Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 1 of 171
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment Pronounced on : 26.09 .2025
+
LA.APP. 59/2007 & CM APPL. 13373/2016
BED RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 372/2007
BHOPAL SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 2 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar,
Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 40/2007
DHARAM VEER
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DA. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Pratek Dhir, Mr. Kuljet Singh and Mr. Shivam Takiar, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 42/2007
SRI RAM & ANR. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 3 of 171
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 43/2007
BED RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr.
Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar,
Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Adv. +
LA.APP. 44/2007
ATTAR SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 4 of 171
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. Ms. Kamna Singh, Panel Counsel for DDA. +
LA.APP. 58/2007
DULI CHAND
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 5 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 1143/2008
UOI & ANR. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA. versus
BHOHTI DECEASED THR.LR'S
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners. Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 911/2010
KEHAR SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 6 of 171
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016
FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. S.A. Khan, Advocate for R - 2. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 339/2015 & CM APPL. 11804/2015
HUKUM SINGH SINCE DECEASED THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Shivansh, Mr. Rajan Sharma, Mr. Depak Gola, Mr. Krishna Kant, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 7 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 144/2019
PRAKASH & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Dhruv Anand, Mr. Dhananjay Khanna, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms.
K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 230/2022
SALEK RAM (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 8 of 171
+
LA.APP. 366/2022, CM APPL. 52464 - 65/2022
SITA RAM (DECEASED) THR. LR CHAVAN & ANR. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Akhil Mittal, ASC with Ms. Navita Gupta, Mr. Sidhant Garg, Advs. for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 61/2007
KESAR SINGH & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 9 of 171
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 62/2007
GANGA RAM & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr.
Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 63/2007
SATTO DEVI & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 10 of 171
versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Mr. Sami Samer Siddiqui, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 64/2007
ANGOORI DEVI (D) THRU. L.R.
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 65/2007
RAJ PAL
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 1 of 171
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr.
Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 66/2007
KAILASH SHARMA & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 12 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 73/2007
TEK CHAND
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 87/2007, CM APL. 808 - 09/2019
PRITAM SINGH & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 13 of 171
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Ms. Meghna, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP.
412/2007
GIRIRAJ & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 89/2007
BALBIR SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 14 of 171
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for DDA. Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 1234/2008
HANS RAJ DECD. THR . LR'S
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI &ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 15 of 171
+
LA.APP. 1235/2008, CM APPL. 6801/2017 & 16070/2024
SURYA PRAKASH & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr.
Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 130/2009
SHRI BHIK RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 16 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 607/2009
NEKI RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for DDA
+
LA.APP. 91/2007
BHIM SINGH DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 17 of 171
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 293/2007
JAGBIR SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 72/2016 & CM APPL. 11271/2016
RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHUBER SINGH @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Y.R. Sharma and Ms. Akshita Sharma, Advocates for LRs of Appellant No.2
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 18 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 335/2008
MUNSHI DECEASED THROUGH L.R'S & ORS
...Apelants
Through:
Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 500/2008
BHARAT SINGH & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 19 of 171
+
LA.APP. 501/2008
ZILE SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R'S
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 508/2008
JAGWATI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 509/2008
BIR SINGH
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 20 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 564/2008
AMAN SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 565/2008
SHASHI VERMA
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 21 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr.
Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 609/2008 & CM APPL. 917/2016
NIMANT RANA & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 2 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 631/2008
DINESH KUMAR & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Amit Dhalla and Mr. Sohan Singh Rawat, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Manish Kr. Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates for R - 2 to 8. +
LA.APP. 737/2008
INDER SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 23 of 171
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
U.O.I & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. Ms.
Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for DDA
+
LA.APP. 739/2008
RAMESH BASISTHA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
U.O.I & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 748/2008, CM APPL. 945/2011, 2181/2011 & 52896/2018
DAL CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 24 of 171
U.O.I & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 816/2008, CM APPL. 12931/2017, 12932/2017, 12933/2017, 36662/2017 & REVIEW PET. 132/2017
KISHAN SAHAI THRU L.R'S
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 817/2008
JAGBIR & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 25 of 171
versus
UOI & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 876/2008
RISHAL SINGH DECD.
THR. LR'S
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates. versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vais h n a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 966/2008
RAJ KUMAR
...Appellant
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 26 of 171
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 992/2008
AJEET SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 994/2008, CM APPL. 12577 - 79/2017, 36659/2017 & REVIEW PET. 128/2017
HARI SINGH
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 27 of 171
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr.
Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 995/2008
PREM SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 28 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 996/2008
RAJENDER PRASHAD & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 1038/2008, CM APPL. 11903 - 04/2015
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
KHAZAN SINGH &ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 29 of 171
+
LA.APP. 1040/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
CHAMPA DEVI DECD. THR.LR'S
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv.
for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1042/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
RICHA RAM & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+ LA.APP. 1043/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
PHOOL SINGH & ORS. ...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 30 of 171
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1136/2008
JASWANT SINGH RANA (DECEASED) THR. LRS ...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 1141/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
MANSA RAM DECD. THR. LR'S & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 31 of 171
+
LA.APP. 1142/2008, CM APPL. 42668 - 69/2023
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Mr. Aakash Mohar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Adv. for Cla i mant
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr.
Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC with Mr. Gautam Yadav, Mr. Sanjay Singh Rathore, Advocates
versus
KISHORI @ BHOLA DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1144/2008
UOI & ANR. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 32 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. versus
NATHU & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1145/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
BALBIR & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1146/2008, CM APPL. 11470 - 71/2015
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
HARI KISHAN DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 3 of 171
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1147/2008
UOI & ANR. ...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr.
Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. versus
SOHAN THR.HIS LR'S
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1148/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
KHAZAN SINGH DECD. THR. LR'S
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 34 of 171
+
LA.APP. 1204/2008
DEVENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 1238/2008
CHINTA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 35 of 171
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 89/2009
OM PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.
M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari and Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocates. Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for DDA
+
LA.APP. 528/2009
SHER SINGH (DECEASED) THR. LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 36 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 550/2009
GUNI RAM DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DD
+
LA.APP. 551/2009
RANJIT KUMAR TRIGUNA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 37 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 552/2009
JAGDIP KUMAR TRIGUNA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 553/2009
BAHADUR DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 38 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 556/2009
ATTAR SINGH DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 39 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 559/2009 & CM APPL. 41913/2019
PEHLAD
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivam Wadhwa, Advocates. Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 560/2009 & CM APPL. 14064/2015
AJIT SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 40 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 576/2009 & CM APPL. 14065/2015
NARENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 580/2009, CM APPL. 14066/2015
KESAR SINGH & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 41 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 595/2009 & CM APPL. 14010/2015
PREM RAJ & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr.
Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 618/2009, CM APPL. 11472 - 73/2015
BADLEY
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 42 of 171
Mr. Gaganmet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harpreet Singh Chadha, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 647/2009, CM APPL. 8877 - 79/2025
MEHAR CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 650/2009
PREM RAJ & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 43 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 101/2010, CM APPL. 14013/2015
RATTO DEVI DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms.
K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 253/2010 & CM APPL. 14060/2015
RAM PAT
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Parmita Nath, Ms. Alka Singh, Mr. Naven K., Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 4 of 171
+
LA.APP. 263/2010 & CM APPL. 14068/2015
RAMESH & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 264/2010 & CM APPL. 14069/2015
HARI SINGH DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 311/2010, CM APPL. 14014/2015 & 6488/2017
MAMRAJ & ORS
...Appellants
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 45 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP.
314/2010
LAKHMI CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Gagandep Sachdeva, Mr. Harshpreet Singh Chadha & Mr. Hardesh Khanna, Advs. for DDA. +
LA.APP. 315/2010 & CM APPL. 14063/2015
JAGGAN & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 46 of 171
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 316/2010 & CM APPL. 14062/2015
RAMESH DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 380/2010
KESAR SINGH & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara, Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI
...Respondent
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 47 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. +
LA.APP. 454/2010, CM APPL. 14079/2015 & 21034/2019
DAYA KISHAN DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 677/2010, CM APPL. 12572 - 74/2017, 36669/2017 & REVIEW PET. 127/2017
OM PRAKASH & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 48 of 171
+
LA.APP. 678/2010 & CM APPL. 14058/2015
SHRI CHANDERMAN @ CHANDER SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 679/2010, CM APPL. 12927 - 29/2017, 36664/2017 & REVIEW PET. 131/2017
RAM SINGH DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Roshan Lal and Mr. Bhuvan Goel, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 682/2010 & CM APPL. 14067/2015
MOOL CHAND DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 49 of 171
UNION OF INDIA
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 683/2010
YASH PAL & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Ms. Nain Singh, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 699/2010
NAIN SINGH THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 50 of 171
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel with Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mr. Devvrat Arya, Ms. Deya Mittal, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 765/2010 & CM APPL. 14073/2015
DAL CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 827/2010 & CM APPL. 14012/2015
BHOOP SINGH DECD THRU LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 51 of 171
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 1070/2010, CM APPL. 14080/2015, 37746 - 47/2022
RAM KISHAN DECD THRU LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 15/2011 & CM APPL. 14081/2015
MUSADI DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 29/2011
DAL CHAND & ANR
...Appellants
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 52 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 39/2011
UMA DHOWAN & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Tushar Sannu, Panel Counsel with Mr. Sourav Verma, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 54/2011
KARAN SINGH
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 53 of 171
Through:
Mr. Brijesh Chaudhary, Mr. Prins Kumar, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms.
Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 140/2011, CM APPL. 14071/2015, 15510 - 11/2025
RANJEET SINGH DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Parmita Nath, Ms. Alka Singh, Mr. Naven K., Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 155/2011 & CM APPL. 14070/2015
JASPAL SINGH (DEC) THRU.LRS
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 54 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 156/2011 & CM APPL. 14011/2015
BED RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kuljet Singh, Advocate. +
LA.APP. 251/2011 & CM APPL. 14015/2015
HARI CHAND
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 5 of 171
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 708/2011 & CM APPL. 3077/2017
LEKH RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr.
Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 716/2011
GOPAL SINGH & ORS
...Appellants
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 56 of 171
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 5/2012, CM APL. 33879 - 80/2024
SURJAN & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 57 of 171
+
LA.APP. 6/2012
GIAN CHAND DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R - 2/DDA. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Nidhi Raman CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
+
LA.APP. 10/2012 & CM APPL. 44574/2022
ANANT RAM & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 58 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 13/2012
BUDHAN DECD THRU LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 37/2012 & CM APPL. 14072/2015
DAROGA DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 59 of 171
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 218/2012
NET RAM THROUGH LRS AND ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI AND ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 223/2012
HARI SINGH THROUGH LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI AND ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 60 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 49/2013, CM APL. 5014 - 15/2019
SAMARTA LRS AND ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI AND ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 51/2013 & CM APPL. 14061/2015
NET RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI AND ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 61 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 85/2015 & CM APPL. 2272/2015
LAKHMI CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 86/2015, CM APL. 2282/2015 & 19952/2023
JUGAL KISHORE & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Gaurav Kakar and Mr. Lakshay Raheja, Advocates for LR of Appellant No.1. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 62 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 390/2015
VIRENDER SINGH (SINCE MISSING) THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Rajan Sharma, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 423/2015
HARI KISHAN (DECEASED) THR LEGAL HEIRS ...Apellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 63 of 171
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr.
Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
+
LA.APP. 426/2015
NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for DDA
+
LA.APP. 445/2015
NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 64 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 14/2016 & CM APPL. 354/2016
NAIN SINGH (DECEASED) THR HIS LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 18/2016
MAHIPAL (DECEASED) THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 65 of 171
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.
M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 19/2016
CHHATTAR SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. +
LA.APP. 173/2016 & CM APPL. 9203/2020
RAM SAROOP THROUGH LRS
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 6 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI AND ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 196/2016, CM APPL. 37755/2018 & 28909/2024
BUDH RAM @ BUDH SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Mr. Rajat Sharma, Ms. Ruchika Sharma and Mr. Chetan Sharma, Advocates for LR I (a & c)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 67 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 292/2016 & CM APPL. 37754/2018
HARI KISHAN SHARMA & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 11/2017 & CM APPL. 942/2017
SHASHI KUMAR
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 68 of 171
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 256/2017
POOJA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for DDA
+
LA.APP. 287/2017 & CM APPL. 31509/2017
MEHAR CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 69 of 171
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 131/2018
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DA
versus
MANMCHAND (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Appearance not given. +
LA.APP. 204/2018
OM PARKASH (DECEASED) THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Gaurav Dua and Mr. Govil Upadhyay, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 209/2018
VIRENDER & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 70 of 171
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 245/2018, CM APPL. 54192 - 94/2018
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Tushar Gupta, Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
versus
BUDH RAM @ BUDH SINGH (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Tushar Gupta and Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advocates for DA. +
LA.APP. 246/2018, CM APPL. 54324 - 26/2018
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms.
K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 71 of 171
versus
HAR KISHAN (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 247/2018, CM APPL. 54360 - 62/2018
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates for R - 2. versus
RAM SAROOP (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates for DA. Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Mr. Bhuvan Goel, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 4/2019, CM APL. 1666 - 68/2019
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 72 of 171
RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS..Respondents
Through:
Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 49/2019, CM APPL. 16601/2019, CM APPL.16603 - 04/2019
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. versus
HANSO (DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Mrinalni Sen, SC with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin and Ms. Gauri Shyam, Advs. for DDA
Ms. Prity Sharma, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 130/2019, CM APPL.
