Devinder Mehra vs Union Of India & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 449 Del

 *                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              C.M. (Main) No.105 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. Nos.1561-1562 of 2010

%                                                                             27.01.2010

         DEVINDER MEHRA                                          ......Petitioner
                                       Through: Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Advocate.

                                            Versus

         UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                     ......Respondents

                                                          Date of Order: 27th January, 2010

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                                 J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 17th December, 2009

whereby an application of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed by

the trial court.

2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that a

reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed before the trial

court at the behest of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation in respect of the

property of the petitioner acquired by the respondent at Cavalary Lane, Mall Road.

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made in December, 2000

and property was acquired soon thereafter. By way of amendment, the petitioner wanted

to amend the reference and bring on record the facts of purchase of a property by the

petitioner bearing No.B-459, New Friends Colony, New Delhi by way of a sale deed on

7th July, 2005 to show the market value of the property was much more than the

compensation as granted by the LAC in its award.

3. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the property

purchased by the petitioner was situated several miles away from acquired property and

the sale deed was of a period after five years of the acquisition of land. Thus, the

amendment was not relevant.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had right to amend

the suit and the trial court misunderstood the legal position.

5. I consider that this petition is an abuse of the process of the court. For

determining whether the compensation of acquired land as awarded to the petitioner was

in accordance with the market value or not, the reference court can take into account the

sale transactions only of the area adjoining to or nearby the area where land/property

acquired is situated and of the period when property was acquired. The area of New

Friends Colony is at least 30 kilometers away from Cavalary Lane. The New Friends

Colony falls in South Delhi on Mathura Road whereas the property acquired is in North

Delhi on Mall Road. The value of the land in Delhi differs from place to place, colony to

colony and area to area. A sale deed of New Friends Colony cannot be reflective of the

value of land at Mall Road. If the sale deed of the New Friends Colony can be reflective

of market value, then the sale deeds of the land in Uttam Nagar in West Delhi can also be

reflective. Thus, the respondent in such a case would have liberty to place on record sale

deeds of Uttam Nagar and every other colony which was far away from Mall Road and

land was quite cheap. That would in fact go against the petitioner.

6. The petitioner cannot have liberty to make amendments in the suit so as to bring

on record irrelevant documents. The sale transaction which petitioner wanted to

introduce by way of amendment was totally irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the

issue before reference court and the application was rightly disallowed by the trial court.

7. The petition has no force and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be

deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Aid Committee. The cost, if not paid, shall be

recovered by the trial court.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

JANUARY 27, 2010 'AA'