Delhi High Court
Chet Ram Sharma (Deceased) Through Lr ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 6 November, 2024
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 04 October, 2024
Decided on: 06 November, 2024
+ LA.APP. 78/2022 & CM APPL. 17739/2022
CHET RAM & OTHERS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Ruchira
V Arora and Mr.
Dhananjay, Advocates
V
UNION OF INDIA& ANOTHER .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Standing Counsel with Mr.
Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M. S.
Akhtar, Mr. Mayank
Aroraand Mr. Sami Sameer
Sidhique, Advocates for
Respondent no 1/UOI
Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate
for Respondent no 2/DDA
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed under section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to
challenge the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2022 passed in LAC
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 1
bearing no. 3/17 titled as Chet Ram & others V Union of India &
another (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment")
passed by the court of Ms. Shelly Arora, ADJ-01, South East District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the reference
court") whereby the reference court enhanced the compensation
amount awarded by the LAC i.e. at the rate of Rs. 2,244.166/- per sq.
meter (Rs. 2,684/- per sq. yards) to Rs. 7,392/- per sq. meter (Rs.
8,840.76/- per sq. yards) of the appellant‟s land bearing Khasra no.
621/2/3/2/2/1 measuring 02 Bighas 16 Biswas (2816 sq. yards)
situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Bahapur forming part of
Nehru Place District Centre, Delhi was assessed at a rate of Rs.
30,124.21 per sq. meter along with other benefits.
2. The factual background of the case is that LAC pronounced
Award bearing no 24/DC(S)2005-06 under section 11 of the Act in
pursuance of notifications bearing no F.9(32)/01/L&B/LA/14637
dated 28.11.2002 issued under sections 4 & 17 of the Act and bearing
no F.9(32)/01/L&B/LA/4941 dated 13.06.2003 issued under section
6 of the Act for acquisition of land falling in Khasra no 621/2/3/2/2/1
measuring 2 bighas and 16 biswas and Khasra no 621/2/3/2/2/2
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 2
measuring 6 bighas and 10 biswas total measuring 08 bighas and 6
biswas situated in Village Bahapur for Planned Development of
Delhi. LAC has determined market value of land at rate of Rs.
2,684/- per square yard along with statutory benefits. LAC as per
Award observed that market value of the land has to be determined
with reference to the price prevailing on date of preliminary
notification and the market value means the price that would be paid
by willing purchaser to a willing seller where both are actuated by
business principles prevalent at the time in the locality. LAC also
observed that interested persons/claimants have not filed any
documentary evidence in support of their claim and such their claims
were not justified. LAC determined/assessed market value of the
acquired land at rate of Rs. 2684/- per square yard on basis of
judgment dated 03.03.2005 passed by this court in WP (c) no
6967/2003 wherein it was observed that the claimants are entitled
prima facie to receive compensation at rate of Rs. 2684/- per square
yard. LAC further observed that acquired land was vacant and as
such did not grant any compensation for tree, walls and structures.
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 3
LAC also awarded other statutory benefits which are admissible as
per Act.
3. The appellants are co-bhumidars/owners of the land falling in
Khasra no 621/2/3/2/2/1 measuring 2 bighas and 16 bighas situated in
revenue Estate Village Bahapur, Delhi. The appellants have claimed
compensation at rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per square yard along statutory
benefits. The appellants being aggrieved preferred reference petition
under section 18 of the Act wherein the appellants stated that the
market value of the acquired land was not correctly assessed and
claimed and assessed market value of acquired land at Rs. 3,25,000/-
per square yard due to crucial location of the acquired land. The
appellants also claimed that they incurred cost of Rs. 25,00,000/- on
construction of 15 rooms on the acquired land and further claimed
Rs. 10,00,000/- as litigation expenses. The appellants also referred
judgment dated 20.08.2014 passed in LAC no 159/11 (South District)
wherein petition/reference under sections 30 and 31 of the Act was
decided/answered in favour of the appellants which was upheld by
this court vide order dated 14.07.2016. In said reference petition, an
application under Order XXII Rule 3 and 4 read with section 151
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 4
CPC was allowed vide order dated 26.03.2014 on basis of the
registered Will of the appellant no 1 and as such compensation falling
in share of the appellant no 1 Chet Ram Sharma wholly devolved
upon his son who is the appellant no 2. The appellants also relied on
Power of Attorneys issued by the appellants no 2 and 3 in favour of
the appellant no 2.
4. The respondent no 1/Union of India in written statement alleged
that the reference petition was barred by limitation. LAC has awarded
suitable and adequate compensation on well-reasoned assessment.
5. The appellants in rejoinder to the written statement of the
respondent no 1/Union of India stated that the appellant no 1
purchased 28 bighas of land comprised in Khasra no 621/2/3/2/2/1
vide sale deed dated 03.11.1955 which was registered on 24.11.1956
and thereafter said land was mutated in his name vide mutation no
2357 dated 18.12.1962. However, land measuring 25 bighas 4 biswas
was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi vide Award no 2059
dated 24.01.1968. The appellants filed Writ Petition bearing no
6091/2000 wherein vide order dated 11.07.2001 Coordinate Bench of
this Court issued direction that if the land is required by DDA the
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 5
steps should be initiated within a period of 8 weeks from the date of
the order and if it is decided that the land is not to be acquired then
the land use should be communicated to MCD to enable processing
of application of the appellants for sanction of plan. The Writ Petition
was disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2002 with direction to DDA
to communicate to MCD about use of land as existing on date within
a period of 2 weeks from the date of the order and MCD thereafter to
consider plans of the appellants within a period of 6 weeks. DDA in
compliance of said order wrote a letter dated 31.01.2003 informing
land use of land of the appellants as commercial and is forming part
of the Nehru Place District Centre. The appellants further stated that
the acquired land is part of revenue estate of village Bahapur which is
surrounded by well-developed residential and commercial colonies
like Nehru Place District Center, Kalkaji, East of Kailash, G.K. I and
II, Kailash Colony, Okhla Industrial Area, New Friends Colony,
Sarita Vihar, Jasola Vihar, Mathura Road and also important
establishments like Eros Five Star Hotel, Lady Shriram College,
World Trade Center, Ansal Plaza, Sirifort Auditorium, Sirifort Sports
Complex, Asiad Village and many other important places exist in the
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 6
vicinity of the acquired land which reflected great potentiality of the
acquired land. The appellants also stated that the land in the vicinity
of the acquired land was well-developed and the acquired land itself
was ideally located to be used for commercial purposes having been
surrounded by Nehru Plaza District Centre which is stated to
commercial and IT Hub. The appellants also stated that they would
have constructed multi storey building with a shopping mall or office
complex or an IT electronic centre after sanctioning of building plans
which would have earned huge profit. The appellants also
emphasized that all civic amenities such as water, electricity, sewage,
transport, roads, flyovers, schools, college, office complexes,
restaurants, cinema halls, hospitals, MTNL office, commercial
complex, porch markets were available adjacent to the acquired land
much prior to the date of notification with District Centre Nehru
Place and office of MTNL being adjacent to the land of the
appellants. The appellants also stated that the acquired land was
easily accessible from Ring Road, Outer Ring Road and National
Highway-2 connecting to Faridabad, Mathura, Agra, Lucknow and
beyond. The appellants reiterated that acquired land was situated in a
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 7
fully developed commercial centre and was fully capable of being
used for any commercial purpose and as such the appellants are
entitled to auction price similar to Nehru Place District Centre, Saket
City Centre and Vasant Kunj. The acquired land/property was far
more valuable than the auctioned plots on account of its superior
location, advantages, situation and potentiality in comparison with
the plots auctioned by DDA. The appellants placed reliance on
various documents and stated that the claim of the appellants for
award of compensation at rate of Rs. 3,25,000/- per square yard as on
date of notification under section 4 of the Act is based on cogent,
convincing, sound and admissible documentary evidence.