38327 - 28/2024
DAL CHAND SHARMA & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 73 of 171
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DDA. Mr. Neeraj Kumar and Mr. Kartik Garg, Advocates. +
LA.APP. 137/2019 & CM APPL. 38884/2019
BHOOP SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 298/2022
JAI BHAGWAN DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 74 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
JUDGMENT
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J. :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
35()$&(««««««««««««««««««««««««« 7 5 %5,())$&76««««««««««««««««« .. «««« . 75
7+(+,6725<2)$66(660(17««««««««« 78
CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT ««««««««««««««. 8 5
CONTENTIONS OF 5(6321'(1712''$«««««« .. 92
&217(17,2162)5(6321'(171282, ... 9 9 5(-2,1'(5%<$33(//$17««««««««««« «100
SUR - 5(-2,1'(5««««««««««««««««««««« 10 3 THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT................................ 10 3 $1$/<6,6 ),1',1*6««««««««« 10 8 7KH$SSHDOV««« ««««««««« ..10 9 Village Khizrabad ««««««««« .. ... 1 10
Village .LORNDUL« « «««««««« .. 11 1 Village Nangli Razapur ««««««« ... .. 11 4 Village Garhi Mendu «««««««« .... 11 7 The Award «««««««««««««««««««««««.1 1 9 The Reference Court Judgments ««««««««««««««1 20
The Aditional Evidence. ««««««« .. 12 2 7KH6WDWXWH«««««««««««««««««««««« « 4 Compensation a warded in Village Behlolpur Khadar & Jasola . . ««««««««««««««« . ................ ... 13 8 Proximity to d eveloped c olonies, a gricultural a ctivities & p RWHQWLDOLW\«««««««««««««««««««««« 14 5 7KH/RFDWLRQ3ODQ«««««««««««««« ..15 2 The Exemplar ««««««««««««««««««««««1 60
&21&/86,21««««««««««««« 1 70
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 75 of 171
PREFACE
Since the issues raised in the above captioned appeals are the same, the above Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The present Appeals were heard together with LA.APP. 59/2007 captioned Bed Ram v.
UOI & Anr. being argued as the lead matter with the consent of the parties . For the sake of brevity, the facts are being recorded from the lead matter captioned .
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 [ KHUHLQDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR ] against the
judgment and decre dated 18.10.2006 passed by the C ourt of L earne d ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in LAC No. 1 of 2003 captioned Bed Ram v. UOI & A nr . [ KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³ ,PSXJQHG-XGJPHQW´ ] . 2. By the Impugned Judgment the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha , which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector [hereinafter refered to as "LAC"] to Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha for the acquired land. The l earned Reference Court
also granted 30% solatium on the value of the land . In addition, it was directed that the Appellant is entitled to 12% interest on the market value of the land and enhanced compensation at rate under Section 28 of the LA Act at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of notification till the date of award or date of dispossession , [whichever is earlier], till the expiry of one year and thereafter @15% per annum . 3. L and was acquired for land development of Delhi in relation to the channelisation of the river Yamuna, by a notification under Section 4 of the
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 76 of 171
LA Act was issued on 23.06.1989 [here in DIWHUUHIHUUHGWR 1RWLILFDWLRQ´@ .
The notification set s out in detail that for acquisition of land admeasuring about 3500 hectares of land starting from a point 1 km upstream, Wazirabad B arage road along eastern Yamuna marginal bund till it mets the boundary of Union Teritory upto point it mets newly constructed NOIDA Bridge then along the Northern Boundary of the Bridge upto Agra Canal then along the eastern boundary of Agra canal upt o Okhla h ead - works and along the Eastern Boundary of regularised unauthorised colonies of Batla House Joga Bai, Village Zakir Nagar, Hinrerbad village and then along the eastern boundary of Women Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute, Kalindi Colony till it mets Ring Road the Eastern Boundary of Ring road till mets Indraprastha Power House then along the Eastern Boundary of Power House and then along the bund upto the point it mets old Railway bridge and then along the road joining Ring Road cross ing near Poakey Bridge then along the Ring Road upto 1 km upstream Wazirabad Water Works along the bund upto 1 km then along the imaginary line running parallel to Wazirabad Barage on the Northern side upto starting point excepting the following land: - (a) Government land ; (b) Land already notified under Section 4 or under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is likely to be acquired under the provisions of the said Act for the purpose above stated. 3. 1 Award No. 14/1992 - 1993 was passed for acquisition of the land admeasuring 2226 Bighas and 5 Biswas situated in village Kilokari . Award No. 18/1992 - 93 was passed for acquisition of land admeasuring 874 Bighas and 4 Biswas in village Khizrabad . Award No. 16/1992 - 93 was passed for acquisition of land admeasuring 2009 Bighas and 10 Biswas in village Nangli
LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 7 of 171
Razapur and Award No. 13/1992 - 93 was passed for acquisition of land admeasuring 1563 Bighas and 1 8 Biswas in village Garhi Mendu [hereinafter FROOHFWLYHO\UHIHUUHGWRDV³DFTXL as set out in the Table below:
Award No.
Vilage Area
Area of land acquisitioned by the Award
Award No. 13/192 - 93
Garhi Mendu
1563 Bighas 1 8 Biswas
Award No. 14/192 - 93
Kilokari
26 Bighas and 5 Biswas
Award No. 16/192 - 93
Nangli Razapur
209 Bighas and 10 Biswas
Award No. 18/19 2 - 93
Khizrabad
874 Bighas and 4 Biswas
4. Pursuant thereto, the notifications under Section 6 and Section 17 of the LA Act were issued on 22.06.1990 in respect of the acquired land
including at villages Madanpur Khadar, Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Chuck Chilla, Okhla, Jogabai, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad , Jasola and on 20.06.1990 in respect of village Garhi Mendu . The possession of the acquired land was taken in the year 1995. 5. The Award No.14/1992 - 93 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 19.06.1992, for land admeasuring 222 6 Bighas and 5 Biswa in village Kilokari whereby compensation or market value of the land was ascertained at Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha was awarded to the Appellant for the acquired land >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV Kilokari $ZDUG´@ The LAC took into consideration sale deds of the land executed during the years 1985 - 89 and took out the average value thereof at Rs. 18,736/ - . In addition, it took into acount a n ofice order no. F.9(20)/80 - L&B/4313 - 16 dated 03.05.1990 >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³2IILF 27.04.1990 and after working out a pro - rata discount, it valued the acquired
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 78 of 171
land at Rs. 27,334/ - per Bigha for the land at village Kilokari. 6.
The LAC similarly assessed the value of the land for the villages Khizrabad , Nangli Raza pur and Garhi Mendu and passed thre separate awards assessing the market value of the land of these villages at a uniform rate of Rs. 27,334/ - per Bigha. The reason as assigned by the LAC for the uniform rate was that the purpose of acquisition of all land w as the same and all villages were adjacent and contiguous to each other. The village wise details of the four awards are set out below:
Award No.
Name of Village
Kind of Land
14/192 - 93
Kilokari
Sailabi
18/192 - 93
Khizrabad
Khadar
16/192 - 93
Nangli Razapur
Khadar
13/192 - 93
Garhi Mendu
Floded land
7. Subsequently, by virtue of a notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act dated 25.01.1995, lands admeasuring 1430 Bighas and 10 Biswas in village Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Nangli Razapur and Chuck - Chilla stood de - notified by the LAC. The reasons as set out by the LAC in its order dated 05.11.2004 for de - notification, was that the lands admeasuring 1430 Bighas and 10 Biswas were submerged or prone to be submerged, and hence were de - notified. THE HISTORY OF ASESMENT
8. In the meantime, being dissatisfied with the low assessment of the market value of the land by the LAC, a reference was filed under S ection 18 of the LA Act before the learned Reference Court on 13.07.1992 to submit
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 79 of 171
that the present market value of the acquired land is about Rs.10,000/ - per square yard and the acquired land does not form part of riverbed and that large portion of land of village , Kilokari was acquired in the year 1959 wherein the LAC assessed the market value of the land at Rs 26,000/ - per Bigha at that time.
It was contended that LAC assessed the market value of acquired land,
without taking into account the prices of land and their enhanced value during the period of 30 years betwen 1959 and 1989, a nd without considering the prevailing market rate of the area. 9. The Reference Petitions were filed in relation to villages at Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu before the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court in terms of the judgment passed in LAC 1RRIWLWOHGµ Attar Singh v UOI ¶ >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIH Attar Singh FDVH´@SHUWDLQLQJWRYLOODJH Khizrabad , allowed the Reference Petitions by an order dated 25.09.2006. The learned Reference Court relying upon the
judgment of Tindey & Ors v UOI & Anr . 1 >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIH Tindey FDVH´@ , increased the compensation awarded to Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha.
9.1
Similarly, the Reference Petitions filed in relation to land in the revenue estate of village Kilokari were decided. The lead matter for the village Kilokari is LAC No. 1/2003 titled µ%HG5DPY82, $ [hereinafter UHIHUUHGWRDV³ Bed Ram Reference Court FDVH´@ZKHUHE\WK was increased by the learned Reference Court to Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha by a
judgment dated 19.06.1992 based on the judgment in the Attar Singh case and the Tindey case. 1 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1070
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 80 of 171
9.2
In respect of Petitions filed for the land acquired at village Nangli Razapur, the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 2/1998 titled µ%KRSDO 6LQJKY8QLRQRI,QGLD $QU¶ by a judgment dated 29.08.2007 [hereinafter UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH³1DQJOL5D]DSXU , relied upon the Attar Singh case and the Bed Ram Reference Court case to award compensation of Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha. 9.3
So far as concerns the village Garhi Mendu, the learned Reference Court by a judgment dated 26.07.2007 passed in LAC No. 96/1 of 2006 titled Khazan Singh v. UOI >KHUHLQDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR Khazan Singh FDVH´@ relying on the judgment of Smt. Chawli Devi (Deceased) through her LRs v. UOI & DDA being LAC No. 334/1 of 2006 , similarly enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha to Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha. 10. As stated above, the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land in all four villages ± Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad to Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha and for Garhi Mendu Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha. The other antecedent directions such as solatium and interest were also awarded by the learned Reference Court. Aggrieved by this award, the Appellants filed the present Appeals before this Court. By a judgment dated 07.06.2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court decided a batch of Appeals, in cluding the present Appeal of which the LA APP. 59/2007 captioned Bed Ram v. Union of India & Anr. was the lead matter to hold that the fair market value of the land acquired in thre villages of Kilokari, Khizrabad and Nangli Razapur as set out by the learned Reference Court was corectly determined
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 81 of 171
at Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha . The Coordinate Bench thus dismissed the batch of Appeals including the present Appeal. 10.1
By a separate order dated 07.06.2011 also, the Coordinate Bench of this Court decided the batch of Appeals including LA. AP. 1038/2008 captioned UOI. v. Khazan Singh & Ors. in respect of village Garhi Mendu, and revised the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court to Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha as in the case of vilage Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Khizrabad . 11.
The order(s) dated 07.06.2011 , as corected by order dated 22.07.2011 passed by this Court , were challenged by the Appellant by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 1939/2012 captioned Union of India v. Ram Lal & Ors. and connected matters >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³6&-X 13.01.2015 passed two directions with respect to the matters in villages Kilokari, Khizrabad Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu . In the first instance, it was held that a Review Petition be filed before the High Court to permit the Appellant to produce additional documents, maps and awards before Single Judge within 30 days. The Court further held that if the Review Petition(s) we re filed within 30 days , the Single Judge would consider the same without going into the question of limitation. The relevant extract of the SC judgment is set out below:
³%ULHIO\VWDWHGWKHIDFWVLQWKH pertains to the determination of fair market value of lands admeasuring 1536 Bigha 10 biswa in village Garhi Mendu , belonging to the claimants/respondents herein. The said land was acquired under Section 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 189 4 (for short, "the Act"), by the apelants/petitioner herein for the public purpose of planed development of Delhi. 3. The said land, along with land in three other villages, namely Khirzahad
[sic: Khizrabad ] , Kilolari [sic: Kilokari] and Chak Chila, was notified by
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 82 of 171
the Government, vide Notification No. F. 9 (1)/89 ²L&B (i.) isued under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 23.06.1989 . The same was followed by Notification No. F. 9 (I)/89 - L&B/LA(i) & (ii) isued under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act, dated 20.0 6 .190. In pursuance of the said Notifications, notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were isued to all interested persons. 4. The L DQG $FTXLVLWLRQ &ROOHFWRU IRU V
consideration Order No.
