awarded to the land owners of village LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 29 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Masoodpur and Mahipalpur. Rejecting the contention, the Apex Court, inter alia, held as under: "If we go by the compensation awarded to claimants of adjoining village it would not lead to the correct assessment of market value of the land acquired in the village Rangpuri. For example village 'A' adjoins village 'B', village B adjoins village 'C, village 'C adjoins village 'D', so on and so form and in that process the entire Delhi would be covered. Generally there would be different situation and potentiality of the land situated in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same."

36. Various methodologies of evaluation to ascertain the market value was laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Adinarayana Setty AIR 1959 SC 429, in the following words:

"It is not disputed that the function of the court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) and the methods of valuation may be opinion of experts (2) the price paid of within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase of lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of then lands acquired."

37. Similar view was taken in case of Triveni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 1417, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"The general principles for determining compensation have, been set out in sections 23 & 24 of the Act. The compensation LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 30 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

payable to the owner of the land is the market value which is determined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser, bat as this may not be possible to ascertain with any amount of precision, the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. The land acqui red has, therefore, to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration under section 4 of the Act but its potential value also must be taken into account. The saledeeds of the lands situated in the vicinity and the comparable benefits and advantages which they have, furnish a rough and ready method of computing the market value. This, however, is not the only method. The rent which an owner was actually receiving at the relevant point of time or the rent which the neighbouring lands of similar nature are fetching can be taken into account by capitalising the rent which according to the present prevailing rate of interest is 20 times the annual rent. But this also is not a conclusive method.This Court had in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty(1), indicated at page 412 the methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land on the date of the notificatioa under section 4(1) which are : (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase ,of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. These methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive as near as possible an estimate of the market value. In arriving to a reasonably correct market value, it may be necessary to take even two or all of those methods into account inasmuch as the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentially nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined."

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 31 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

38. In case titled as Jawajee Naganatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595, it is held as under:

"In determining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or the other three methods to determine market value of the lands appropriate on the facts of a given case to determine the market value. Generally the second method of valuation is accepted as the best."

39. In P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors. 1995 SCC (2) 305, Hon'ble Supreme Court reflected upon the building potentiality of the acquired land and made following observations:

"9. Building Potentiality of acquired land Market value of land acquired under the LA Act is the main component of the amount of compensation awardable for such land under section 23(1) of the LA Act. The market value of such land must relate to the last of the dates of publication of Notification or giving of public notice of substance of such Notification according to section 4(1) of the LA Act. Such market value of the acquired land cannot only be its value with reference to the actual use to which it was put on the relevant date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, but ought to be its value with reference to the better use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future. Possibility of the acquired land put to certain use on the date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, of becoming available for better use in the immediate or near future, is regarded as its potentiality. It is for this reason that the market value of the acquired land when has to be determined with reference to the date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, the same has to be done not merely with reference to the use to which it was put on such LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 32 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

date, but also on the possibility of it becoming available in the immediate or near future for better use, i.e., on its potentiality. When the acquired land has the potentiality of being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future it is such potentiality which is regarded as building potentiality of the acquired land. Therefore, if the acquired land has the building po tentiality, its value, like the value of any other potentiality of the land should necessarily be taken into account for determining the market value of such land. Therefore, when a land with building potentiality is acquired, the price which its willing seller could reasonably expect to obtain from its willing purchaser with reference to the date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, ought to necessarily include, that portion of the price of the land attributable to its building potentiality. Such price of the acquired land then becomes its market value envisaged under section 23(1) of the LA Act. If that be the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality, which acquired land could be regarded to have a building potentiality and how the market value of such acquired land with such building potentiality requires to be measured or determined are matters which remain for our consideration now.