6. The respondent no 2/DDA in written statement stated that the
possession of acquired land was delivered by Land and Building
Department. Land Acquisition Collector/LAC to DDA on
28.10.2003. LAC duly assessed compensation in respect of acquired
land after consideration of all material documents and Award passed
by LAC does not warrant any interference. The reference petition is
liable to be dismissed. The appellants filed replication/rejoinder
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 8
wherein again reiterated that their claim is just and reasonable and is
based on cogent, convincing and admissible documents.
7. The reference court after completion of pleadings framed
following issues vide order dated 03.05.2017: -
i) What was the market value of the land acquired at the
time of notification u/S 4 & 6 of the Old Act of Land
Acquisition, 1894 in the present reference? OPP.
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation in
tune of market value @ 3,25,000/- per square yards
alongwith all other statutory benefits? OPP.
iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for interest on
solatium and additional amount in view of judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Sunder Vs. Union
of India dated 19.09.2001? OPP.
iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for Rs. 25 lacs as
expenses on account of super structure, raising 15 room,
boundary walls of the land in question prior to the date of
notification? OPP.
v) Whether the petitioners are entitled for Rs. 10,00,000/- as
litigation charges? OPP.
vi) Whether the present reference is barred by limitation?
OPR.
vii) Relief.
8. The appellants examined the appellant no 2 B. D. Sharma as PW1
who proved documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/19; D. V. Sharma,
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 9
ASO, DDA Master Plan, Vikas Sadan as PW2 who proved letter
dated 31.03.2003 issued by DDA to Chief Planner as Ex. PW1/5; S.
K. Kapoor, Assistant Director (Planning), Zone-F, DDA who proved
the Zonal Development Plan of Zone-F as PW3/1; Meenu Mehrol,
Assistant Director, HUPW, South Zone, Vikas Minar as PW4 who
proved layout plan of Nehru Place District Centre as Ex.
PW4/1;Mohd. Israr, ASO, Commercial Lands, INA, Vikas Sadan
who proved ten perpetual lease deeds and conveyance deeds executed
by DDA as Ex.PW5/1 (Colly) and L. Baxla, Ahlmed who brought
judicial record pertaining to LAC no 159/2011 titled as Union of
India V Chet Ram Sharma & others.
8.1 The respondent no 1/Union of India in evidence relied on Award
bearing no 24/DC/(S)/2005-2006 pertaining to Village Bahapur as
Ex. R1. The respondent no 2/DDA adopted the evidence led by the
respondent no 1/Union of India.
9. The reference court enhanced compensation from Rs. 2684/- per
square yard as awarded by LAC to Rs. 8840/-per square yard besides
grant of statutory benefits as per the Act. The reference court further
ordered that the respondents no 1 and 2 shall be liable to pay
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 10
compensation jointly and severally and further compensation shall be
disbursed to the appellants as per share as detailed in statement under
section 19 of the Act and have been held entitled for apportionment
of awarded compensation equally in terms of judgment dated
20.08.2014 passed in reference petition under section 30-31 of the
Act in LAC no 159/2011 which was confirmed in LA Appeal no
349/2014 by this court vide judgment dated 14.07.2016.
10. The reference court in impugned judgment on issue no (vi)
related to plea of limitation held that the reference petition was filed
within prescribed period of limitation as per section 18 of the Act and
reference petition cannot be said to be barred by limitation. The
reference court observed that onus was on the appellants to prove
market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under
section 4 of the Act and their entitlement to claim compensation at
rate of Rs. 3,25,000/- per square yard.
10.1 The reference court in considered contention of the appellants
that land use of the acquired land was commercial in nature as it
formed part of Nehru Place District Centre as on date of notification
under section 4 of the Act and the acquired land was few yards away
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 11
from iconic commercial and IT Hub of Nehru Place Towers and few
hundred meters away from Kalkaji Temple surrounded by posh and
developed colonies on all its side with various social, cultural,
educational, recreational, medical institutions of great importance in
its vicinity and easy accessibility. The reference court also noted that
village Bahapur was urbanised vide notification bearing no. F.9(2)66-
Law-Corp. dated 28.05.1966 issued under section 507(a) of Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act. The reference court also considered
communication dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 issued by DDA to the
Chief Town Planner and argument advanced on behalf of the
appellants on basis of said letter dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 that the
land use of the acquired land was commercial since it forms part of
Nehru Place District Centre and that any permission for construction
cannot be given to the party. The reference court also considered
argument advanced on behalf of the respondent no 1/Union of India
that the land use as stated to be commercial can be interpreted as only
on the date of communication of letter Ex. PW1/5 dated 31.01.2003
while in present case notification under section 4 of the Act was
issued on 28.11.2002 and said letter does not offer any clarification
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 12
that the land use of the acquired land was commercial even prior to
issuance of notification and as existing on 26.09.2002 i.e. the date of
order Ex. PW1/4 or even prior to it. The reference court observed that
respective written statement filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and
2 was silent about the land use and the appellants also did not plead
in reference petition that land use was commercial on date of
issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act as their Khasra no
was part of Nehru Place District Centre. The reference court further
observed that the appellants in reference petition claimed that the
acquired land was adjacent to Nehru Place District Centre and as
such acquired land had great potentiality for commercial and
industrial purposes. The reference court also observed that the
appellants filed letter dated 31.01.2003 Ex.PW1/5 and other
supporting documents only in replication/rejoinder despite being fact
that the appellants were conscious of the outcome of proceedings
arising out of Writ Petition bearing no 6091/2000 and as such letter
dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 and other documents as referred in
replication/rejoinder could not be respondent by the respondents and
it amount to amendment of basic reference petition which could not
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 13
be allowed. The reference court also considered argument advanced
on behalf of the appellants that the appellant no 2 as PW1 was not
cross examined as to land use as per letter dated 31.03.2003 Ex.