F - 9(20)/80 - L&B/4313 - 16, isued by the Delhi Administration regarding fixation of minimum price of agricultural land by the LAC, dated 03.05.190. In light of the aforesaid policy of the State administration the LAC vide Award No. 13/192 - 93, determined the
compensation to be awarded at the rate of Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha along with statutory benefits, dated 19.06.192. 5. Disatisfied with the award of the LAC, the respondents herein sought for a reference under Section 1 8 of the Act for adjudication of the fair market value. It was argued by the claimants that the LAC did not consider, inter alia, the potential value of the land, that the revenue estate of the village in which the land was situate was surounded by posh colonies developed by the Delhi Development Authority and other private colonies, and that al l basic civic amenities were available to the land . The Refe rence Court, while considering the contentions raised by the parties to the lis, tok notice of the award of the LAC with regard to land situate in villages Khizrabad , Kilokari and Chak Chilla, dated 19,06.192. By the said awards, the LAC had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha along with statutory benefits, It was further noticed, by the Reference Court, that a reference had been, sought against the said awards, and consequently, taking into consideration the location, potentiality, nature, topography of the said land, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.89,60/ - per bigha . xxx
xxx
xxx
2. In our considered opinion, these facts, as also the maps and relevant documents, may be brought to the notice of the High Court by the apelant(s)/petitioners herein by filing apropriate review petition(s) EHIRUHWKH+LJK&RXUWZLWKLQWKLUW\G . 3. If such review petition(s) is/are filed within the time granted by this Court, we request the learned Single Judge to consider the same in accordance with law, but without going into the question of limitation . 4. Further, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we permit the apelant(s)/petitioners herein to produce the aditional documents, maps, awards, if any, which are in their posesion, before the learned Single Judge along with the sa id review petition(s) . 5. Al contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the learned Single Judge . ´
[Emphasis suplied]
LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 83 of 171
12. Subsequently, several Review Petitions in relation to the acquired land were filed before this Court by the Appellants . By its order dated 13.03.2015, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed that the decision dated 07.06.2011 is withdrawn vis - à - vis the review petitioners and it was directed that the present Appeals would be reconsidered by the roster bench after giving an opportunity to the Appellant/Review Petitioners to place on record further evidence. The relevant extract of the order dated 13.03 . 2015 is below:
³7KHUHYLHZSHWLWLRQHUVDUHUHO\L which include a few judicial determinations in Land Acquisition References made. 4. In ethos with the order pased by the Supreme Court on January 13, 2015, the review petitioners would be entitled to formally lead evidence and prove the documents on which they rely requiring a re - consideration of the mater keeping in light such docum ents which may be proved. 5. Since I am presiding over a Division Bench, it may not be posible to spare time in the near future to record evidence and thereafter decide the isue afresh, as agreed to between the learned counsel for the parties, the review petitions are being disposed of declaring that the decision dated June 07, 201 is withdrawn vis - a - vis the review petitioners. Land Acquisition Apeals filed by the review petitioners would be re - considered by the roster bench, after giving oportunity to the review petitioners to lead further evidence but limited to proving such documents and judicial orders, which have been filed under cover of the review petition . 7KH5HYLHZ3HWLWLRQVVWDQGGLVSRVH
[Emphasis suplied]
13 . By an order dated 30.07.2015, this Court directed that additional evidence and additional documents be filed in the l ead m atter i.e., the Bed Ram case and the other Appellants can rely on these Afidavits and additional documents for other cases.
The relevant extract of the order dated 30.07.2015 is set out below:
³&RXQVHOIRU8QLRQRI,QGLDVWDWHVWK the records and, therefore, seeks an adjournment. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 84 of 171
Upon remand by the Supreme Court with liberty to file aditional evidence at WKHEHKHVWRIWKHDSSHOODQWVFODLPDQWV reviewed his judgment disposing of the apeals on 07.06.201 and that is how the mater is listed befo re this Court. Let one set of aditional afidavit and aditional documents to be led in evidence be filed in lead case, i.e. LA Ap No.59/207, titled Bed Ram v. Union of India. Since the said evidence is sought to be relied by al the other apelants, there is no nece sity of filing separate afidavit of evidence in the other cases. If any of the other apellants wishes to file any aditional documents, they may file the same in their respective apeals. However, the counsels shal cordinate and prepare a comon compilation of aditional documents to be relied upon. The compilation shall be filed in the lead case, i.e. LA Ap No.59/207, Bed Ram v. Union of India . Advance copies shall be furnished to counsel for the respondent. This exercise be completed within four weeks. Learned counsels state that only documentary evidence of unimpeachable nature is required to be filed «´
[Emphasis suplied]
14. Pursuant thereto, the evidence was led by the Appellants in the Bed Ram case and the case captioned Karan Singh v. Union of India, LA.AP. >KHUHLQDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR Karan Singh FDVH´@ IRU WK matters . Afidavits statements of AW1/Kailash Sharma in the Bed Ram case and AW1/Karan Singh in the Karan Singh case were filed and they were cross - examined by the Respondents. Evidence was also led by RW1/Ravinder Dang on behalf of Respondent before this Court. 15. Subsequently, by an order dated 26.11.2015, the Court directed that the additional evidence recorded and led in the Bed Ram case and the Karan Singh case shall be read in so far as relevant for the remaining Appeals and listed the matters before the Joint Registrar of this Court for recording of evidence. LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 85 of 171
16. Once the evidence was concluded, these Appeals were listed before this Court in pursuance of the aforegoing decisions of the Supreme Court and the Coordinate Bench.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELANT S
17.
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s ha ve
divided their
submissions into 3 primary contentions:
(i)
location of land and its potentiality;
(ii)
submissions of exemplars;
(iii)
land being µS DLODEL¶ cannot have much potentiality is not a corect analysis.
18 . Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit
that land was assessed by LAC at rate of Rs. 26,000/ - in the year 1959. Hence, the Award by LAC in the year 1992 at the rate of Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha was not the fair market value. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the Reference Court in the I mpugned J udgment had observed that, since the market value of land increases over the years , it is unlikely that prices of land have remained stagnant from the year 1959 when market price was Rs. 26,000/ - per Bigha and therefore ra te of land would have ben 10% per annum from 1959. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that as per 10% p.a. progressive increase from 1959 to 1989 as observed in the I mpugned J udgment the actual market value should be more than Rs. 1000/ - per square yard or approximately Rs. 30 lakhs per Bigha . The learned Reference Court on 18.10.2006 passed the Impugned
Judgment assessing market value of acquired land at rate of Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha as on 23.06.1989. Other antecedents relate d to the acquired land
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 86 of 171
pertaining to solatium and interest was also awarded. While assessing market value of acquired land in village Kilokari, the learned Reference Court dr e w comparison with village Khizrabad stating that both lands stood acquired by same notification and for the same purpose and the location is also within the same vicinity and acordingly awarded the same market value as awarded in Tindey case. 18.1
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that land of village, Kilokari , Behlolpur Khadar , Nangli Razapur, Ch u ck - ch i lla admeasuring 1430 Bigha and 10 biswa was de - notified under Section 48(1) of the LA Act by a gazette notification dated 25.01.1995 . On 05.11.2004, order was passed by the LAC assigning reasons that since part of the land was found to be submerged in the river Yamuna land was de - notified . Emphasis is laid on the fact that the land not submerged was retained and acquired by the Respondents and the acquired land in these Appeals forms part of the land. 18.2
It was contended that the Section 4 notification was also the same in respect of land acquired for village Behlolpur Khadar and the compensation awarded by the LAC in this village was enhanced by the learned Reference Court to Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha in ter ms of a judgment dated 04.01.201 passed by the learned Reference Court in LAC 75/2008 captioned Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr . 1 8.2.1 It was further contended that relying on the testimony of AW - 1, Kailash Sharma , that the witness had stated that they had ben cultivating the land in question until its acquisition in 1989 and that there was no examination
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 87 of 171
conducted on the aspect of flooding. In fact, it is stated that the land was irigated from the water of river Yamuna and not submerged.
18.3
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit
that the market value for the land of v illage , Behlolpur Khadar and Jasola , both acquired under the same notification as the acquired land , has ben assessed at rate of Rs. 2.5 l acs per Bigha for Behlolpur Khadar and Rs. 4948/ - per sq. yard for Jasola respectively. For the village, Behlolpur Khadar
compensation has already ben received by the claimants. R eliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ba l Ram & Anr 2 to submit that if the nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr 3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors . 4 to submit that there should be no discrimination betwen landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari while village Behlolpur Khadar is also a part of adjoining village Kilokari, yet a distinction has ben drawn by the learned Reference Court i n the award for these four vilages of Kilokari, Khizrabad , Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu without any legal basis. 2 (2010) 5 SCC 747
3 (2004) 10 SCC 627
4 2009 (8) SCC 582
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 8 of 171
18.4
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot Hotel etc. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon the testimony of RW - l, Mr. Ravinder Dang [ Naib Tehsildar at office of LAC ] and testimony of R W - 2, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Chandra [ Scientist with Central Ground Water Authority ] . 18.5
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that they are also entitled for 12% per annum additional market value under S ection 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land . 18.6
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the DFTXLUHGODQG¶V potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires a reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land . It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause (4) of Section 24 of the LA Act. 18.7
Relying on the sale ded dated 17.03.1988 [Ex. PW3/1] which references a sale of one Bigha for Rs.2,07,500/ - per Bigha , i t was contended that the sale ded was proved before the learned Reference Court and that the
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 89 of 171
witness stood his ground, despite which the learned Reference Court came to a conclusion that the sale deed could not be relied upon. 18.8
The exemplar in respect of village Behlolpur Khadar wherein the compensation was enhanced by the learned Reference Court by its order dated 04.01.2011 to Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha , was also relied upon to contend that this exemplar was not taken into consideration by the learned Reference Court in the present case .
It is further contended that Respondent No.1/UOI has not challenged these findings in respect of village Jasola and Behlolpur Khadar
except in two cases 5 and in all other cases, the land owners have received the compensation, thus, parity must be maintained in respect of adjoining adjacent lands with similar potentiality. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Periasami Vs. Sub - Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) 6 to submit that the acquired land is entitled to compensation at the parity with the other lands situated in the same area and acquired by the same notification as the acquired land . 18.9
In addition, reliance has also ben placed on the Award No.21/92 - 93
pertaining to village Jasola wherein the LAC awarded the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha while the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 224 of 2011 captioned Jagdish Gulati v. UOI & Anr. decided on 29.11.2011 substantially enhanced the amount to Rs. 4948 / - per sq uare yard . It is stated again that even against the present award only two Appeals 7 were
5 LA.AP. 129/2016 captioned Union of India v. Hari Kishan @ Harkesh (Deceased) Thr. LRs & Ors. and;
LA AP. 128/2016 captioned Union of India v. Kesar Singh & Ors. 6 (1994) 4 SCC 180
7 LA.AP. 224/2012 captioned Union of India v. Jagdish Gulati and ; LA.AP.225/2012 captioned Union of India v. Sadhna Gupta & Anr. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 90 of 171
filed again by Respondent No. 1 and compensation to remaining land owners was received in terms of order of the learned Reference Court. 18.10 Lastly, on the aspect of the land being µ6DLODEL¶ which means submergible, it is contended by the Respondents that the land does not have much potentiality.
It is submitted that this submission does not take into acount the 1430 Bighas 10 Biswa land which was de - notified by the Respondents, in pursuance of which on 05.11.2004, the LAC passed a detailed
order stating that the reasons for the de - notification was that the land was submerged or submergible. It is contended that the remaining land which i ncludes the acquired land was thereafter taken into possession on the recommendation of Respondent No.2/DDA while 1,430 Bigha 10 Biswa land was de - notified. Thus, it is avered by the Appellant that the remaining land which includes the acquired land was clearly not submergible or µ6DLODE
land. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the Reference Court inspected the site on 22.06.2011 and observed that the land as situated in the heart of the city and that the land ³DSSHDUVWRE IRUDJULFXOWXUDOSXUSRVHV´ . 18.10.1 Relying on the notification dated 1 3 .11.1959 pertaining to village Kilokari, it was contended that at that time a uniform rate of compensation was awarded by the LAC for diferent types of land, i.e., GM Nala, Sailab i , Chahi and Rosli and compensation of Rs.26,000/ - per Bigha was awarded irespective of the type of land. Learned Counsel contends that LAC has used the term µ6 DLODEL¶ to describe the land pertaining to village Kilokari, the term µ.KDGDU¶WRGHVFULEHWKHODQGRIY QGµ6DLODEL to describe the land situated in village Behlolpur. Thus, these terms have ben
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 91 of 171
used interchangeably. Since Khadar also means low alluvial land fit for cultivation, the type of land in all three villages is the same, thus the compensation cannot be varied. 7KH $SSHOODQW¶V ZLWQHVVHV Sharma [ in LA.AP. 5 9 /20 07 ], in his cross examination has contended that he has never witnessed any flooding or water logging during his lifetime and this is recorded in his statement as given on 23.01.2016. 18.10.3 Reliance is also placed on LA.AP.372/2007 captioned Bhopal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. [Award No.16/92 - 93 dated 19.06.1992] [hereinafter refered to as ³Bhopal Singh FDVH´@ passed for village Nangli Razapur wherein it is noted that the entire land is being irigated by the Yamuna River and since it is irigated, there is no question of the same being µSailabi ¶ in nature. 18.11 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s have
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjani Molu Des s ai Vs. State of Goa & Anr .
8 to submit that for calculating compensation highest exemplar is to be considered by the Court and not by averaging the diferent types of sale prices . Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Oficer Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb 9 to submit that sale instances of solitary sale deed or small pieces of land can be relied upon while determining the amount of compensation. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 10
8 (2010) 13 SCC 710
9 (2011) 7 SCC 714
10 (2017) 9 SCC 426
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 92 of 171
to submit that benefit of higher compensation should be granted to even those landowners who could not approach the court . Reliance is placed upon the
judgment of Coordinate bench of this Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India
& Anr. 11 to submit that for determination of market value of land when no sale ded is available principle of escalation is to be applied. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s further relie d upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Trishala Jain & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. 12 to submit that concept of guesstimation is to be used for determining the market value of the land when no sale deed is available principle of escalation is to be applied .