"10. An acquired land could be regarded as that which has a building potentiality, if such land although was used on the relevant date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act for agricultural or horticultural or other like purposes or was on that date even barren or waste, had the possibility of being used immediately or in the near future as land for putting up residential, commercial, industrial or other buildings. However, the fact that the acquired land had been acquired for building purposes, cannot be sufficient circumstance to regard it as a land with building poten tiality, in that, under clause (4) of section 24 of the LA Act that any increase to the value of land likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired, is required to be excluded. Therefore, wherever, there is a possibility of the acquired land not used for building purposes on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, of being used for putting up buildings either LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 33 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

immediately or in the near future but not in the distant future, then such acquired land would be regarded as that which has a building potentiality. Even so, when can it be said that there is the possibility of the acquired land being used in the immediate or near future for putting up buildings, would be the real question. Such possibility of user of the acquired land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it should be a matter of inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on record to establish such possibility. Material so placed on record or made available must necessarily relate to the matters such as :

(i) the situation of the acquired land visavis, the city of the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(iii) possibility of obtaining water and elec tric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed resi dential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.

"11. The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentiary value for concluding that the acquired land LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 34 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be suf ficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. "12. Then, comes the question of determining the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality. Undoubt edly such market value of the acquired land with building potentiality comprises of the market value of the land having regard to the use to which it was put on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act plus the increase in that market value because of the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings, in the immediate or near future. If there is any other land with building potentiality similar to the acquired land which had been sold for a price obtained by a willing seller from a willing purchaser, such price could be taken to be the market value of the acquired land, in that, it would have comprised of the market value of the land as was being actually used plus increase in price attributable to its building potentiality. If the prices fetched by sale of similar land with building potentiality in the neighbourhood or vicinity of the acquired lands with building potentiality, as on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, are unavailable, it becomes necessary to find out whether any building plots laid out in a land similar to the acquired land had been sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer on or near about the relevant date under Section 4(1) when the acquired land had been proposed for acquisition and then to find out what would be the price which the acquired land would have fetched if had been sold by making it into building plots similar to those sold. In other words, an hypothetical lay out of building plots in the acquired land similar to that of the layout of building plots actually made in the other similar land, has to be prepared, and the price LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 35 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

fetched by sale of building plots in the layout actually made should form the basis for fixing the total price of the acquired land with building potentiality, to be got if plots similar to other plots had been made in the latter land and sold by taking into account plus factors and minus factors involved in the process.

"13.Prices fetched by sales of building plots which may become available could be of building plots in either a fully developed layout of building plots or in an un developed layout of building plots, situated in the vicinity of the acquired land with building potentiality. If the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality has to be fixed on. the basis of the evidence of the said prices, the first thing required to be done is to prepare a hypothetical layout of building plots of the acquired land itself Then, how much of land out of the acquired land becomes available to be made into plots similar to those in the developed layout of building plots or in the undeveloped layout of building plots has to be found out. If the building plots which so become available were to be sold at the prices at which the building plots in the developed layout of building plots or undeveloped layout of building plots could have been sold on the date envisaged in section 4(1) of the Act, what would be the total amount of such prices which could have been ob tained has to be seen. Then, what could have been the losses suffered or expenses incurred for getting such total amount has to be found out. The market value of the acquired land with building potentiality, can then be regarded as the total amount of the prices of sales of all the building plots envisaged in the hypothetical layout of building plots in the acquired land minus the losses which could have been suffered or expenses which could have been incurred in making the hypothetical layout of building plots in the acquired land on par with the developed layout of building plots or the undeveloped layout of building plots, as the case may be. If losses to be suffered or expenses to be incurred for making a layout of building plots in the acquired land with building potentiality for purposes of selling such building plots at the prices to be fetched by similar building plots in the developed LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 36 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