PW1/5 which was issued in terms of Master Plan and Zonal
Development Plan confirming land use of the acquired land was
commercial and falls specifically in Zonal Development Plan of Zone
F, Zonal Development Plan proved as Ex. PW3/1 and lay out plan
proved as Ex. PW4/1. The reference court further observed that the
appellants did not claim that the acquired land was put to commercial
use at time of notification under section 4 of the Act and after
referring Award Ex. R1 and cross examination of PW1 further
observed that there was no dispute that existing use of acquired land
was not commercial. The reference court also observed that DDA in
terms of order dated 26.09.2002 was not asked to communicate to
MCD, the land use of the acquired land as on 11.01.1994 when the
appellants submitted application for sanctioning of plan before the
competent authority and further communication Ex. PW1/5 was
addressed and issued after four months of notification under section 4
of the Act and it is not clear from letter dated 31.03.2003 Ex. PW1/5
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 14
that land use of the acquired land was commercial prior to the
notification under section 4 of the Act and it only gives inference that
acquired land was being acquired for the purpose of Planned
Development of Delhi. The reference court was in agreement that
the acquired land was part of expansion plan of Nehru Place District
Centre which was to be implemented in terms of Layout Plan
approved only in February, 2003.The reference court ultimately held
that the acquired land was only meant to be put to possible future
potential use in terms of Zonal Development Plan and Layout Plan
and it cannot be interpreted that the existing land use on date of
notification under section 4 of the Act was commercial. The
reference court also observed that it can be deduced that the acquired
land held capability of construction of buildings and also enjoyed
locational advantage with basic civic amenities already in place on
account of developed neighbourhood areas and easy accessibility as
well as connectivity.
10.2 The reference court in impugned judgment also considered
reliance placed on several exemplars by the appellant as detailed in
para no 19.30 of impugned judgment. The appellants before the
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 15
reference court had placed reliance on two judgments dated
30.11.2010 passed in LAC no 1/08 pertaining to Award bearing no
25/2005-2006 Ex. PW1/12 and related to Village Yusuf Sarai and
dated 02.08.2011 passed in LAC no 116/11 pertaining to Award
bearing no 25/2005-2006 and related to Village Yusuf Sarai Ex.
PW1/13. The appellants relied on these judgments not due to reason
of proximity of Village Yusuf Sarai with the acquired land of Village
Bahapur but to demonstrate that the acquired land of Village Yusuf
Sarai which falls in category E was awarded compensation at rate of
Rs. 1,25,000/- per square meter for an Award pronounced in the year
2005-2006 for a notification issued in year 2003 while acquired land
pertaining to village Bahapur falls in Category A and thus acquired
land subject matter of present appeal is entitled to receive
compensation at least 10 times considering the difference in circle
rate. However the reference court observed that categorisation of
localities from A to F was undertaken only in year 2007 i.e. much
prior to issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act in year
2002 and even categorisation does not determine market value of the
acquired land. The market value of land situated in village Yusuf
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 16
Sarai which was about 6-7 km away, was determined on its own
merit and accordingly the reference court did not accept these two
exemplars.
10.3 The reference court also rejected two sale exemplars which are
referred in judgment Ex. PW1/12 and were pertaining to commercial
property in Gulmohar Park and lease deed of commercial plot of
Yusuf Sarai District Centre. The reference court observed that
village Yusuf Sarai does not share its boundary with village Bahapur
and exemplar pertaining to Gulmohar Park cannot be compare with
acquired land situated in village Bahapur as it was residential in
nature and situated at a distance of 6 km. The reference court did not
accept categorisation of localities as a criterion for determination of
market value for assessment of compensation.
10.4 The appellants before the reference court also referred on Sale
Deed Ex. PW1/11 registered on 09.10.2002 pertaining to Shop
situated in M-Block measuring 195 sq. yards but the reference court
did not accept Sale Deed Ex. PW1/11 as good exemplar due to reason
it was situated at a distance of about 4 km and was situated in a well-
developed residential colony. The reference court in impugned
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 17
judgment also did not accept various auction advertisements Ex.
PW5/1 issued by DDA in leading newspapers to show high time
reserve price fixed by DDA in various residential complexes in South
Delhi due to reasons as mentioned in paras no 19.38 and 19.39 of the
impugned judgment. The appellants before the reference court also
referred circle rates as notified in year 2014. It is stated that Nehru
Place falls in category A wherein minimum rate for valuation of land
for residential use in respect of category A locality as per said
notification is Rs. 7,74,000/- per square meter and after applying
multiplier of 3 to arrive at the cost of commercial property, the
minimum rate would be Rs. 23,22,000/- per square meter which can
be used as an exemplar although notification is dated 22.09.2014 to
assess market value of the acquired land and the appellant calculated
value of the acquired land on 28.11.2002 at Rs. 3,30,285.38 per
square meter after taking depreciation at rate of 15% per year. The
reference court observed that Circle Rates were first notified in year
2007 as minimum rates for valuation of lands and immoveable
properties in Delhi for purpose of registration under the Registration
Act, 1908 and were not in place in year 2002. The acquired land was
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 18
acquired to be developed for further extension of Nehru Place for
Planned Development of Delhi and the rates applicable to Nehru
Place even in the year 2007 could not be basis for determination of
market value on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act.
10.5 The appellants before reference court also laid emphasis on
perpetual lease deed dated 23.01.1996 Ex. PW1/10 (the certified
copy) in respect of auctioned commercial plot no 70 measuring
1784.38 square meters for a consideration of Rs. 34,20,00,000/- as an
exemplar on ground that it is nearest property to the acquired land
and both are situated in Nehru Place District Centre with similar
advantages and further it was bona fide transaction of the respondent
no 2. It reflects value at Rs. 3,73,648.37/- per square yard after
cumulative increase at rate of 15% per annum. The reference court
observed that the Division Bench of this court in writ petition bearing
no 76-79/2004 filed by the appellants has already rejected said
perpetual lease deed. It was also observed that there is a difference of
5 years between execution of lease deed and issuance of notification
under section 4 of the Act and further the acquired land is situated on
the outer periphery of Nehru Place District Centre and is proposed to
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 19
be expanded in terms of lay out plan. The reference court observed
that the acquired land though having potentiality cannot be stated to
be a commercial developed plot within main central zone of the
Nehru Place District Centre. It was further observed that it purpose
appears to provide ancillary support to facilitate usage and augment
potentiality of earmarked established commercial zone of the
complex. It was further observed that it is located far nearer to the
residential colony of Kalkaji then the commercial plazas of Nehru
Place Complex. The reference court opined that the acquired land
cannot be equated with a commercial plot in a commercial zone
equipped with all facilities to reap its complete potential to yield
maximum profit even though both eventually formed part of same
proposed /to be extended Nehru Place District Centre. It was also
observed that lease premium charged by DDA cannot be equated to
the market value of the property. The reference court ultimately held
that perpetual lease deed of commercial plot of Nehru Place District
Centre cannot be comparable sale instance for assessment of market
value of the acquired land as on date of notification in year 2002.