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2/DDA
19 . Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 /DDA has contended that LAC in the Award has specifically recorded that the acquired land is situated between two
"Forward Bunds" and the river Yamuna , and that there were no constructions on the land and only a few tres were found available on the land at the time of its acquisition. 19 .1 The LAC relied on an ofice order dated 03.05.1990 wherein the Government of NCT of Delhi had notified the maximum price of agricultural land in Delhi as Rs. 4.5 lakhs per acre for agricultural land and Rs. 1.5 lakhs per acre for land situated on the riverbed. The fair market value for the land was thus notified by the LAC on 23.06.1989 as Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha on the basis of minimum price as notified on 03.05.1989 given the nature of the land. 1 2001 SCC Online Del 325
12 (2011) 6 SCC 47
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 93 of 171
19 .2 It was further contended that the market value of the land as assessed by learned Reference Court is at Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha . Learned Reference Court gave findings that the acquired land situated in the riverbed on the ³)RUZDUG%XQG´ will be covered with water during some parts of the year and land may be cultivable for remaining parts of the year. The Appellants/Claimants have failed to le a d any evidence to disprove the fact that subject land was not situated in ³)RUZDUG %XQG´ area. The Learned Reference Court found that the land is not capable of being utilised neither as an agricultural land nor for constructing a building and consequently, cannot be compared with other developed lands. Further, isolated constructions on the acquired land cannot lead to an inference that land can be used for building structures or that the land is comparable to other lands falling outside the
³)RUZDUG%XQG´ area . 19 .3 The Respondents have also relied upon a site inspection report, and photographs of the area and a spot report dated 21.11.2006 which was prepared by the learned Reference Court along with spot note [hereinafter
collectively refered to as the "Site Report"]. Relying on this Site Report, it was contended that the site inspection found that the land "appears to be under cultivation".
However, when the water level of the Yamuna cross es 204 mark, the land gets submerged in water depending on the amount of discharge from the river. In addition, the Site Report states that there are no substantial development s on the land near the site for agricultural purposes. It is thus contended that the land is unfit for development. 19 .4 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the learned Reference Court by order dated 04.01.2011 had rejected the evidence
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 94 of 171
relied upon by the Appellants to claim higher compensation. The Appellants had exhibited a sale ded dated l7.03.1988 of land of approximately 1 Bigha
sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/ - . Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents in the locality in advance a nd prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. 19 .4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW - 3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW - 3 himself admits that he was not an income tax paye in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing a parcel of land for sum of Rs. 2,07,500/ - to the income tax authority. 19 .5 It was contended that, the testimony of PW - 4, Mr.
S.P. Singh [ Assistant at Ofice of DDA ] cannot be relied upon to assess the market value of the subject land as PW - 4 admits in his cross - examination that he was neither aware of the date of notification nor he was aware of the date of the award by which land was allotted to Akshar Dham Mandir, nor the date of acquisition and consequently he cannot be said to be aware of the prevailing market rate of the area. Further, the testimony of PW - 5, Mr. Anwar Abbasi [ Assistant Manager Toll Plaza, DND Flyway ] cannot be relied upon as he failed to prove the authenticity of the Sale agrements and site plans. 19 .6 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that Respondent No.1/UOI had adduced 5 sale deds [Exhibit R1 to R5] in evidence , of land situated in the same area as acquired land and sold around
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 95 of 171
the same time when the notification was issued. These exhibited sale deds reflected average market value was at Rs. 18,736/ - per Bigha . 19 .7 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 contends that burden lies on the Appellants to prove the prevailing market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act and to prove that the acquired land had building potentiality. In the event of failure to adduce cogent evidence, the claim ought to have ben rejected. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Tandon v Allahabad Development Authority & Anr . 13 to submit that the burden of proof lies upon the Claimant to prove that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate . 19 .8 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 relies on the Tinde y case to submit that when land has similar potentiality and location advantages, it must be similarly valued.
The corect approach is to ascertain what a willing vendor and a willing purchaser would reasonably transact at, keeping in mind the principles of fairness and justice . It is well - settled that the burden lies on
t he claimant to adduce evidence showing that the land has high potential value. 19 .9 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that no development has ben undertaken on the acquired land and it has no building potentiality because it a µ6DLODEL/DQG¶ and is land which is in close proximity to river Yamuna. µ6DLODEL¶ lands are valued lower than agricultural land due to seasonal inundation . Learned Counsel further states that the Appellant/PW - 7, Bed Ram in his testimony has deposed that some portion of the land in
13 2004 (10) SCC 745
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 96 of 171
village Kilokari was developed as New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh and Kalindi Colony and he admitted that there is no abadi around the petrol pump and the two shops and that there is a drainage in village Kilokari but it is far away from acquired land. F urther, testimony of PW - 6, Mr. P.K. Mena suggests that land is capable of being used for cultivation only when it is not covered by the Yamuna river. 19 .9.1 It is contended that the testimony of AW - 1, Mr. Karan Singh in LA AP.54/2011 reflects that he never raised an objection to the term µ6DLODE
used for the acquired land and he never applied to the MCD seking sanction of the layout plan for the subject land. Learned Counsel submits that the government did not allow any construction to be raised other than a petrol pump and the two shops of marble on the land of village Kilokari. Learned Counsel submits that all these goes to suggest that subject la nd has no potential to build structures.
19 .10 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the argument of the Appellants that the subject land falls in the vicinity of posh colonies and hence, a higher amount of compensation should be awarded is misconceived. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the subject land is prone to water logging and flooding as it was situated in the ³)RUZDU %XQG´ area. He further submits that Appellants have not placed on record any evidence to show that the land can be used for agriculture or residential purposes. Further, the Apellant is his testimony has admitted that except for a petrol pump and the two shops , there is no abadi around the subject land and till date there has been no development on the subject land which supports the
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 97 of 171
fact that subject land is qualitatively distinguishable from the land on which posh colonies are developed. 19 .11 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the land owners have failed to show other comparable sale deds and that the l and owners have failed to show that the acquired land is similar in nature and potentiality to other comparable same village or neighbouring village. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Mohd. Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition Oficer 14 . 19 .12 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the Appellants have failed to show any similarity of the acquired land with the lands situated in Jasola or Behlolpur Khadar . Learned Senior Counsel submits that mere contiguity of the acquired land with the other land situated in an urban area is not the aceptable criteria for grant of similar rate. Reliance is placed upon Kanwar Singh & Ors v UOI 15 to submit that the Supreme Court has held that mere contiguity of two villages cannot be adopted to determine the market value of two vilages unless similarity and advantages of both the lands are proved.
19 .12.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 refutes the contention of the Appellants claiming parity with market value of the land situated at village Behlolpur Khadar which has ben assessed at Rs. 2.5 lakhs per Bigha in case of Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v UOI & Anr .; LAC No.75/2008 and Village Jasola at Rs. 4,948 per sq. yard in the case of Jagdish Gulati v. UOI ; LAC No. 224/11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that market value of
14 (2009) 14 SCC 367
15 1998 (8) SCC 136
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 98 of 171
the land assessed, as mentioned above, by the learned Reference Court was made by ignoring and overlooking the market value as determined by this Court and thus is a nullity. It is further contended that the learned Reference Court ought to have balanced the public interest and private interest while determining market value rate. Reliance is placed on the case of Periyar & Parekani Rubbers Ltd. v State of Kerala 16 to submit that lands must be assessed at fair and reasonable market value of the land and too much HPSKDVLVRQFODLPDQW¶VULJKWWRFR upon the public exchequer. 19.13 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v Asha Ram (dead) through LRs and Others 17 to submit that market value of land must be determined based on comparable sale instances that are proximate in time and location to the acquisition notification . 19.14 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that even if acquired land lies near Yamuna River and building structures is presently prohibited due to environmental regulations, potentiality of the land must still be assessed. However, there is n o material on record showing development on the subject land on the date of the notification or at the time of possession of the land.
No evidence has been led showing any application made for change of land use from agricultural to residential purpos es, nor is there any such prayer in the documents on record. Learned Counsel submits that mere proximity to developed colonies cannot by itself establish potentiality. Once the land is found to lack building potentiality, no benefit of higher
16 1991 (4) SCC 195
17 2021 (17) SCC 289
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 9 of 171
compensation can be granted. Therefore, it is contended that there is no infirmity in the market value of the land as fixed by the learned Reference Court i.e. Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha .
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/UOI
20 .
Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that no evidence has been b r ought on record by the Appellant s to attribute any building potentiality to the acquired land. Learned Counsel submits that in order to determine the market value of the acquired land, the building potentiality of the land must be considered. However, no material has ben brought on recor d to show any development on the acquired land either on the date of the notification or on the date of possession of the land.
20 .1
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that as per t he Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWR , permission from the authority is mandatory to change the nature of land use and no such permission for change of land use from agriculture to building purposes has ben b r ought on record by the Appellants to evidence any "change of user" application.
20 .2
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has reiterated the contentions as set out by Respondent No. 2 that while awarding the compensation, the LAC/learned Reference Court has to ascertain the market value of the land keping in mind what a willing vendor ma y reasonably except to obtain from a willing purchaser. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Supreme Court in the Periyar case.
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 10 of 171
20 .3
Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the learned Reference Court while passing the Impugned Judgment has corectly relied upon Tindey case, wherein the land of village, Khizrabad was held to have no building potentiality at the relevant time i.e., at the time of publication of the notification and the amount of compensation was awarded acordingly.
20 .4
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that the evidence led by the Appellants at best supports that acquired land is used for agriculture purposes only and not for construction of a building. Acquisition of the land for building purposes cannot be suficient circumstance to presume land has building potentiality. Acordingly, the acquired land has no building potentiality and hence, no additional compensation should be granted. REJOINDER BY APPELANTS
21 . Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the characterisation of the land as µ6DLODEL¶ does not per se negate its development potential. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that out of total acquired land, pockets of land may have ben prone to flooding but not the entire acquired land. Siddharth Nagar and Ganga Vihar, similarly situated as acquired land, have ben fully developed. Therefore, the argument that µ6DLODEL ' l and s lacks potentiality is untenable. 21 .1 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the land which was not submerged by the river Yamuna was retained and not de - notified in terms of the notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act on 25.01.1995. It is contended that the possession was taken by the
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 101 of 171
Respondents and hence the argument of the Respondents that the entire land being µS ailabi ¶ land cannot be used for development purposes is misplaced. 21 .2 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that for market value of land to be assessed at higher value , reliance is placed upon testimony of PW - 3/Mr. Vinod Kumar (land purchaser) who purchased 1 Bigha and 1 biswa of land in village Kilokari through Sale ded dated l7.03.1988 for consideration of Rs. 2,07,50/ - [hereinafter refered to as
"17.03.1988 Exemplar"]. The sale ded is dated one year and thre months prior to the date of notification of the subject land and is thus a relevant exemplar. The allegation that the sale ded is inflated to secure higher compensation is without basis. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s clarif y that only one Bigha or 3,025 square yards was purcha sed by PW - 3, and the transaction stands unimpeached and the criticism regarding the purchaser not being an Income Tax paye is irrelevant and speculative.
21 .3 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the 17.03.1988 Exemplar was rejected by the learned Reference Court on assumption that landowners had prior knowledge about the acquisition , which
is not corect. In this regard , l earned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Appellant s places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahamaya General Finance Company v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 18 wherein a similar speculative finding that the Appellants had prior knowledge of the acquisition which was adopted by the learned Reference Court without any reasons , was disapproved by the Supreme Court. 18 (2014) 1 5 SCC 290
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 102 of 171
21 .4 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that testimony of PW2/Gopal Singh is not being relied upon. The emphasis is only upon the testimony of PW3, in relation to the 17.03.1988 Exemplar, which testimony remains unimpeachable. 21 .5 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Appellant s further reiterates that the land in Behlolpur Khadar which even as per the map and rough location plan relied upon by the Respondents is a village bordering Kilokari and that the learned Reference Court gave a finding enhancing the compensation of the said land to Rs. 250/ - per sq. yd./Rs. 2.5 lacs per Bigha
[approximately] and the same compensation must be awarded to village Kilokari, village Nangli Razapur and village Khizrabad . 21 .6 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Appellant s further distinguished the Tindey case. It was submitted that the Tindey case was based in respect of Section 4 notification of 1976 whereas the notification in the present case is of 1989. The other distinction sought to be drawn was that the Tindey case was related to village Khizrabad , whereas the present case is of village Kilokari.