layout of building plots or in the undeveloped layout of building plots are to be found out, the losses which might have been suffered or expenses which might have been incurred by the owners of the lands of either of a developed layout of building plots or of an undeveloped layout of building plots, in making such lay outs, could prove to be the best evidence. The evidence of losses suffered or expenses incurred in having made a layout of building plots may relate to lands lost for laying roads, drains, sewerages, parks etc., costs incurred in the making of roads, drains, sewerages, providing water supply, electric supply, losses on investments and paying of conversion charges, development charges etc. in a developed layout or an undeveloped layout in which building plots had been laid and sold and which sales form the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. If evidence to be adduced in the said regard is of public authorities or local boards or private developers who will have formed such layouts of building plots in the lands in the neighbourhood of the acquired land and sold them, it could be of great value. No difficulty arises when all the materials needed to determine the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality on the basis of a hypothetical layout of building plots to be formed in respect of it is made available to the Court, so as to enable it to find out the possible market value of the acquired land with reference to the price to be fetched by sale of building plots to be made in such land. But, owners of the acquired land with building potentiality, rarely produce all the material or evidence needed for the Court to determine the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality on the basis of a hypothetical layout of building plots to be thought of by the Court in respect of such land, although they rely on the price fetched by sale of plots in a developed layout or an undeveloped layout for determining the market value of their lands with building potentiality in the vicinity of such layout. It is where, the Court may have to inevitably fix the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality on the basis of the prices got in the sale transactions relating to the building plots in a developed or an undeveloped layout, relied upon by the owners of the land, if such transactions are found to be LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 37 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

genuine. A simple method, therefore, is evolved by courts in determining the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the retail price to be fetched by sale of plots in a fully developed layout as on the date of publication of Notification under section 4(1) of the Act In Bombay Improvement Trust v. Marwanji Manekji Mistry reported in AIR 1926 Bombay 420, the said method is referred to by Macleod, C.J. as that where the wholesale price of the acquired land with building potentiality could be fixed at one third to onehalf of the retail price fetched by sale of building plots in a developed layout of building plots, depending upon the nature of development taken place in such layout. Thus, when it becomes inevitable for the Court to fix the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality on the basis of the price fetched by sale of a building plot in a developed layout of building plots in the vicinity, it must, in our view, fix the wholesale market value of the acquired land with building potentiality at onethird to onehalf of the retail price got by genuine sales of plots in a developed layout in the vicinity, by deducting two thirds to onehalf out of the retail prices of plots, as losses or expenses involved in having made the land where the plots are formed as developed, according to the degree of development. For instance, if the retail price of plot is Rs. 12/ per square yard, the wholesale price of the acquired land with building potentiality could be fixed at rupees varying between Rs.4/ and Rs.6/ depending upon the nature of development found in the layout of the plot sold in retail. Coming to fixation of the wholesale price of the acquired land with building potentiality on the basis of retail price of a building plot sold out of an undeveloped layout of building plots, such wholesale price ought to be fixed by deducting at least onethird of the retail price of the building plot in such layout, because such would be the least loss to be suffered in forming a layout of building plots in the acquired land with building potentiality, after leaving out land for roads, drains etc. by obtaining the needed permissions from public authorities for making such layout. Therefore, the wholesale price of the acquired land could be fixed at Rs.8/ per square yard if the price fetched or to be fetched by sale of building plot in an un developed layout LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 38 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

is Rs. 12/. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of plots in a well developed layout in the neighbourhood or whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighbourhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales of plots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched if sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence of price fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 1/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighbourhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate de mand, as such, for building plots even if formed in the acquired land.

"14. Hence, whether the acquired land has building potentiality or not, while has to be decided upon reference to the material to be placed on record or made available by the parties concerned, the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality, is also required to be deter mined with reference to the material to be placed on record or made available in that regard by the parties concerned and not solely on surmises, conjectures or pure guess"

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 39 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

40. In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 650, the Supreme Court made pertinent observation about comparable sales method of valuation and relevant factors there under in the following words :

"3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as Capitalisation of Net Income Method or Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down" inter alia are :

(1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sales must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sale must be similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired.

If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 40 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.

41. In respect to building potentiality, Supreme Court in case titled The Collector, Raigarh v. Dr. Harsingh Thakur and Another (1979) 1 SCC 236 made following observation :

"the question as to whether a particular land had potential value as a building site or not is primarily one of fact depending upon several factors such as its condition and situation, the user to which it is put or is reasonable capable of being put, its suitability for building purposes, its proximity to residential, commercial and industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institutions, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future extension, whether the nearby town is a developing or a prospering town with prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired or in the neighbourhood thereof."