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 20
10.6 The reference court observed in para no 19.60 that all sale
exemplars relied upon by the appellants as comparable sale instances
to determine market value of the acquired land held to be not
relevant. The appellants did not produce even a single sale exemplar
of same nature of land of same village with contemporary sale
transaction and even no sale exemplar of the neighbouring
village/revenue estate has been produced for consideration. It was
also observed that the acquired land is levelled land surrounded by
developed colonies and commercial Nehru Place District Centre. The
acquired land had access to basic civil amenities. The reference court
after considering all facts deducted 20% as cost of development in
arriving at the market value of the acquired land. The reference court
also observed that LAC did not make any independent assessment for
determination of market value but fixed rate as per judgment dated
03.03.2005 passed by this court in Writ Petition bearing no
6867/2003 at rate of Rs. 2684/- per square yard. It was also observed
that nature of the soil is rocky but levelled and the acquired land
possessed building potentiality and was capable for raising any
residential/commercial or industrial building in near future. It cannot
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 21
be said that the acquired land fell in a rural belt and was undeveloped
or untouched with no basic civic amenities available therein. The
reference court after taking judicial notice under section 56 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of applicable L&DO rates as well as rates
of land applicable for conversion of leasehold into freehold
determined value of land at Rs. 9254/- per square meter.
Accordingly, the reference court awarded compensation at rate of Rs.
8840.76 per square yard (Rs. 7392/- per square meter) after applying
deduction of 20% towards development cost alongwith statutory
benefits as mentioned in para no 23 of the impugned judgment.
11. The appellants being aggrieved filed the present appeal and
challenged the impugned judgment on grounds that the reference
court has grossly erred in assessing the market value of the acquired
land and had assessed market value which is too low, inadequate and
was not the actual market value on the date of notification under
section 4 of the Act dated 28.11.2002. The reference court has also
failed to appreciate the sale instances produced and proved by the
appellants which were the best piece of the evidence to arrive at a fair
market value of the land on 28.11.2002 i.e. date of notification under
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 22
section 4 of the Act. The reference court has committed a grave error
in discarding the letter of the DDA dated 31.01.2023 Ex. PW 1/5and
treating the acquired land of the appellants to be "not commercial"
while the acquired land was "commercial" in nature. The reference
court has also not appreciated the exemplar dated 23.01.1996 Ex.
PW1/10 in respect of the plot no. 70, Nehru Place District Centre
which was a land comparable with acquired land in all respect. The
acquired property and the plot no. 70, Nehru Place District Centre,
had commercial usage with similar situational advantages and the
distance between both the properties is less than 200 meters. The
appellants were also entitled to the cumulative increase at the rate
15% from the sale of the same exemplar property dated 23.01.1996
till the notification under section 4 of the Act, dated 28.11.2002. The
plot no. 70 was sold on 23.01.1996 at the rate of Rs. 1,91,663.21 per
square meter and accordingly, the appellants were also entitled to
annual increase @ 15% at compounding rate and must have been
granted compensation @ Rs. 3,73,648.37 per square yards as on the
date of Section 4 notification. The reference court has also failed to
appreciate that the land situated in Yusuf Sarai which was acquired
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 23
vide notification dated 29.04.2003 had fetched compensation at the
rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per square meter. The land in Yusuf Sarai falls
in category „E‟ locality and the acquired land falls under category „A‟
and would have easily fetched a higher compensation than the Yusuf
Sarai land. The reference court has committed an error in rejecting
the sale deed pertaining the Gulmohar Park property and lease deed
of the Yusuf Sarai District Centre. The reference court has erred in
rejecting the sale deed dated 09.10.2002 Ex. PW-1/11 related to a
property measuring 195 square yards situated in M Block, G.K-II.
The sale instances/exemplar of the commercial complexes/district
centers situated at Saket, Vasant Kunj and Nehru Place and the said
exemplars demonstrated that the commercial properties in Saket and
Vasant Kunj which are situated in category 'C' localities can fetch
that kind of price then acquired property of the appellants would
fetch much more price. The reference court rejected said exemplars
on an erroneous and unsustainable ground that these are developed
and ready for possession commercial plots in fully planned layouts
whereas the acquired land was not a commercial plot in a planned
commercial premier complex.
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 24
11.1 The reference court has erred in observing that the Circle Rates
in Delhi have not been determined by any statutorily appointed
Expert Committee upon adoption of a scientific basis. The Circle
Rates were issued by the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi in
exercise of powers conferred by Section 27 and Section 47 A of the
Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and are statutory in character and cannot be
disregarded. The appellants had not relied upon the Circle Rates of
the year 2007 and the reference court has considered the said Circle
Rates only in respect of the residential land rates whereas the land of
the appellants was commercial which requires a multiplier of three
and the exercise carried out by the Reference court with respect to the
2007 Circle Rates for residential lands was unwarranted. The highest
of the exemplar which is a bona fide transaction is to be followed
which in the present case was the perpetual lease deed dated
23.01.1996 i.e., Ex. PW- 1/10 and the conveyance deeds Ex.
PW1/5(Colly).
11.2 That the reference court has committed a grave error in
observing that the appellants made no effort to adduce independent
expert evidence about the state of buildings, college, hospitals,
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 25
colonies as existing on the date of notification. The reference court
has ignored the cross examination of the PW1 and PW1 in affidavit
made all the detailed statements with regard to the existence of all the
facilities, amenities, location and situation of the acquired land. The
reference court has failed to apply its own independent mind to the
facts and evidence on record. The reference court has erred in
observing that the appellants did not produce even a single sale
exemplar of same nature of land of same/neighbouring village along
with contemporary sale transaction, however, the appellants had
produced bona fide sale transactions not only of village Bahapur
where Nehru Place District Centre and Greater Kailash are situated
but also of adjoining localities/colonies such as Gulmohar Park,
Yusuf Sarai and Saket etc. which had been discarded by the
reference court on an untenable ground that the said exemplars are of
fully developed commercial centers and not compared to the land of
the appellants.
11.3 The Reference court admitted that the acquired land had
potentiality for residential, commercial or industrial use but erred in
holding that the acquired land yet to be developed.The reference
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 26
court has awarded inadequate compensation. The appellants also
challenged impugned judgment on various other ground.