In addition, it was submitted that in the Tindey case, there is a clear finding of the Court that no evidence was led and thus, the Coordina te Bench of this Court relied upon in earlier notification and added escalation at the rate of 12% per annum to arive at the final value given the fact that there were exemplars provided. No reliance could have ben placed by the learned Reference Court i n the Tindey case. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 103 of 171
SUR - REJOINDER
2 2 . A brief Sur - Rejoinder was given by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 to contend that there is no denial that the acquired land is situated betwen two
"Forward Bunds" and the river and thus, any distinction cannot be sought to be drawn betwen the acquired land and the land which was de - notified under Section 48 of the LA Act on 25.01.1995. In addition, it was contended that there is no evidence was led by the Appellant s to show future building potentiality. THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
23 . As stated above, the Kilokari A ward was passed on 19.06.1992 by the LAC for the acquisition of land admeasuring 2226 Bighas and 5 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village, Kilokari for development of Delhi
channelization of river Yamuna . The LAC while assessing the market value relied upon various similar awards passed for the land within the vicinity of the acquired land and also relied upon the Ofice Order of 1990 wherein the minimum price for agricultural land had been fixed at Rs. 1.5 lacs per acre as on 27.04.1990 and treat ing the land as µSailabi ¶ land situated between two ³F orward B unds ´ by discounting 15% per annum, LAC assessed the market value at Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha . 23 .1 Similarly, the award no.
18/1992 - 93 was passed for acquisition of 874 Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Khizrabad
>KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDVµ Khizrabad $ZDUG¶@7KH/$&VL
consideration the Ofice Order of 1990 and discounting it as in the Kilokari Award, assessed the fair market value for the land at Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 104 of 171
23.2
The award no. 16/1992 - 93 for land admeasuring 2009 Bighas and 10 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Nangli Razapur as notified was also passed on 19.06. 1992 >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHG $ZDUG¶@7KH/$&IRXQGWKDWWKHNL market value of the land, as it did in the case of Kilokari and Khizrabad Award as Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha. 23 .3 In the case of land situated in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu, the award no. 13/1992 was passed in the acquisition of 1563 Bighas and 1 8 Biswas in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu >KHUHLQDIWHUUHI 0HQGX$ZDUG¶@ . The classification in the Garhi Mendu Award of the land was of flooded land and the LAC assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha. 23.4
The Appellant s challenged this determination by filing a Reference Petition s under Section 18 of the LA Act. The Appellant s claimed the value of acquired land at about Rs 10,000/ - per square yard and avered that the land i s not situated under the riverbed. 23.5
The f ollowing issues were framed by the l earned Reference Court in Attar Singh case and Bed Ram Reference Court case : (i)
Whether the provisions of the DLR Act is applicable to the land in dispute, if so, to what efect? (ii)
What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification u nder s ection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 ? (iii)
To what enhancement in compensation, the Appellant is entitled to? LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 105 of 171
23. 6 An additional issue was framed by the learned Reference Court in the Bhopal Singh case, which is reproduced below:
³( i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to amount u/s 23(1)A of the LA Act with respect to Khasra nos. of which the posesion has been taken subsequently, for the period during which the proceedings for the acquisition of land were held up on account of an y stay or injunction? ´ 23 .7 No evidence was led by the Respondent No.2 /DDA in his support before the learned Reference Court.
However, evidence in support of their
contentions was led by the Appellant and the Respondent No.1/UOI. 2 3 .8 The learned Reference Court held that no evidence has ben led by the Appellant to show acquired land was not situated in
"Forward Bund" area and hence it cannot be compared with other lands. It was held that the land in village, Khizrabad and acquired land both fall in the
"Forward Bund" area and are comparative lands. Since the rate of land in village, Khizrabad has ben assessed at rate of Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha and is µ6DLODEL¶ land in LAC 1RRIWLWOHGµ Sri Ram v. UOI ¶/$&1RRI µAttar Singh v UOI ¶ and LAC No. 19 of 2005 titled µBed Ram Vs. UOI ¶ has also ben assessed at the rate Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha , the acquired land being similarly situated is assessed at the same rate. Learned Reference Court also relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Tindey case for village Khizrabad , to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha . Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI 19 . 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 106 of 171
24 . Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola village and that there was no evidence to show that the land was not situated in a
"Forward Bund" area. Reliance was also placed by the Appellant on the judgment in Dhoom i Singh & Anr. v. UOI 20 wherein this Court enhanced the compensation of the land acquired for village Jasola by Rs.2,240/ - per square yard , which was land acquired in village Kilokari by an Award in 1981 . 2 4 .1 The Respondents/DDA and UOI on the other hand had contended that the DLR Act is applicable to the acquired land and had also relied on exemplars of the land to submit that the LAC had corectly assessed the valuation for the acquired land at Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha. 2 5 . The learned Reference Court gave a finding that the DLR Act was not applicable to the acquired land.
It further relied upon the sale deds/exemplars as placed on record by the Appellant and the Respondent/DDA the details whereof are set out below : Apellants : S.No.
Ex.No.
Date of
Sale ded
Village
Area of land
Total
C onsideration
with stamp duty
1. Ex.P1
1 7 . 0 3. 1988
Kilokari
1 Bigha
1 Bis wa
2 , 07 , 5 00/ -
20 Judgment dated 19.10.2001 in RFA 408/1986 ± Delhi High Court
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 107 of 171
Respondents : S.No.
Ex.No.
Date of
Sale ded
Village
Area of land
Total
C onsiderati on with stamp duty
1. Ex.R1
6.4.87
Kilokari
1 Big ha
43,200/ -
2. Ex.R2
1.11.85
Kilokari
1 Bigha
9 Biswa
5 2 ,920/ -
3. Ex.R3
9.9.83
Kilokari
1 Big ha
2,160/ -
4. Ex.R4
28 /31 .3.84
Kilokari
5 Bigha
12 Biswa
15,120 / - 1 Bigha 13 Biswa
5. Ex.R5
28/ 31.3.8 4 Kilokari
9 B igha
19,440/ -
25 .1 The learned Reference Court further held that the land is situated in the
"Forward Bund" in river b e d and is µ6DLODEL¶ in nature. The learned Reference Court found that the exemplar given by the Appellant did not appear to be reliable while Ex. R2 to R5 also appear that they have ben undervalued to save stamp duty. The learned Reference Court then relied on the judgment in the Tindey case as assessed in terms of the Award No. 19/1992 - 93 which was also notified along with village Kilokari and granted compensation at the same rate as was granted for village Khizrabad in the Tindey case at Rs.89,600 per Bigha. The relevant extract of the findings in the Impugned
Judgment is below:
³«
In the present case the land under acquisition is also located in forward bund in river bed and apears to be similarly situated as in the case of land acquired in village Khizrabad . Considering the location of village Kilokari, there is no reason to asume that rate of land in village Kilokari would be les than in village Khizrahad . There apears to be no reason as t o why the rate of land asesed in Award No. 19/92 - 93 involving the same date of notification in village Khizrabad may not be adopted i n present case . 1 may also mention that for asesment of land (other than situated in forward bund in river bed) which is not covered under the provisions of DLR Act, a
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 108 of 171
marginal increase in compensation can be granted on account of urbanization when the same is compared with land to which provisions of D L R Act arc aplicable. However in the present case as the land is situated in forward bund area in the river bed, the posibility of any distinct advantage is remote and the fact that the village Kilokari had been urbanized may not be of much consequence . Any benefit on account of u r EDQL]DWLRQZDVDOVRGHQLHGE\+RQ¶EOH on account of urba nization of village Khizrabad though the same was claimed to have been also urbanized, in view of typical location and sailabi nature of land. in view of above, I am not inclined to grant rate of compensation in village Kilokari at any higher rate that asesed in village Khizrabad . I am therefore of the view that it shall be fair to ases the market value of land @ Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha folowing the rate of land asesed by this Court in village Khizrabad wherein the land had been acquired for same purpo se and involves the same date of notification «´
[Emphasis suplied]
ANAYLSIS & FINDINGS
2 6 . $VVWDWHGDERYHWKHOHDUQHG5HI VSRW¶LQVSHFWLRQRIWKHVLWHDQG Impugned Judgment. 27 . At this stage , it is apposite to set out that the Appeals listed before this Court were in relation to four villages i.e., Khizrabad , Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu.
It is apposite to set out the details by way of a tabular chart below:
S.No.
Total No. of Cases
Vilage Name
Award No. & Date
Rate as Awarded by Reference Court
Rate as awarded by Predecesor Bench of this Court on 07.06.201
1. 21
Khizrabad
18/192 - 93 19.06.192
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
2. 62
Kilokari
14/192 - 93
17.06.193
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
3. 48
Nangli 16/192 - 93
Rs.89,60/ - Rs.89,60/ -
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 109 of 171
The Apeals
28 .
Learned Counsel for the parties contended that the reasoning of the learned Reference Court is par i materia in the Impugned Orders in relation to these villages and thus all 144 Appeals can be heard together and with the consent of the parties LA.AP. 59/2007 captioned being Bed Ram v. UOI & Anr. was argued as the lead matter.
29 . P ursuant to the SC J udgment , t he Appellant s essentially relied upon the evidence which was already available with the learned Reference Court albeit both in the Bed Ram case as well as in connected matters. The Appellant s have also relied upon the exemplars in the form of sale deds which were available on record, including of village Behlolpur Khadar and village Jasola.
29 .1 T he Respondents have relied upon the building potentiality of the land and have stated that the land being 'Sailabi' in nature did not have the same building potentiality as the land which was in its vicinity for development. It is additionally contended that the burden of proof in such cases is on the Claimants to show the value of the land.
29 .2 The parties agred that no further evidence (other than what was already led by the parties before this Court) was required to be led by either party nor was cross - examination on the sale exemplars necessary a s the Respondents made their submissions contradictin g these exemplars.
Razapur
19.06.192
per Bigha
per Bigha
4. 13
G arhi M endu
13/192 - 93
19.06.192
Rs.90,102/ - per Bigha
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 10 of 171
Village Khizrabad
30.
The learned Reference Court passed a judgment in the LAC No. 18 of WLWOHGµ Attar Singh v UOI ¶ on 25.09.2006 [hereinafter referred to as the
" Khizrabad
Judgment"]. The Khizrabad
Judgment in essence made the calculations with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tindey case to award Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha . The 21 cases that have ben decided are set out below:
S. No.
Case No. & Case Title
1. LA.AP. 40/207
Dharam Veer vs. UOI & Anr. 2. LA.AP. 42/207
Sri Ram &Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. 3. LA.AP. 43/207
Bed Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 4. LA.AP. 4/207
Atar Singh vs. UOI & Anr. 5. LA.AP. 293/207
Jagbir Singh vs. UOI & Anr
6. LA.AP. 72/2016
Raghubar Dayal @ Raghuber Singh @ Raghbar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
7. LA.AP. 35/208
Munshi Deceased Through LRs & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
8. LA.AP. 647/209
Mehar Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
9. LA.AP. 650/209
Prem Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
10. LA.AP. 31/2010
Mamraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. 1. LA.AP. 314/2010
Lakhmi Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. 12. LA.AP. 315/2010
Jagan vs. Union of India & Anr. 13. LA.AP. 316/2010
Ramesh Decd Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. 14. LA.AP. 69/2010
Nain Singh Decsd. Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
15. LA.AP. 13/2012
Budhan Decsd. Thru LRs vs. Union of India & Ors
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 1 of 171
16. LA.AP. 37/2012
Daroga Decsd. Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
17. LA.AP. 85/2015
Lakhmi Chand & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr
18. LA.AP. 14/2016
Nain Singh (Deceased) Thr His LRs vs. Union of India
19. LA.AP. 131/2018
Union of India vs. Mamchand (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
20. LA.AP. 204/2018
Om Prakash (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of
India & Anr
21. LA.AP. 4/2019
Union of India vs Raghubar Dayal @ Raghbar Singh & Ors. Village Kilokari
3 1 . The judgment in the Bed Ram Reference Court case relied upon the Attar Singh and the Tindey case to calculate the compensation in these matters were listed before this Court in respect of the revenue estate of village
Kilokari , which are set out below :
S. No.
Case No. & Case Title
1. LA.AP. 58/207
Duli Chand vs. UOI &Anr. 2. LA.AP. 59/207
Lead mater
Bed Ram vs. vs. UOI & Anr. 3. LA.AP. 38/2015
Fakir Chand (Deceased) Thr.
Lr & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr. 4. LA.AP. 39/2015
Hukum Singh Since Deceased Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr. 5. LA.AP. 14/2019
Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
6. LA.AP. 230/202
Salek Ram (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr. 7. LA.AP. 36/202
Sita Ram (Deceased) Thr. LR Chavan &Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. 8. LA.AP. 61/207
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr. 9. LA.AP. 62/207
Ganga Ram &Anr vs. UOI &Anr
10. LA.AP. 63/207
Sato Devi & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 12 of 171
1. LA.AP. 64/207
Angori Devi (D) Thru. LR vs. UOI &Anr
12. LA.AP. 65/207
Raj Pal vs. UOI & Anr
13. LA.AP. 6/207
Kailash Sharma &Anr. vs. UOI &Anr
14. LA.AP. 73/207
Tek Chand vs. UOI &Anr
15. LA.AP. 87/207
Pritam Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
16. LA.AP. 412/207
Giriraj & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
17. LA.AP. 89/207
Balbir Singh vs. UOI &Anr
18. LA.AP. 130/209
Shri Bhik Ram vs. Union of India & Ors. 19. LA.AP. 91/207
Bhim Singh Decd. Thr. LRs & Or vs. UOI &Anr
20. LA.AP. 50/208
Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
21. LA.AP. 748/208
Dal Chand & Ors. vs. U.O.I & Ors. 2. LA.AP. 89/209
Om Prakash (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors. 23. LA.AP. 528/209
Sher Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI &Anr. 24. LA.AP. 53/209
Bahadur DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
25. LA.AP. 59/209
Pehlad vs. Union of India &Anr
26. LA.AP. 595/209
Prem Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
27. LA.AP. 101/2010
Rato Devi Decd Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
28. LA.AP. 380/2010
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. UOI and Anr. 29. LA.AP. 765/2010
Dal Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. 30. LA.AP.