42. In Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda (2010) 5 SCC 708 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India underlined that some guesswork is imperative in detention of market value, it is observed as under:

"90. ... The Court is entitled to apply some (amount) of reasonable guesswork to balance the equities and fix a just and fair market value in terms of the parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act."

43. In the light of the abovesaid position of law, Now, I shall examine the present case. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 41 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

would argue that this Court can take the recourse to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years. Ld. Counsel would argue that earlier also various pieces of land in Revenue Estate of Village Ali were acquired by the Government vide various notifications. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 279/1980 titled as "Hari Chand Vs. Union of India" 45 (1991) DLT 61 (DB) had fixed the value of the land in Village Ali @ Rs. 21,000/ per bigha for notification of the year 1973. It has been argued that the said valuation may be taken into account by the Court and it may be used to calculate the escalation during the period of 8 years as the award in question is of the year 1981. It has been also argued that the petitioners may be provided escalation @ 15% p.a. on cumulative basis for the said period. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Madhusudan Kabra & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 140, and Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 222.

44. I have considered the submission. It is settled position of law that to determine the market value of a piece of land recourse can be taken by the Court by providing appropriate LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 42 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years. I get strength from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.(2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 200 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while relying upon the Judgment ONGC Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (ONGC Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel), (2008) 14 SCC 745 has held as under:

"18. Further, to ascertain the escalation in prices since earlier notification, the Reference Court has relied upon the judgment of this Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel [ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, (2008) 14 SCC 745] , wherein this Court has considered the quantum of such escalation per annum and whether it should be assessed at cumulative or flat rate. This Court therein has observed as follows: (SCC pp. 75053, paras 1516 & 1819) "What should be the increase per annum?

"***

15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the reliedon sale transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 43 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

16. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions in future, say of the years 19941995 or 19951996 are taken as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions @ 10% to 15% per annum. How far is this safe? One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for a residential/commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development and improvement in the infrastructure/amenities/facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands will become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential [Ed.: Emphasis in original.] and possibility [Ed.: Emphasis in original.] of improvement on account of the proposed residential/commercial/industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the annual increase in market value was around 10% per annum before the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/proposed development.

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 44 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Therefore, if the percentage to be added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to be deducted [Ed.: Emphasis in original.] to arrive at a market value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard increase becomes unreliable [Ed.: Emphasis in original.] . Courts should, therefore, avoid determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may. "*** Whether the increase should be at a cumulative rate or a flat rate?

18. The increase in market value is calculated with reference to the market value during the immediate preceding year. When market value is sought to be ascertained with reference to a transaction which took place some years before the acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the year to year increase. As the percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous year's market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. The difference between the two methods is shown by the following illustration (with reference to a 10% increase over a basic price of Rs 10 per square metre):

Year By flat rate increase method By cumulative increase method 1987 10.00 10.00 (Base year) 1988 10 + 1= 11.00 10.00 + 1.00= 11.00 1989 11 + 1= 12.00 11.00 + 1.10= 12.10 1990 12 + 1= 13.00 12.10 + 1.21= 13.31 1991 13 + 1= 14.00 13.31 + 1.33= 14.64 1992 14 + 1= 15.00 14.64 + 1.46= 16.10 "19. We may also point out that application of a flat rate will lead to anomalous results. This may be demonstrated with further reference to the above illustration. In regard to the sale LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 45 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

transaction in 1987, where the price was Rs 10 per square metre, if the annual increase to be applied is a flat rate of 10%, the increase will be Rs 1 per annum during each of the five years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the price increase is to be determined with reference to sale transaction of the year 1989 when the price was Rs 12 per square metre, the flat rate increase will be Rs 1.20 per annum, for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the price increase is determined with reference to a sale transaction of the year 1990 when the price was Rs 13 per square metre, then the flat rate increase will be Rs 1.30 per annum for the years 1991 and 1992. It will thus be seen that even if the percentage of increase is constant, the application of a flat rate leads to different amounts being added depending upon the market value in the base year. On the other hand, the cumulative rate method will lead to consistency and more realistic results. Whether the base price is Rs 10 or Rs 12.10 or Rs 13.31, the increase will lead to the same result. The logical, practical and appropriate method is therefore to apply the increase cumulatively and not at a flat rate."(emphasis supplied)