12. Sh. Rajesh Yadav, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants
advanced oral arguments and written arguments were also submitted
by the appellants. It is argued that this court vide order dated
26.09.2002 Ex.PW1/4 passed in W.P (C) 6091/2000 directed DDA to
communicate to MCD the land use of the appellants‟ land as existing
on date and thereafter DDA vide letter dated 31.01.2003 informed the
position of the appellants land as "Commercial" as it forms part of
"Nehru Place District Centre" but the reference court has ignored
letter dated 31.01.2003 which ultimately led to the rejection of the
claim of the appellants for compensation @ Rs.3,25,000/- per square
yard. He further argued that said letter Ex.PW1/5 was deemed to be
admitted by the respondents as neither PW-1 nor PW-2 were cross-
examined on letter Ex. PW1/5. Sh. Yadav further argued that the
reference court created various grounds which were not raised by the
respondents and led to deprivation of fair compensation to the
appellants.
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 27
12.1 Sh. Yadav also argued that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a
beneficial legislation and strict rules of pleadings are not applicable.
The reference court as such erred in holding that the appellants did
not plead land use in the reference petition and only referred the letter
dated 31.01.2003 Ex.PW1/5 in the rejoinder/replication. He further
stated that Fair Compensation in case of a land acquisition cannot be
denied on technical grounds and it is the duty of the court to award
just and fair compensation irrespective of the claim made by the
landowner. Sh. Yadav referred testimony of PW3 who proved the
Zonal Development Plan of Zone-F Ex. PW3/1 which reflected the
land use of the acquired land as "Commercial" and was forming part
of Village Bahapur which was urbanized vide notification dated
03.06.1996 under section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation
Act, 1957.
12.2 Sh. Yadav during argument referred exemplar Ex. PW1/10 i.e.
the perpetual lease deed dated 23.01.1996 and argued that it was most
comparable exemplar being in respect to plot 70, Nehru Place District
Centre but was disregarded by the reference court. He argued that the
said exemplar pertaining to plot 70 and the acquired land were
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 28
similar to the extent of their commercial usage with similar
situational advantages and area and both the properties were situated
at a distance of less than 200 meters. The reference court also
discarded other sale instances/exemplars which were proved by the
appellants. Sh. Yadav cited Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered),
Faridkot and others V State of Punjab and others, (2010) 12
SCC51 to argue that the reference court should have accepted
exemplar Ex. PW1/10 dated 23.01.1996 being highest exemplar
pertaining to the property bearing no 70, Nehru Place District Centre.
The appellants are also entitled to the cumulative increase i.e.
compounding at the rate of 15% from the sale of said exemplar
property dated 23.01.1996 till notification under section 4 of the Act
dated 28.11.2002. The plot no. 70 was sold on 23.01.1996 at the rate
of Rs. 1,91,663.21 per square meter and accordingly, the appellants
are entitled to Rs. 3,73,648.37/- per square yards as the compensation
for the acquired land. Sh. Yadav stated that the acquired land was
fully developed being part of the Nehru Place District Centre and as
such no deduction can be done towards development cost.
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 29
12.3 Sh. Yadav attacked impugned judgment by arguing that the
reference court was erred in holding that the existing land use of the
acquired land was not commercial as the appellants were not using
the land for commercial purpose. He argued that the market value of
the land has to be determined on potentiality for urban development
and not by actual use and as such the reference court has erred in
holding the land use was not commercial because it was not used for
commercial purposes. Sh. Yadav also argued that the reference court
did not appreciate that the land situated in Yusuf Sarai which falls
under category „E‟ could fetch a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- per
square meter then acquired land which falls in category „A‟ deserves
higher compensation due to superior location.
12.4 Sh. Yadav stated that the reference court considered L&DO
rates of Rs. 9240/- per square meter and after deducing 20% towards
development cost arrived to figure of Rs. 7392 per square meter i.e.
Rs. 8840.75/- per square yard on date of notification under section 4
of the Act and argued that while calculating compensation, the
reference court exceed its jurisdiction and after referring Krishan
Kumar V Union of India & others, (2015) 15 SCC 220 argued that
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 30
the government orders which are made basis for fixing the market
value of the land could not have been relied upon for such purpose as
they are not the true indicia of the market price.
12.5 Sh. Yadav also argued that the reference court has failed to
appreciate the exemplar properties situated in Saket which was less
than 5 km and after referring Thakarsibhai Devji bhai and others
V Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another, (2001) 9SCC584
argued that it is settled law that the exemplars of distance of even five
kilometers can be considered for determination of market value. Sh.
Yadav also argued that sale instances of few years after issuance of
notification under section 4 of the Act can be considered while
assessing market value.
12.6 Sh. Rajesh Yadav during arguments cited Bachhaj Nahar V
Nilima Mandal and Anr.,(2008) 17 SCC 491; Ashok Kumar V
State of Haryana & Ors.,(2016) 4 SCC 544; Narendra & Others
V State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,(2017) 9 SCC 426; Brahampal
Alias Sammy & Another V National Insurance Company, (2021)
6 SCC 512; Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and
Ors. V State of Punjab and Ors.,(2012) 5 SCC 432; Udho Dass V
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 31
State of Haryana & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 51; Viluben Jhalejar
Contractor (Dead) By Lrs. V State of Gujrat,(2005) 4 SCC 789 ;
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by LRs &
Ors. V Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., (2012) 7 SCC
595; and various other judgments.
13. Sh. Rajesh Yadav, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants
also submitted additional written submissions wherein stated that the
land use of the acquired land was commercial on the date of
notification under section 4 of the Act as per letter/communication
dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 as it forms part of the Nehru Place
District Centre. The appellants mainly placed reliance on the
exemplar i.e. the perpetual lease dated 23.01.1996Ex.PW 1/10 in
respect of Plot no. 70, District Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi which
was converted to freehold vide conveyance deed dated 14.10.2005
Ex. PW5/1 and is situated in the same colony where the acquired land
is situated in close proximity. It was also stated that when there are
multiple exemplars with respect to similar lands, it is a general rule
that the highest of the exemplars has to be considered as per law laid
down in Anjana Molu Dessai V State of Goa & Another, (2010)
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 32
13 SCC 710 and Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot &
Others V State of Punjab & Others, (2012) 5 SCC 432.The
appellants also relied on two judgments passed by the reference court
in respect of land situated in Yusuf Sarai whereby compensation was
granted at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per sq. meter. It was also stated
that the court can indulge in some guesswork to balance equity for
fixing just and fair market value and reference was made to Krishan
Kumar V Union of India & another, (2015) 15 SCC 220. The
decision in Malook Nagar &Ors. V Union of India, 2005(4)
(Delhi) 629 as cited by the counsel for the respondent no 1/Union of
India is not applicable in the present case being was not conclusive
and binding in nature. The appellants in additional written
submissions also countered arguments advanced on behalf of the
respondent no 1/Union of India and the respondent no 2/DDA.
14. Sh. Sanjay Pathak advanced oral arguments wherein defended
Award passed by LAC and impugned judgment passed by the
reference court. Sh. Pathak during argument primarily referred
Malook Nagar & others V Union of India, 2005 (4) AD (DELHI)
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 33
629 wherein the perpetual lease deed 23.01.1996 Ex. PW1/10 was
accepted by another coordinate bench of this court.