827/2010
Bhop Singh Decd Thr LRs vs. UOI &Anr
31. LA.AP. 1070/2010
Ram Kishan Decd Thru LRs & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr. 32. LA.AP. 15/201
Musadi Decsd Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Ors. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 13 of 171
3. LA.AP. 29/201
Dal Chand &Anr vs. Union of India
34. LA.AP. 39/201
Uma Dhawan & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr. 35. LA.AP. 54/201
Karan Singh vs. Union of India &Anr
36. LA.AP. 15/201
Jaspal Singh (Dec) Thr LRs vs. UOI &Anr
37. LA.AP. 156/201
Bed Ram vs. UOI &Anr. 38. LA.AP. 251/201
Hari Chand vs Union of India & Ors
39. LA.AP. 5/2012
Surjan & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
40. LA.AP. 6/2012
Gian Chand Decsd. Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
41. LA.AP. 10/2012
Anant Ram &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
42. LA.AP. 218/2012
Net Ram Through LRs and Anr vs. UOI &Anr
43. LA.AP. 23/2012
Hari Singh Through LRs vs. UOI &Anr. 4. LA.AP. 49/2013
Samarta Decsd. Thru LRs and Ors vs. UOI and Anr
45. LA.AP. 51/2013
Net Ram vs. UOI &Anr
46. LA.AP. 86/2015
Jugal Kishore & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
47. LA.AP. 423/2015
Hari Kishan (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
48. LA.AP. 426/2015
Nathu (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
49. LA.AP. 45/2015
Nathu (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
50. LA.AP. 173/2016
Ram Sarop Through LRs vs. UOI and Anr
51. LA.AP. 196/2016
Budh Ram @ Budh Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
52. LA.AP. 292/2016
Hari Kishan Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
53. LA.AP. 1/2017
Shashi Kumar vs. Union of India &Anr
54. LA.AP. 287/2017
Mehar Chand & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 14 of 171
5. LA.AP. 209/2018
Virender &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
56. LA.AP.
245/2018
Union of India vs. Budh Ram @ Budh Singh (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
57. LA.AP. 246/2018
Union of India vs. Hari Kishan (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
58. LA.AP. 247/2018
Union of India vs. Ram Sarop (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
59. LA.AP. 49/2019
Union of India vs. Hanso (Deceased) Thr LRs &Anr
60. LA.AP. 130/2019
Dal Chand Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
61. LA.AP. 137/2019
Bhop Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
62. LA.AP. 298/202
Jai Bhagwan Deceased Through His Legal Heirs and Ors vs. Union of India and Anr. 3 1 .1 T hese Appeals emanate either from the Impugned Judgment or judgments passed by the Reference Court thereafter , relying on the Impugned
Judgment . Village Nangli Razapur
3 2 . So far as concerns the village Nangli Razapur , t he lead matter for this village is LA.AP. 372/2007 captioned Bhopal Singh vs. UOI & Anr. The learned Reference Court by a judgment dated 29.08.2007 in LAC No. 2/1998 titled as Bhopal Singh v. UOI & Anr. / Nangli Razapur Reference Court
Judgment ascertained the compensation to be awarded at the same rate as those in village Kilokari at Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha . The learned Reference Court in this matter relied on the judgment in the Attar Singh case in respect of village Khizrabad to hold that the compensation should be awarded. The learned Reference Court discusse d the sale exemplars relied in the Bed Ram
Reference Court case of village Kilokari , referencing the fact that the land
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 15 of 171
was situated in the ³)RUZDUG %XQG´ area . The details of the 48 cases in relation to village Nangli Razapur are set out below:
S. No.
Case No. & Case Title
1. LA.AP. 91/2010
Kehar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. 2. LA.AP. 1234/208
Hans Raj Decd. Thr LRs vs. UOI & Anr
3. LA.AP. 1235/208
Surya Prakash & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
4. LA.AP. 607/209
Neki Ram vs. UOI
5. LA.AP. 372/207
Lead Mater
Bhopal Singh vs. UOI &Anr
6. LA.AP. 501/208
Zile Singh (Deceased) Through LRs vs. UOI & Anr
7. LA.AP. 508/208
Jagwati vs. UOI & Anr
8. LA.AP. 509/208
Bir Singh vs. UOI & Anr
9. LA.AP. 564/208
Aman Singh vs. UOI & Anr
10. LA.AP. 565/208
Shashi Verma vs. UOI & Anr
1. LA.AP. 609/208
Nimant Rana & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
12. LA.AP. 631/208
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
13. LA.AP. 737/208
Inder Singh vs. U.O.I & Anr
14. LA.AP. 739/208
Ramesh Basistha vs. U.O.I & Ors
15. LA.AP. 816/208
Kishan Sahai Thru LRs vs. UOI & Anr
16. LA.AP. 817/208
Jagbir & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
17. LA.AP. 876/208
Rishal Singh Decd. Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Anr
18. LA.AP. 96/208
Raj Kumar vs. UOI & Ors. 19. LA.AP. 92/208
Ajeet Singh vs. UOI & Ors. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 16 of 171
20. LA.AP. 94/208
Hari Singh vs. UOI & Anr
21. LA.AP. 95/208
Prem Singh vs. UOI & Anr
2. LA.AP. 96/208
Rajender Prashad & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
23. LA.AP. 136/208
Jaswant Singh Rana (Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Anr
24. LA.AP. 1204/208
Devender Kumar Triguna vs. UOI & Anr. 25. LA.AP. 1238/208
Chinta vs. UOI &Anr. 26. LA.AP. 50/209
Guni Ram Decsd. Through LRs vs. Union of India & Ors. 27. LA.AP. 51/209
Ranjit Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India & Anr
28.
LA.AP. 52/209
Jagdip Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India &Anr
29. LA.AP. 56/209
Atar Singh DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
30. LA.AP. 560/209
Ajit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. 31. LA.AP. 576/209
Narender Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India &Anr
32. LA.AP. 580/209
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
3. LA.AP. 253/2010
Ram Pat vs. Union of India & Anr. 34. LA.AP. 263/2010
Ramesh &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
35. LA.AP. 264/2010
Hari Singh DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
36. LA.AP. 454/2010
Daya Kishan Decd Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr. 37. LA.AP. 67/2010
Om Prakash &Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. 38. LA.AP. 678/2010
Shri Chanderman @ Chander Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. 39. LA.AP. 679/2010
Ram Singh Decsd Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors. 40. LA.AP. 682/2010
Mol Chand Decd Thr LRs vs. Union of India and Ors. 41. LA.AP. 683/2010
Yash Pal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 42. LA.AP. 140/201
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 17 of 171
Ranjet Singh Decd Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
43. LA.AP. 708/201
Lekh Ram vs. Union of India & Anr
4. LA.AP. 716/201
Gopal Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Anr
45. LA.AP. 390/2015
Virender Singh (Since Mising) Thr. LRs & Ors vs. Union of India &
Anr
46. LA.AP. 18/2016
Mahipal (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
47. LA.AP. 19/2016
Chatar Singh vs. Union of India & Anr
48. LA.AP. 256/2017
Poja vs. Union of India & Anr
Village Garhi Mendu
3 3 . As stated in paragraph 9.3 above, the learned Reference Court had enhanced the market value of the land as acquired from Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha to Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha in the lead matter in this village being LA.APP.
1038/2008 captioned UOI vs. Khazan Singh & Ors. by a judgment dated 26.07.2007 [hereinafter referred to as the " Garhi Mendu
Judgment"] . Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Smt. Chawli Devi
(Deceased) through her LRs v. UOI & Anr. , being
order dated 31.05.20 0 7 passed in LAC No. 334/1 of 2006 by the learned Reference Court . The details of 13 matters in relation to village Gar h i M en du which were listed before this Court as below :
S. No.
Case No. & Case Title in High Court
1.
LA.AP. 143/208
UOI &Anr. vs. Bhohti Deceased Through LRs
2.
LA.AP. 1038/208
UOI vs. Khazan Singh & Ors.
3.
LA.AP. 1040/208
UOI vs. Champa Devi Decd. Thr LRs.
4.
LA.AP. 1042/208
UOI vs. Richa Ram & Ors.
5.
LA.AP. 1043/208
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 18 of 171
UOI vs. Phol Singh & Ors.
6.
LA.AP. 141/208
UOI vs. Mansa Ram Decd. Thr. LRs & Ors.
7.
LA.AP. 142/208
UOI vs Kishori @ Bhola Decd. Thr. LRs & Ors.
8.
LA.AP. 14/208
UOI &Anr vs. Nathu & Ors.
9.
LA.AP. 145/208
UOI vs. Balbir & Ors.
10.
LA.AP. 146/208
UOI vs. Hari Kishan Decd. Thr LRs & Ors.
1.
LA.AP. 147/208
UOI &Anr vs Sohan Thr. His LRs
12.
LA.AP. 148/208
UOI vs. Khazan Singh Decd. Thr. LRs
13.
LA.AP. 618/209
Badley vs. UOI &Anr
3 3 .1 The Garhi Mendu Judgment was challenged by the Appellants before this Court. B y an order dated 07.06.2011, this Court directed that the fair market value per Bigha of the lands in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu would be Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha and not Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha as awarded by the learned Reference Court. The amount of compensation for village Garhi Mendu was kept at parity to Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha in view of the amounts awarded for the adjoining villages of Kilokari , Khizrabad and Nangli Razapur . The relevant extract of
order dated 07.06.2011 is set out below:
³6LQFHLQWKHGHFLVLRQVSURQRXQFHG Khizrabad , Kilokari and Nangli Rajapur I have upheld the market value determined by the learned Reference Court for said villages @ ০89,60/ - per bigha by asigning the minimum value to the lands, I see no scope to further reduce the market value of the lands in village Ghari Mendu and by way of an illustration may simply state that on the poverty index, those who are listed as Below Po verty Line would have no scope for further sub - clasifica tion as 'Below Poverty Line' and 'Little Below Poverty Line'. 9. I accordingly hold that the fair market value of the subject lands in village Ghari Mendu as of 23.6.1989 would be ০89,60/ - per bigha and not ০ - per bigha worked out by the learned Reference Court . LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 19 of 171
10. Accordingly, LA Ap.No.618/209 filed by Badley seeking enhancement of compensation is dismised. 1. The Land Acquisition Apeals filed by Union of India are partly alowed E\PRGLI\LQJWKH5HIHUHQFH2UGHUDQG - to be the fair market value per bigha of the subject lands in village Ghari Mendu which are the subject maters of the apeals filed by Union of India and needles to state on the said sum the land owners would be entitled to statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. Un ion of India 93 (201) DLT 569. Cros objectio ns in said DSSHDOVILOHGE\WKHODQGRZQHUVDUH
[Emphasis Suplied]
3 4 . T he Impugned J udgment has ben made applicabl e in respect of the lands comprised in the revenue estate of village Kilokari, Khizrabad , Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu . It is clarified that not all agricultural land in the revenue estate of these three villages was acquired , some part of land in these villages were also de - notified under Section 48 of the LA Act. The Award
35. The Kilokari Award which was passed for land admeasuring 2226 Bighas and 5 Biswas pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, relied upon the Ofice Order dated 03.05.1990 which conveyed the decision of the Administration regarding fixation of minimum rise for agricultural land to be taken into consideration by the LAC.
It was further stated therein that it would apply to all cases where land had ben notified under Section 4 of the LA Act after 27.04.190. The Kilokari Award sets out that since the notification in the present case was issued on 23.06.1989, the guidelines issued prior to 1990 were to be used after working out a pro rata discount of compensation at the rate of 15% per annum was calculated as Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha and the Award was made acordingly. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 120 of 171
35 .1 The Kilokari Award further recorded the existence of 251 Safeda tres, 6 Shehtoot trees, 3 Amrood tres, 4 Nem tres and 1 Shesham tre along with a tubewell and a wall on the land. It further states that other than boundary wall and one temple [which w as not acquired], no other permanent structure were found in existence at the time of the notification. The relevant extract is below:
³Hence, in view of the guidelines conveyed by the Administration for discounting the rates in regarding to notification isued prior to 190, at the rate of 15% per anum on this price of Rs.1.5 lacs per acre , after working out the pro - rata discount of compensation works out to Rs.27,34/ - per bigha i.e. Rs.1,31,251/ - per acre . Therefore, I ases the true and fair market value of the land as per policy at Rs.27,34/ - per bigha and award accordingly. No other type of tree is available in any of the khasra under acquisition excepting some Safeda tree and a few below mentioned, w hich are asesed as below:
251 Safeda Tree @ 10/ -
25,10/ - 6 Shahtot @ 50/ -
30/ - 3 Amrod @ 50/ -
150/ - 4 Neem @ 125/ -
50/ - 1 Shisham @ 20/ -
20/ -
Total:
26,250/ - As regards tube wel/wel only one old wel is recorded in zamabandi and that to is un - usable for any purpose. So , no compensation deserves to be awarded.