45. Thus, it is settled position of law that recourse can be taken by the Court to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years if there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is held to be safe where the reliedon sale transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 46 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. It has also been settled that one of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Further, the increase in market value is calculated with reference to the market value during the immediate preceding year. When market value is sought to be ascertained with reference to a transaction which took place some years before the acquisition, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate.

46. The second question which requires consideration is what should be the annual escalation rate in the present case. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has claimed that 15% escalation may be computed to calculate the value of the land. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon some judgments wherein it is shown that an escalation @ 15% was awarded by the Courts.

47. In the present case, the petitioners have not brought any evidence to show that the price of the land in question or LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 47 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

the nearby lands in the same village or nearby village having same potentiality had or could have escalated at the said rate. Merely because in some other cases escalation was approved @ 15% p.a. in relation to some other areas of the country or Delhi, the petitioners cannot claim escalation at same rate. As already discussed, the burden is on the petitioners to prove by leading evidence to the effect that on the relevant date, the market value of the land in question was such at which the vendor and the vendee were willing to sell or purchase the land. The question whether the compensation offered to the land owner reflects correct market value of the land on the date of notification or not, has to be determined on the basis of the evidence produced before the Court. This principle of law was reiterated by Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3838 of 2010, wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that the onus primarily is on the claimant, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for awarding of compensation which they rely upon. In the present case, however, no such evidence has been produced by the petitioners before the Court.

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 48 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

48. The petitioners have only relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Hari Chand Vs. Union of India 45 (1991) DLT 61 (DB) to claim that in the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court has awarded compensation @ Rs.21,000/ per bigha for acquisition of the land in the same revenue estate of village Ali, for a notification under Section 4 in the year 1973. On the basis of the said judgment the petitioners have claimed compensation by increasing the value of land @ 15% p.a. by cumulative effect. However, no such evidence has been led by them to show that their land could get such a price on the date of notification under Section 4 in the present case.

49. I have studied the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners. They are distinguishable on facts. In judgment titled Hari Chand Vs. UOI, 91 (2001) DLT 602 DB, the acquired land was related to Village Tuqlakabad. In the present case, there is no evidence led by the petitioners to show that the land in question was situated similar to the land which was acquired by the said Award. In Giasi @ Ghasi Vs. UOI LAC No. 13/2000 decided by the Court of Sh. A.K. Pathak, Ld. ADJ Delhi on 21.04.2003, the acquired land was part of LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 49 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola. Again, there is nothing on record to show that the land of the petitioners was similarly situated as in the said case. In Mawasi Vs. UOI decided by this Court, in LAC No. 119/2011 vide Award dated 27.05.2015, the land in question was of Village Kotla Mahigram. I have also studied the judgment titled Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 200, Madhusudan Kabra & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 140, Order / judgment dated 04.05.2021 passed in L.A. Appeal No. 612/2008 'Adil Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.' High Court of Delhi, Order dated 30.07.2021 in R.P. No. 109/2021 in L.A. Appeal No. 749/2008 'Tripat Kaur Vs. Union of India & Anr.' High Court of Delhi, Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 222, Tripat Kaur Vs. UOI, order dated 30.07.2021 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appeal No. 749/2008. All these judgments are distinguishable on facts. It is not held in any of these judgments that in all the cases, a petitioner is entitled to escalation @ 15% p.a. cumulatively from the date of the last Award as argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners. Each case has to be decided on the basis material produced by the parties.