15. Ms. Kritika Gupta, the counsel for the respondent no.2/DDA
advanced oral arguments and also filed written submissions. It is
argued that the appellants set up a new case in the rejoinder before
the reference court as relevant facts should be raised in the pleading
made at the first instance. The appellants did not mention in reference
petition that acquired was commercial in nature. It was also argued
that the appellants admitted that the land was never put to
commercial use and they did not earn any gain from acquired land
but these facts were only mentioned in the replication/rejoinder. It
was also argued that the appellants malafide chose to withhold the
letter dated 31.01.2003 at the time of filing of the reference petition
and referred only in the replication/rejoinder. Ms. Gupta supported
finding of the reference court in impugned judgment that adding new
factual premise in Rejoinder/Replication would rather amount to
amendment of basic reference petition which obviously cannot be
allowed. It was also argued that the appellants have failed to prove
that the land use was commercial on the date of issuance of
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 34
notification under section 4 of the Act. The appellants had preferred a
writ petition bearing no. 6091/2000 seeking directions from MCD
and DDA/ he respondent no.2 to communicate the land use of the
appellants and vide order dated 26.09.2002 directions were given to
DDA/ the respondent no.2 to communicate the land use of the
acquired land to the MCD and thereafter DDA/the respondent no.2
issued the letter dated 31.01.2003 to MCD. It is argued that the
appellants on basis of this letter are falsely alleging that the land use
of the land in question is commercial as on the date of issuance of
notification under section 4, of the Act i.e. 26.09.2002 and further
argued that letter dated 31.01.2003 specify that the land use of the
acquired land was "commercial" son the date of the issuance of
letteri.e.31.01.2003 and not any date prior thereto. The letter dated
31.01.2003 was issued later than the date of issuance of notification
under Section 4, of the Act i.e. 28.11.2002. It reflects that land use at
the time of or even prior to the issuance of notification under section
4 of the Act on 28.11.2002 was unclear and was not commercial as
falsely claimed by the appellants. The appellants could not prove that
the land use was commercial in nature as on the date of issuance of
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 35
notification under section 4 of the Act or any date prior thereto or
being utilized as such. It was also argued that that the testimony of
PW1 suffers from various material contradictions. The appellant
reliance on Ex. PW-1/10 in respect of the Plot no. 70, Nehru Place
District Centre was misplaced. It was argued that the present appeal
be dismissed.
16. Section 23 of the Act provides statutory provisions regarding
determination of compensation for acquisition for land acquired for
public purpose and section 24 of the Act also laid down the factors
which are not to be considered for the purpose of determining the
compensation. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act read as under:-
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 market-value of the land at the date of the
publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section
(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
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 36
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 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
sub-section, 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.
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 37
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 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.]
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 38
16.1 The Supreme Court in Narendra & others V State of Uttar
Pradesh & others, (2017) 9 SCC426 after following Ashok Kumar
V State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544 observed that it is duty of
the court to award just and fair compensation taking into
consideration true market value and other relevant factors,
irrespective of claim made by the landowner and there is no cap on
the maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the court
and the courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount that has
been claimed by the landowners/applicants in their application before
it.
16.2 The Supreme Court also in Kapil Mehra& others V Union of
India & another, (2015) 2 SCC 262 observed as under:-
10. Market Value: First question that emerges is what
would be the reasonable market value which the acquired
lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the market value
of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer is
required to keep in mind the following factors:-
(i) existing geographical situation of the land;
(ii) existing use of the land;
(iii) already available advantages, like proximity to
National or State Highway or road and/or developed area
and
(iv) market value of other land situated in the same
locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the
acquired land.
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 39
11. The standard method of determination of the market
value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the
land on the date of valuation publication of notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical
purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at
the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell
such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is
determined with reference to the open market sale of
comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller
to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary
notification, as that would give a fair indication of
the market value.
17. It is reflecting from record that LAC pronounced Award bearing
no 24/DC(S)2005-06 dated 06.06.2005 in pursuance of notifications
dated 28.11.2002 issued under sections 4 & 17 of the Act and dated
13.06.2003 issued under section 6 of the Act for acquisition of land
total measuring 08 bighas and 6 biswas situated in village Bahapur
for Planned Development of Delhi which also included land falling in
Khasra no 621/2/3/2/2/1 measuring 2 bighas owned by the appellants.
LAC has determined market value of land at rate of Rs. 2,684/- per
square yard along with statutory benefits. LAC on basis of judgment
dated 03.03.2005 passed by this court in WP (C) no 6967/2003 titled
as Malook Nagar & others V Union of India. The appellants have
claimed compensation at rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per square yard along
statutory benefits. The appellants not satisfied with compensation
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 40
awarded by LAC preferred reference petition under section 18 of the
Act. The reference court after taking judicial notice of applicable
L&DO rates as well as rates of land applicable for conversion of
leasehold into freehold determined value of land at Rs. 9254/- per
square meter and after applying deduction of 20% towards
development cost awarded compensation at rate of Rs. 8840.76 per
square yard (Rs. 7392/- per square meter) along with statutory
benefits.
18. The appellants filed Writ Petition bearing no 6091/2000 and vide
orders dated 11.07.2001 and 26.09.2002 directions were issued that if
the land is required by DDA then steps should be initiated within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of the order and if it is decided that
the land is not to be acquired then the land use should be
communicated to MCD to enable processing of application of the
appellants for sanction of plan. DDA issued a letter dated 31.01.2003
Ex.PW1/5 informing land use of land of the appellants as commercial
and is forming part of the Nehru Place District Centre.
19. The appellants to justify claim of compensation at rate of Rs.
3,25,000/- per square yard heavily relied on letter dated 31.01.2003
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 41
Ex. PW1/5 which was considered by the reference court. The
appellants on basis of letter dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 emphasized
that the land use of the acquired land was commercial since it forms
part of Nehru Place District Centre. To the contrary, it was argued on
behalf of the respondents that the land use as stated to be commercial
in letter/communication dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 can be
interpreted as only on the date of communication of letter Ex. PW1/5
dated 31.01.2003 and there was no clarification that the land use of
the acquired land was commercial prior to issuance of notification
under section 4 of the Act. It is correct that the appellants did not
plead in reference petition that land use was commercial on date of
issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act and was part of
Nehru Place District Centre. The appellants in reference petition only
claimed that the acquired land was situated adjacent to Nehru Place
District Centre and was having great potentiality for commercial and
industrial purposes. The appellants have filed letter/communication
dated 31.01.2003 Ex.PW1/5 along with replication/rejoinder. The
reference court observed that the appellants despite being conscious
of letter dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 did not file it along with
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 42
reference petition which amount to amendment of basic reference
petition. The respective counsels for the respondents also argued that
the appellants filed letter dated 31.01.2003 along with
replication/rejoinder which amount to amendment of reference
petition and is against basic rules of pleadings. The
replication/rejoinder is also considered as part of pleadings and if the
appellants filed letter/communication dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5
only along with replication/rejoinder, it does not reduce value of
letter Ex.PW1/5 in context of present petition. The reference court
was not justified in observing that filing of letter dated 31.01.2003
Ex. PW1/5 was amounting to amendment of reference petition. The
argument advanced on behalf of the respondents as referred
hereinabove is also without any legal force.
20. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that letter
dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 confirmed land use as commercial and
forming part of Nehru Place District Centre and said argument was
opposed by the counsels for the respondents. The reference court in
impugned judgment observed that the appellants did not claim that
the acquired land was put to commercial use at time of notification
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 43
under section 4 of the Act and there was no dispute that existing use
of acquired land was not commercial. The reference court also
observed that DDA in terms of order dated 26.09.2002 was not asked
to communicate to MCD about land use of the acquired land as on
11.01.1994 when the appellants submitted application for sanctioning
of plan before the concerned authority and communication Ex.
PW1/5 was issued after four months of notification under section 4 of
the Act. The reference court also observed in letter dated 31.03.2003
Ex. PW1/5 does not reflect with clarity that land use of the acquired
land was commercial prior to the notification under section 4 of the
Act and was of opinion that the acquired land was part of expansion
plan of Nehru Place District Centre which was to be implemented in
terms of Layout Plan approved only in February, 2003. The reference
court held that the acquired land was only meant to be put to possible
future potential use in terms of Zonal Development Plan and Layout
Plan and it cannot be interpreted that the existing land use on date of
notification under section 4 of the Act was commercial. The
reference court as such misconstrued and misread the letter dated
31.03.2003 Ex. PW1/5 as it was issued by a public authority i.e.
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 44
DDA in exercise of its administrative function and its correctness
cannot be disputed. The letter dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5 does not
reflect that land use of the acquired land was not commercial prior to
issuance of said letter or even prior to issuance of notification under
section 4 of the Act and was not part of Nehru Place District Centre.
It is matter of common knowledge that DDA issued letter Ex. PW1/5
to MCD to inform land use of acquired land on basis of existing use
of acquired land as commercial and further correctness of letter
Ex.PW1/5 is not disputed by either of the respondents. The reference
court also note that that it can be deduced that the acquired land held
capability of construction of buildings and also enjoyed locational
advantage with basic civic amenities already in place on account of
developed neighbourhood areas and easy accessibility as well as
connectivity. It is appearing that the land use of acquired land was
commercial and was part of Nehru Place District Centre and there is
no reason to disbelieve letter Ex. PW1/5. There is force in argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that in terms of
letter dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW1/5, the land use of acquired land was
commercial and contrary argument advanced by respective counsels
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 45
for the respondents are over-stretched and misplaced. There is no
reason to discard letter dated 31.01.3003 Ex. PW1/5 which was
outcome of various judicial orders passed in writ petition bearing no
6091/2000.
21. The appellants placed reliance on several exemplars as detailed in
para no 19.30 of impugned judgment. The appellants relied on two
judgments dated 30.11.2010 Ex. PW1/12 passed in LAC no 1/08
pertaining to Award bearing no 25/2005-2006 and related to Village
Yusuf Sarai and dated 02.08.2011 Ex. PW1/13 passed in LAC no
116/11 pertaining to Award bearing no 25/2005-2006 and related to
Village Yusuf Sarai. The appellants admitted that village Yusuf Sarai
is not situated in proximity of Village Yusuf Sarai with the acquired
land situated in village Bahapur but these judgments are referred to
demonstrate that the acquired land of Village Yusuf Sarai which falls
in category E was awarded compensation at rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per
square meter while acquired land pertaining to village Bahapur falls
in Category A and as such acquired land subject matter of present
appeal is entitled to receive much higher compensation considering
the difference in circle rate. The reference court did not accept these
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 46
two judgments to determine market value of acquired land subject
matter of present appeal by observing that categorisation of localities
does not determine market value of the land and market value of land
situated in village Yusuf Sarai was determined on its own merit. It is
correct that land situated in village Yusuf Sarai was at a distance of
about 6/7 km away from the acquired land and categorisation of
locality may not be a relevant criterion to determine market value of
but the reference court should realized that these exemplars can
indicate that the land falling in category A may fetch higher value in
comparison to land situated in category E.
22. The reference court also did not accept other exemplars which are
Sale Deed Ex. PW1/11 registered on 09.10.2002 pertaining to shop
situated in M-Block measuring 195 sq. yards and various auction
advertisements Ex. PW5/1 issued by DDA in leading newspapers to
show high time reserve price fixed by DDA in various residential
complexes in South Delhi due to reasons as mentioned in relevant
part of the impugned judgment. The reference court was justified in
not accepting these exemplars to determine market value of the
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 47
acquired land. The reference court also did not rightly accept Circle
Rates as notified in year 2014 referred on behalf of the appellants.
23. The appellants during argument before reference court laid much
emphasis on another exemplar perpetual lease deed dated 23.01.1996
Ex. PW1/10 (the certified copy) in respect of auctioned commercial
plot no 70 measuring 1784.38 square meters for a consideration of
Rs. 34,20,00,000/-. It was argued that plot no 70 is nearest property
to the acquired land and both are situated in Nehru Place District
Centre with similar advantages. However, the reference court after
referring decision in Malook Nagar & others V Union of India
observed that the Division Bench of this court in writ petitions
bearing no 6967/2003 and 76-79/2004 filed by the appellants has
already rejected said perpetual lease deed and also observed that
there is a difference of 5 years between execution of said lease deed
and issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. The reference
court also observed that the acquired land is situated on the outer
periphery of Nehru Place District Centre and is proposed to be
expanded in terms of lay out plan. The reference court after giving
various reasons held that perpetual lease deed of commercial plot of
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 48
Nehru Place District Centre cannot be comparable sale instance for
assessment of market value of the acquired land as on date of
notification in year 2002. Sh. Sanjay Pathak, counsel for the
respondent no 1/Union of India also heavily relied on judgment
delivered in Malook Nagar V Union of India to substantiate
argument that the perpetual lease deed dated 23.01.1996 Ex. PW1/10
cannot be accepted as a good exemplar to assess market value of the
acquired land. Sh. Rajesh Yadav, the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants during arguments attempted although unsuccessfully to
differentiate between observations made in Malook Nagar V Union
of India with facts and circumstances of present case. The reference
court was justified in not accepting perpetual lease deed dated
23.01.1996 Ex. PW1/10 particularly in view of observations made by
the Division Bench of this court as referred herein above. There is
force in argument advanced by Sh. Yadav that the perpetual lease
deed is a good exemplar in determining market value of the acquired
land.