Regarding structures only boundary wal were e re cted and no other
construction of permanent nature was found, in existence at the time of the notification u/s 4 i.e., on 23.6.89, excepting one temple in Kh. No. 520 Min of which, the posesion was also not taken . ´
[Emphasis Suplied]
The Reference Court Judgments
36 . The first assessment of the market value for the acquired land was done by the learned Reference Court in Attar Singh case , wherein learned Reference Court had assessed the market value of the acquired land in village
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 121 of 171
Khizrabad as Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha . Relying on the judgement in the Attar Singh case , the learned Reference Court also decided other cases pertaining to the village Khizrabad . 3 6 .1 Since the land in village Kilokari was also located in the
"Forward Bund" in river bed and appear ed to be similarly situated as in the case of land acquired in village Khizrabad , the judgement in the Attar Singh case was relied on by the learned Reference Court in LAC 1/2003 captioned Bed Ram v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 18.10.2006 [ the Impugned
Judgment]
and the market value for the village Kilokari was assessed at the rate of Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha as wel . 36 .2 The land under acquisition in the village Nangli Razapur was also found to be similarly situated to the land under acquisition in village Kilokari and thus, learned Reference Court in LAC 2/1998 captioned Bhopal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 29.08.2007 relied upon the Attar Singh
case and Bed Ram Reference Court case ( the Impugned Judgment) and assessed the market value of land in village Nangli Razapur at the rate of Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha.
3 6 .3 The market value of the acquired land in village Garhi Mendu was assessed by the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 96/01/2006 captioned as Khazan Singh v. Union of India decided on 26.07.2007 at the rate of Rs.90,102/ - per Bigha. In the Garhi Mendu Judgment, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the judgement in LAC 334/1/06 captioned as Smt . Chawli Devi (decd.) thr o u gh her LRs v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 31.05.2007 which had also assessed the market value of the land in the village Garhi Mendu. The l earned Reference Court in the Chawli Devi case relied
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 12 of 171
upon the judgment of Bed Ram Reference Court c ase and Sri Ram & Anr v. Union of India and Anr . 21 to categorize the land of village Garhi Mendu to be similarly situated with the land of village Khizrabad and Kilokari. The l earned Reference Court , however, relied upon Rameshwar Solanki and Anr. v. UOI & Anr. 22 to marginally enhance the market value of the acquired land in Garhi Mendu to Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha as on the date of notification i.e.,
23.01.1989.
36.4
Thus, both the learned Reference Court as well as th i s Court in the Bed Ram case
judgment passed on 07.06.2011 has found the lands in village Kilokari, Nangli Razapur , Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu to be similarly situated for the purposes of award of compensation.
The Aditional Evidence
37.
As stated above, emphasis was placed by the learned Senior Counsel/learned Counsel for the Appellants that in terms of the location of land, the award by the Reference Court was not comensurate with the potentiality of the land. Reliance was also placed o n the awards given for villages Jasola and Behlolpur Khadar . Relying on the Affidavit in evidence dated 01.09.2015 filed by AW1/Karan Singh, it was contended that the acquired land was under cultivation and the compensation as awarded for village Behlo lpur Khadar , which was adjoining and acquired by the same notification was Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha , and since this area was adjoining village Behlolpur Khadar , similar compensation should have ben awarded. The witness also placed reliance on the Khasra Girdawari showing the land
21 LAC 13/2004 decided on 25.09.2006
2 57 (1995) DLT 4 1 0
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 123 of 171
of the Appellant as well as the map of the location of the land. The witness relied on the judgment dated 04.01.2011 passed in LAC 75/2008 captioned Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr. 23 [hereinafter refered to as the ³Behlolpur Khadar 5HIHUHQFH&RXUW-XGJPHQW´@ captioned S.S. Dhillon v. Union of India & Anr. 24 to submit that these awards have not ben challenged by the Respondent.
38 . Two witnesses were produced by the Appellants before this Court , Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. Kailash Sharma [AW - 1 in LA.APP. 54/2011 and AW - 1 in LA.AP. 59/2007 respectively] . Mr. Karan Singh deposed on the Khasra Girdavari showing notification of the land of the Appellants. He further deposed that the compensation for the adjoining vil l age of Behlolpur Khadar which was acquired by the same notification was given at the rate of Rs.250/ - sq. yds. The deponent also relied on the Behlolpur Khadar Reference Court
Judgment which awarded Rs. 2.5 lakhs per Bigha for village Behlolpur Khadar as well as the
judgment in Jagdish Gulati cas e which awarded Rs. 49, 4 1,000/ - p e r Bigha for land situated in the village Jasola. In addition, he confirmed that the land was being used by him for agricultural purposes. The relevant extract of the evidence of Mr. Karan Singh is set out below:
³7KDWLWLVSHUWLQHQWWRPHQWLRQKH i.e., L.A.APP NO. 54 OF 201 titled Karan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors, was treated as the lead case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as Civil Apeal No. 1236 of 201 and it is on the basis of these additional documents (the Eicher map showing the location of the land of the instant Apelant, the khasra Girdawri showing cultivation on the land of the Apelant herein, Judgments/ Awards by the Court of the LD.ADJ @ Rs.250 per Sq Yard in the adjoining Village Behlolpur which was acquired vide the same notification on the same date and for the same purpose) which were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Hon'ble Apex court vide its order/judgment dated 13.01.2015 had granted an oportunity to the Apelant herein to file these
23 LAC 75/2008: Judgment dated 04.01.2011 ±District Courts
24 LAC 27/2012: Judgment dated 03.12.2014
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 124 of 171
documents before this Hon'ble court for being considered prior to adjudging the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Apelant herein in comparison to the compensation so awarded earlier. It is further significant to mention that the benefit of the said
order/Judgment dated 13.01.2015 so pased by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was extended to al other Apelants who were before the Hon'ble Supreme court then and are now before this Hon'ble Court. 5. That the Copy of the Eicher map showing the location of the land of the Apelant is marked as Exhibit AW1/2 (already filed in L.A.APP NO. 54 OF 201 at page number 47.)
6. That the true copy of the Khasra girdawari showing the land of the Apelant herein as being used for agricultural purposes is marked as Exhibit AW1/3
(already filed in L.A.APP NO. 54 OF 201 at page number 350 - 359.) (Original is in the posesion of the Apelant and can be produced as and when directed by WKLV+RQ EOH&RXUW´
[Emphasis suplied]
3 8 .1 In his cross - examination conducted on 23.01.2016 by the Respondents the witness deposed that the nomenclature of the land was 'Sailabi' , which when translated meant flood in the English translation filed. The witness also clarified that ' Sailabi ' as mentioned in Khasra Girdavari meant the area in close proximity to the river Yamuna and that the Khasra Girdawari showed the cultivation carried out on the land. He further deposed that there were several established institutions like the women polytech nic, CRI staff quarters which came into existence in the vicinity of the acquired land in the period from 1965 - 75. In addition , h e deposed that the Ei c her Map was filed to show the pro x imity of the land to Kalindi Kunj which was near Maharani Bagh the women polytechnic came into being in the year 1978 - 80 . The relevant extract of the cros - examination is set out below:
³23.01.2016
AW1 Statement of Mr. Karan Singh, S/o Late Sh. Likhi Ram, aged about 53 years, R/o 8, Taimur Nagar, Near New Friends Colony. New Delhi 1065, On SA. xxx
xxx
xxx
My land which has been acquired by the Government bears K ha sra N o. 8 6 0 in Revenue Estate of Vilage Kilokri. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 125 of 171
Q. What is the meaning of flod mentioned in Khasra Girdawari at
runing pages 350 - 359 in LA. APP. 54/201 (Ex. AW 1 /3). A ns . The translator who - did translation of Khasra Girdawari has described WKH8UGXZRUG6DLODELDVµIORRG English. (Voluntered).
This Khasra Girdawari also mentions details of the cultivation caried out in the particular years. The Eicher Map (Ex. AW1/2) filed by me along with my afidavit was prepared in the year 2012. (Vol u ntered) if required, I can produce the original bok carying this map also. I was not at al asociated with the preparation of this Eicher Map (Ex. AW1/2). (Volunteered) It was filed only to show the proximity of my land to Kalindi Colony. I never apli ed to the MCD seeking sanction of the layout plan with respect to land in question . The Kalindi Colony near Maharani Bagh started developing from the year 1970. I do not know about the completion of development of that area. Likewise, Maharani Bagh was also developed in the years 1965 -
70. The Women Polytechnic in Maharani Bagh came into b eing aproximately in the year 1978 - 80. CRRI Staf Quarters came into existence in the year 1975 - 76 Akshardham Temple also came into existence about 10 - 12 years back Comon Wealth Garnes were held, in the year 2010. According to me, the 'posh colony' means a colony which has all the civic amenities and facilities for the convenience of the residents. According to me, the word 'Sailabi' means the area which is in close proximity to the river Yamuna and has been categor ised as su ch . The other col oni es a t Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, N e w Friends Colony have been categorized as plain land. I have never raised any objection to the word µSailibi' [sic; Sailabi] mentioned in Khasra Girdawari (Ex. AW1/3) in relation to my land. ´ [Emphasis Suplied]
39 . The other witness - son of Shri Bed Ram, Shri Kailash Sharma, also deposed before this Court by way of an Afidavit dated 14.09.2015.
The said Kailash Sharma deposed that the acquired land in village Kilokari touches New Friends Colony, Kalindi Colony, Maharani Bagh and various other colonies of Delhi and is in the vicinity of Akshardham Temple and Comon Wealth Game Village Complex. The witness deposed that the acquired land is neither the river bed nor the flood plain since the land which was submerged
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 126 of 171
and/or submergible had already ben de - notified on 25.05.1995 from the area under acquisition under Section 48 of the LA Act. He also relied on the Award of village Behlolpur Khadar as decided in the Behlolpur Khadar Reference Court Judgment dated 04.01.2011 as well as the award qua village Jasola. It was deposed that the villages Kilokari , Khizrabad , Nangli Razapur , Behlolpur Khadar and Jasola had already ben urbanised prior to the 23.06.1989 N otification under Section 4 of the LA Act. The relevant extract is set out below:
" 6. That in the earlier acquired land of Village Kilokari, several posh colonies like New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Women Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute had already been developed and the remaining land of these villages was acquired vide above said notification dated 23.06.19 8 9 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 7. That the presently acquired land is neither riverbed nor flodplain because the land which was submerged or submergible has already been de - notified under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act (already on record). 8. That the presently acquired land of Vilage Kilokari touches New Friends Colony, Kalindi Colony, Maharani Bagh, Women Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute, Ring Road and Indraprastha. Akshardham Temple and Comon Wealth Game Village Complex are also in the vicinity. xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
15.
That as the presently acquired land of the apelant in Vilage Kilokari is of the same kind/nature and enjoys beter location and has been acquired for the same purpose, the apelant canot be treated discriminately and therefore, in view of the ste p rise in the market value of the land after 1959 and in view of the evidence placed on record, the apelant deserves the same market value of the entire acquire land . " [Emphasis suplied]
39 .1 The deponent was cross - examined by the Respondents on various aspects including as to whether any layout or sanction plans were applied for change of land use in the village which was answered in the negative . He further deposed that he was running a shop in village Kilokari since the year 1996 doing the business of paint and hardware. The witness also deposed that
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 127 of 171
for the last 50 years or so, he never experienced any flood or water logging in the land . He further deposed that they had ben cultivating the land in question since the year 1989. The relevant extract of this cross - examination conducted on 23.01.2016 is set out below:
³23.01.2016
AW1
Statement of Mr. Kailash Sharma, S/o Sh. Bed Ram, aged about 5.5 years, R/O D - 63, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 10065 . On S A.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
I am running the busines of paints and hardware and I have a shop at Village Kilokri [sic: Kilokari] since 196 . I have brought al the papers in Court which are relevant to the present case. Whatever I have stated in para - 9 of the afidavit is on the basis of my personal knowledge. I am related to the disputes of land in question for the last 25 years .
I have never aplied to MCD seeking sanction of the layout plan in respect of land in question. I have never experienced any flod or water loging on the land in question for the last 50 years . (Voluntered) I am presently 50 years of age and to my knowledge I have never experienced any flod or water loging in respect of land in question during my lifetime. According to my knowledge , Maharani Bagh was developed between 1959 - 65. New Friends Colony was also developed during the said period. Same is the position with Kalindi Colony . The Women Polytechnic came into being in Maharani Bagh area in the years 1965 - 70. Same is the position with CRI. Akshardhan Temple came into existence during the period after acquisition and before Comon Wealth Games started in Delh i . We had been cultivating the land in question til it was acquired in the year 1989. "
[Emphasis Suplied]
4 0 . Both the witnesses, Shri Kailash Shama as well as Shri Karan Singh had in their cross - examination refered to the facts that the land adjacent to WKHDFTXLUHGODQGLQFOXGHGWKHµSR Friends Colony, which were developed i n the 1960s. They further deposed WKDWWKHUHZDVDZRPHQ¶VSRO\WHFKQ -
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 128 of 171
70s 25 and as did the CRI staf quarters. Shri Karan Singh also deposed that these colonies of Maharani Bagh and New Friends Colony etc. had all civic amenities and facilities for the convenience of the residence . 4 1 . The Respondents on the other hand placed on record an Afidavit dated 24.05.2016 of the Naib Tehsildar of the Ofice of the LAC, Shri Ravinder Dang, as RW - 1. The said witness refered to the water logging in the areas of Sidharth Nagar and South East Delhi and relied on an inspection report in that behalf.