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 50 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

50. Be that as it may, it is shown through the judgement Hari Chand Vs. UOI, 45 (1991) DLT 61 (DB) that the land of village Ali acquired in the year 1973 was awarded compensation @ Rs.21,000/ per bigha. In the present case, the LAC has awarded compensation to the petitioners @ Rs.3,000/ per bigha for the notification issued in the year 1981, i.e., after 8 years of the previous notification. The respondents have not brought any evidence on record to show that the price of the land in village Ali had depreciated during the said period. There is also no evidence to show that the price had become stagnant during the said period in the said village. It is on record that earlier also on some occasions, land in village Ali was acquired in village Ali by the Government for planned development of Delhi. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the price of the land in the village including the land of the petitioners must have increased during this period. As there is no direct evidence led by the petitioners to prove such escalation since the year 1973, some guess work is required to be done by this Court in this regard.

51. In Hari Chand Vs. Union of India 45 (1991) DLT 61 (DB), Hon'ble High Court has considered the compensation awarded in RFA 383/1976 (Jagmal v. Union of India Etc.) LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 51 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

decided on 9.1.1985 in which the market value of the land in Village Ali was fixed at Rs. 17,000/ per bigha. The Hon'ble High Court has observed that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in that case was dated 12.6.1969. Honble High Court has held as under:

"In the present case, the notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on the same date ie on 27.7.1973 Since this Court has fixed the market value of the land in Village Ali at Rs. 17,000/ per bigha in respect of the notification issued In the year 1969, the appellants herein are entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 21,000/ per bigha taking into consideration the lapse of 4 years between the notification issued in RFA 383 of 1976 and the present appeal. The market value of the appellant's land is fixed at Rs. 21.000/ per bigha."

52. Thus, Hon'ble High Court had enhanced the compensation by an amount of Rs.4000/ per bigha for a period of 4 years in relation to the land of same revenue estate. If I calculate the said increase it comes to increase approximate @ 5.45% p.a. cumulatively. As already discussed, this is the only evidence led by the petitioners to claim the enhancement in the present case. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, and after going through the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that to decide the market value of the land acquired, on the date of preliminary notification dated 19.11.1981 under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 pertaining to LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 52 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Award No. 64/198283 this Court can take the value of Rs.21000/ per bigha as base value and the year 1973 as base year. After calculating the escalation @ 5.45% cumulatively, for a period of 8 years, on 19.11.1981, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the value of the land in question comes to Rs.32106/ per bigha. In the facts and circumstance os the present case, I hold that the value of the land in question at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 19.11.1981 was Rs. 32,106/ per bigha.

53. Further, in the present case, the petitioners have been mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of the Act sent to the Court alongwith the reference. The compensation is also shown to be awarded by the LAC to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation. Issues no. 1 and 2 are accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners.

54. Relief: In view of the findings given hereinabove, the petitioners are held entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.29106/ (Rs.32106 Rs.3000/) per bigha with respect to the land acquired as mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894 to the extent of their respective shares in the acquired land. The petitioners are also entitled to 30% LAC NO. 116/2016 CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 53 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

solatium under Section 23(2) of Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land. The petitioners are also entitled to additional amount under Section 231A of the Act @ 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on excess amount awarded by the Court from the date of possession of land for a period upto one year, and 15% per annum interest on such excess amount for subsequent period till amount is deposited in the Court under Section 28 of the Act. The petitioners are also held entitled for other benefits allowed in the Award by Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The compensation will be disbursed to petitioners as per their shares in the land as detailed in the statement under Section 19 of the Act, 1894. The petitioners are also entitled to the cost under Section 27(2) of the Act. The respondent No.2 is a beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings and therefore, both the respondents are held liable to pay the compensation, jointly and severally.

55. The reference petition stands answered as above. Memo of costs be drawn accordingly.

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 54 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022 Shri. Het Ram (deceased) through LRs & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

56. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (South East), for information and necessary compliance.

Pronounced in the open Court on this 20th Day of December 2022.

Digitally signed by DINESH

DINESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2022.12.20 16:03:28 +0530 (DINESH KUMAR) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02 SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.

LAC NO. 116/2016

CNR No. DLST010003042011 Page 55 of 55 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/ND/20.12.2022

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Shri. Het Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs & ... vs . Union Of India & Anr. on 20 December, 2022