24. The reference court in para no 19.60 of the impugned judgment
observed that sale exemplars referred by the appellants as comparable
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 49
sale instances held to be not relevant and the appellants did not
produce any contemporary sale exemplar from same village and even
sale exemplar of the neighbouring village/revenue estate has not been
produced. Simultaneously the reference court also observed that the
acquired land is levelled land surrounded by developed colonies and
commercial Nehru Place District Centre and had access to basic civil
amenities. Issue which needs judicial consideration is that what
should be appropriate market value of the acquired land on date of
issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. LAC has
determined market value of land at rate of Rs. 2,684/- per square yard
along with statutory benefits on basis of judgment dated 03.03.2005
passed by this court in WP (C) no 6967/2003 titled as Malook Nagar
& others V Union of India. The perusal of said judgment dated
03.03.2003 reflects that the Division Bench only observed that the
petitioners/claimants therein prima facie are entitled to receive
compensation at the rate of Rs.2684/- per square yard and further
observed that if the petitioners therein filed an application under
section 18 of the Act before LAC, the same shall be referred to the
court of competent jurisdiction. It is apparent that the Division Bench
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 50
of this court did not fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2684/- also
so determined by LAC on basis of evidence of the parties in
reference petition under section 18 of the Act rather the Division
Bench took only prima facie view regarding this. The reference court
also observed that LAC did not make any independent assessment for
determination of market value but fixed rate as per judgment dated
03.03.2005 passed by Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition
bearing no 6867/2003 at rate of Rs. 2684/- per square yard.
25. The reference court in impugned judgment observed that PW1
testified that Village Bahapur has a government school and a
government college within its periphery. The acquired land possessed
building potentiality and was reasonably capable for raising any
residential/ commercial or industrial building in the near future. This
court also observed that the land use of the acquired land was
commercial and forms part of Nehru Place District Complex. The
reference court further observed that the acquired land does not fell in
a rural belt and was undeveloped or untouched with no basic civic
amenities available. The acquired land can support support or provide
structural stability to the buildings and also enjoyed easy accessibility
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 51
with various arterial roads in near vicinity. The village Bahapur is
adjacent to village Jasola which has Sarita Vihar, Apollo Hospital,
Mohan Estates in its periphery and Sukhdev Vihar, Greater Kailash,
Okhla Industrial Area within range of 3-4 km from the acquired land.
It was also observed that the acquired land enjoyed locational,
geographical and usage potentiality for future development. The
reference court after taking judicial notice of applicable L&DO rates
as well as rates of land applicable for conversion of leasehold into
freehold determined value of land at Rs. 9254/- per square meter
awarded compensation at rate of Rs. 8840.76 per square yard (Rs.
7392/- per square meter) after applying deduction of 20% towards
development cost along with statutory benefits.
26. The Supreme Court recently in Horrmal (deceased) through
his LRs and others V State of Haryana & others, Civil Appeal
No.---/2024 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7963/2023 decided on
21.10.2024 observed that the process of assessing or affixing is not
tethered to precision but is rather aimed at a nuanced estimation of
pertinent factors. The Supreme Court also referred Special Land
Acquisition Officer V T, Adinarayan Setty, AIR 1959 SC 429
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 52
wherein it was observed that the market value connotes the price that
a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, taking into account the
land‟s current conditions and its advantages and potentialities. The
Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is social welfare legislation and it is duty
of the court to award just and fair compensation to the land owners
and to consider relevant factors in assessing value of the land on date
of notification issued under section 4 of the Act. The Supreme Court
in Narendra & others V State of Uttar Pradesh & others also
observed that it is duty of the court to award just and fair
compensation taking into consideration true market value and other
relevant factors.
27. LAC as well as the reference court has awarded very less
compensation to the appellants in respect of acquired land subject
matter of present appeal. The reference court did not appreciate two
exemplar cited and referred on behalf of the appellants which aretwo
judgments dated 30.11.2010 Ex. PW1/12 passed in LAC no 1/08
pertaining to Award bearing no 25/2005-2006 and related to Village
Yusuf Sarai and dated 02.08.2011 Ex. PW1/13 passed in LAC no
116/11 pertaining to Award bearing no 25/2005-2006 and related to
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 53
Village Yusuf Sarai wherein compensation was awarded at rate of
Rs. 1,25,000/- per square meter. It is correct that village Yusuf Sarai
is not situated in proximity of Village Yusuf Sarai with the acquired
land situated in village Bahapur. The acquired land situated in
Village Yusuf Sarai falls in category E and was awarded
compensation at rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per square meter. The acquired
land pertaining to village Bahapur falls in Category A is as entitled to
receive higher compensation considering the difference in circle rate.
Although the reference court did not accept these two judgments as
good exemplar to determine market value of acquired land subject
matter of present appeal by observing that categorisation of localities
does not determine market value of the land and market value of land
situated in village Yusuf Sarai was determined on its own merit. It is
clear that the land which falls in Category A can fetch more
compensation in comparison to the land falls in Category E. The
reference court should realise that these exemplars can indicate that
the land falling in category A as in case of acquired land subject
matter of present appeal may fetch higher value in comparison to
land situated in category E. The appellants are entitled to receive
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 54
compensation at least at rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per square yard on date
of notification under section 4 of the Act which is appearing to be
just and fair.
28. The reference court in impugned judgment deducted 20% as
development cost.The Supreme Court in Major General Kapil
Mehra and others V Union of India and another, (2015) 2 SCC
262 also considered guidelines for deduction towards development
out of compensation. It was observed that deduction for development
consists of two components which are appropriate deduction to be
made towards the area required to be utilized for roads, drains and
common facilities like parks etc. and deduction to be made towards
cost of development that is cost of levelling the land, cost of laying
roads and drains, erection of electrical poles and water lines etc. It
was further observed that the Supreme Court has taken consistent
view that one-third deduction is to be made towards the area to be
made for roads, drains and other facilities subject to certain variations
depending upon its nature, location, extent and development around
the area and further appropriate deduction needs to be made for
development cost, laying roads, erection of electricity lines
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 55
depending upon the location of the acquired land and the
development that has taken place around the area. In present case
after considering location of the acquired land and its surrounding, it
would be appropriate to deduct 10% towards cost of construction.
29. Accordingly after deducting cost of development, the appellants
are awarded compensation of Rs.1,12,500/- per square yard along
with other statutory benefits awarded by the reference court in terms
of judgment titled as Sunder V Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211
and proportionate cost. The appellants are not entitled to claim
compensation at rate of Rs. 3,25,000/- per square yard as claimed by
them and also argued by Sh. Rajesh Yadav, the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants. The arguments advanced by the
respective counsels for the appellants and the respondents and case
law referred and relied upon by them are also considered in the right
perspective. The appeal is partially allowed. The decree sheet be
prepared accordingly.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 06, 2024
AK/ABK
Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 56