The Respondent ¶VZLWQHVV also relied on an inspection report carried out by the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) where the technical expert of the CGWB as noted in paragraph 4 of the report that the historical level data shows that the wells located at Kalindi Colony , Maharani Bagh and Sarai Kalen Khan being in proximity of the river Yamuna have a shallow ground water levels varying from less than 2 to 4 meters belo w ground level , in the following terms:
³EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFADVIT ON BEHALF OF UNION OF INDIA
I, Ravinder Dang, aged 50 years S/o Sh . Kesar Das. Presently Posted As Naib Tehsildar With the Office Of Land Acquisition Colector, South/East, Having Its Office At Lajpat Nagar - IV, New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
³2. That I say that the answering respondent/UOI on the other hand intend to prove that the compensation as was granted by the than Land Acquisition Colector under the captioned Award was just and fair and the same does not require any enhancement by the H RQ¶EOH&RXUW
3. That I say that it is stated that in the third week of May 2016, the counsel for the UOI has informed about one writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 7957/2014 titled Mohan Lal Ahuja v. Delhi Jal Board which stated to have pertained to the problem of water loging in Sid dharth Nagar and adjoining areas of South - East Delhi. The counsel further informed that the Hon'ble Court has pased orders to conduct an inspection as to the reasons of the water loging in Sidharth Nagar and its adjoining areas. The counsel further info rmed that the Central Ground Water Board has
25 Both witneses gave different years
LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 129 of 171
conducted an inspection in Sidharth Nagar and adjoining areas of South East Delhi to check the cause of w ater loging problem and have submitted a report thereto. A copy of the inspection report caried out by the Central Ground Water Board was also placed before the ofice of answering respondent . The technical experts of Central Ground Water Board must have caried out the said inspection and it has been noted in para 4 of the said report that the historical water level data of its observation wels loca ted at Batla House, Kalindi Kunj. Maharani B agh and Sarai Kale Khan reveals that these areas being the proximity of Yamuna river have shalow ground water levels varying from les than 2 to 4 meters below ground level. A copy of the said inspection report has been filed before the Hon'ble Court and is exhibited as Ex. RW1/1. ´ [Emphasis suplied]
41 .1 In the cross - examination conducted by the Appellant on 23.09.2016 , the said witness confirmed that the areas of Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, New Friends Colony, Central Road Research Institute [CRR I ] and the Village Polytechnic are part of the villages of Behlolpur Khadar , Kilokari , Khizrabad
and now also Jasola. He further afirmed that these are adjoining to ITO, Ashram Chowk and the Ring Road . 4 1 .2 The witness also deposed that there were multi - storeyed buildings including DDA flats constructed in Siddharth Nagar and Bhagwan Nagar . In addition, the wi tness afirmed that the areas of Maharani Bagh and New Friends Colony and Siddharth Nagar were developed 30 years ago. The relevant extract of the cros - examination is set out below:
³STATEMENT OF RW - 1: MR. RAVINDER DANG, S/O SH, KESAR DASS.
PRESENTLY POSTED AS NAIB TEHSILDAR WITH OFICE OF LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SOUTH/EAST, HAVING ITS OFICE AT LAJPAT NAGAR - IV, NEW D ELHI
ON S.A.
« Q. I put it to you that the areas, namely, Maharani Bagh, Kalandi Colony, New Friends Colony, Central Road Research Institute and Women Polytechnic are situated in the previously acquired lands which are part of the villages, namely, Behlorpur [sic : Behlolpur] . Khizrabad and Kilokari. What do you have to say? LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 130 of 171
A. It is corect that the areas, namely, Maharani Bagh, Kalandi Colony, New Friends Colony, Central Road Research Institute and Women Polytechnic are part of the villages, namely, Beh lol pur, Khizrabad , Kilokari and also Jasola. It is corect that the villages, namely, Behl o orpur [sic: Behlolpur] , Khizrabad
and Kilokari are adjoining to the Ring Road i.e. from ITO to Ashram Chowk via Sarai Kale Khan . It i s corect that Maharani Bagh and Kalandi Colony also are adjoining to the Ring Road. It is corect that Sidharth Nagar and Bhagwan Nagar are situated adjacent to each other and both the areas are adjoining the Nala. It is corect that both in Sidharth Nagar and Bhagwan Nagar buildings to the extent of four flors are constructed. It is also corect that multi stor i ed buildings are constructed and existing in areas Maharani Bagh, Kalandi Colony and New Friends Colony. I do not know exactly how many years it is, since Maharani Bagh, Kalandi Clony [sic: colony] , New Friends Colony, Sidharth Nagar and Bhagwan Nagar have been developed. Q: I put it to you that there are DDA Flats constructed in Sidharth Nagar and Sidharth Nagar Extension. What do you have to say? It is corect. Again said, I am sure of DA Flats in Sidharth Nagar Extension. But I do not know about DA Flats in Sidharth Nagar .
Q. Can you deny the fact that the areas, namely, Maharani Bagh, Kalandi Clony [sic : colony] , New Friends Colony, Sidharth Nagar and Bhagwan Nagar are developed way back 30 - 40 years? A. It is corect that they are developed for more than 30 years. I do not know exactly in the land of which village the Akshardham and Common Wealth Vilage are constructed. May be in Be hlo orpur [sic : Behlolpur]
Village. I have not seen the land of Vilage Nangli Razapur:
I do not know exactly whether Mayur Vihar is situated on one side of the land in village Nangl i Razapur. I do not know exactly whether Chiraga Janabi area is there in our revenue records. I can say that only after seeing the record. I am not sure whether Indraprastha is adjoining to Vilage Chiraga Janubi. It is corect that, Indraprastha Millenium Depot is adjacent to village Behlo l pur . ´
[Emphasis S uplied]
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 131 of 171
41 .3 In the further cross - H[DPLQDWLRQRIWKH5HVS deposed that the Akshardham as well as the Commonwealth Games Village are situated in the area adjacent. The witness deposed that there was a construction like
"power station" with chimney on the river side of the µ5LQJ 5RDG¶ adjacent to the petrol pump in the acquired land. He deposed that the land in village Nangli Razapur is opposite to Akshardham which is located on the other side of the Nazimuddin Bridge and that the Indraprastha Millenium Depot is adjacent to Village Behlolpur Khadar . The witness also deposed about th e Mayur Vihar area and the fact that there were DDA flats constructed in that area. A question was put to the witness e s as to whether the acquired land was given for the DND flyover or other comercial venture to which the witness responded that he was no t aware and that he could not say whether the record was available or not. The relevant extract is below:
³STATEMENT OF RW - 1: MR .
RAVINDER DANG (recaled for further cros - examination post lunch)
« Q. I put it to you that an area named Taimor Nagar Extension has been developed with multi storied buildings in the acquired land unauthorisingly. What do you say? A. I do not know. There is some construction like power station with chimney on the river side of the ring Road adjacent to the petrol pump in the acquired land , however, I am not sure whether it is a power station. It is corect that the acquired land of village Nangli Razapur and Behlorpur
[sic: Behlolpur ] are oposite to each other and near Chiraga Janubi as per the map prepared by the reference court on the directions of Hon'ble High Court. The Akshardham and Comon Wealth Games Vilage are adjacent to each other and both of them are on the same side of Nizamudin Bridge. It is corect that the land of Na n gli Razap u r is oposite to Akshardham and Comon Wealth Games Village and situated on the other side of the Nizammudin Bridge. I do not know whether there was any de - notification with regard to the part of notified land in Nangii Razapur, Kilokari, Behlorpur and Khizrabad . LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 132 of 171
I have seen DND flyover. I do not know exactly in the land of which village the same is constructed. It is corect that toll tax is i mposed on vehicular trafic on DND flyover. I do not know the toll tax on DND flyover is colected by a private company. It is corect that D ND flyover is a comercial venture. I do not know the DND flyover was planned even before year 190. I do not know whether the land was given for comercial venture li ke DND flyover from the acquired land in the villages K iloka ri and Khizrabad . I can say only after seeing the record but I cannot say whether the record is available or not.
I have not seen the site of acquired land in the village Jasola. In the map prepared by the Presiding Oficer of the Reference Court, acquired land of Vilage J as ola is also shown. I do not know whether the land of village Jasol a and the land of villages Kilokari and Khizrabad and Behlorpur [sic : Behlolpur] were acquired by the same notification dated 23.06.1989 in the year
1989. Q . I put it to you that al the acquire d lands of vilages Kil o kari, Khizrabad , Behlorpur [sic: Behlolpur] , Nagli Razapur Jasola were acquired by a single notification dated 23.06.1989 for the single purpose of channelization of river Yamuna and for the planned development of Delhi. Is it corect or not ? A. I do not know. Q. Where is Batla House situated? A. Near Okhla. I have not visited the places Batla House and Kalindi Kunj. I do not have the personal knowledge of any of the particulars of the W.P.(C)7957/2014. I have visited Mayur Vihar about one to one and half year ago. It is corect that DA Flats are constructed in the area Mayur Vihar . The said DA Flats are may be of 3 or 4 flors. I do not know whether there are any DA Flats with ten flors are constructed in Mayur Vihar. I do not know whether there are any five star hotels namely "Double Tree' and 'Hilton' also constructed in Mayur Vihar. Q. I put it to you that an event i .e. world cultural festival was also organized recently by Sh ri . Ravi Shankar on 1.03.2016 in the acquired lands which are adjacent to DND Flyover . What do say? A. I do not know. I have come to know about the program only from news chanels. I do not know whether any permision was granted by our department for conducting the above said program. ´ [Emphasis s uplied]
LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 13 of 171
4 1 .4 T he witness additionally deposed in his cross - examination that there is problem of water logging in the Siddharth Nagar. The reference to Siddharth Nagar in the Afidavit was explained as being an adjoining area to the acquired land and an area with problem of water logging. The witness also confirmed that while Siddharth Nagar is in a category µE ¶ colon y , Maharani Bagh is in category µA ¶ colon y , on being confronted with a book of circle rates. The relevant extract is set out below:
³XXXXX by Sh. Amit Khemka, Id. counsel for apelant in I.No. 87 i.e. LA. AP. 54/201
Q. Why you have mentioned Sidharth Nagar in your afidavit. A. As per report ie. Mark - A, there is problem of water loging in Sidharth Nagar and that is the reason I have mentioned about Sidharth Nagar in my afidavit . Q. What is the conection of Sidharth Nagar with village or Kilokari, Khizrabad , Behlorpur, Nag l i Razapur Jasdia? A. Sidharth Nagar, is an adjoining area to the acquired land and th ere is problem of water loging in Sidharth Nager. My answer is same with respect to areas Mahara n i Bagh, Sarai Kale Khan, Kalindi Kunj, Batla House. (V o lunters The said areas including Sidharth Nagar are on the other side of the Ring Road). Again said: to my knowledge only Sidharth Nager is on the other side of the Ring Road but for the other areas like Maharani Bagh, Saral Kale Khan, Kalindi Kunj, Batla House, I do not know. At this stage, witnes is shown the page no. 102 of the bok "Circle Rates, Edition 2016" (Comercial Law Publishers Pvt. Ltd). It i s corect that the Sidharth Nagar is shown on page 102 at Serial No. 2059 in category 'E' at point 'A'.
The entire bok is taken on record as Ex. R1W1/D1
Maharani Bagh is shown on page 64 at point in the category "A" of Ex. R1W1/01 . Q. I put it to you that constructi on of flats at Comonwealth Games Vilage does not become the part of chanelization of part of r iver Yamuna? A. 1 canot say. «´
[Emphasis Suplied]
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 134 of 171
The Statute
4 2 . Sections 23 and 24 of the LA Act set out the principles based on which compensation can be awarded [Section 23] and what not to take into
consideration while computing the compensation [Section 24]. In determining compensation for the acquired land, the Co urt is required to consider all relevant factors as provided under Section 23(1) of the LA Act. It is apposite to extract Section 23 and Section 24 of the LA Act which are set out below:
"23. Maters to be considered in 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 or tres which may be on the land at the time of the Colector's taking posesion thereof;
thirdly,
the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Colector's taking posesion of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;
fourthly,
the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Colector's taking posesion of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously afecting his other property, movable or imovable, in any other maner, or his earnings;
fifthly,
if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Colector, the person interested is compeled to change his residence or place of busines, 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 Colector's taking posesion of the land. (1A) In adition 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 anum on such market value for the period comencing 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 Colector or
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 135 of 171
the date of taking possesion of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation.
In computing the period refered 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 adition 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."
24. Maters to be neglected in determining compensation. ² But the Court shall not take into consideration ² 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, comenced, made or efected without the sanction of the Colector after the date of the publication of the 49[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 forbiden by land or oposed to public policy."
[Emphasis s uplied]
42.1
Section 28A of the LA Act provides that where compensation in excess of the amounts awarded by the LAC is awarded by the Court to persons interested , all persons whose land is covered by the same notification, once determined judicially, shall be awarded compensation as re - determined by the
LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 136 of 171
Court , regardless of whether they have made an Application for such enhancement . Section 28A of the LA Act reads as follows:
³28A. Re - determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. ± (1) where in an award under this part, the court alows to the aplicant any amount of compensation in exces of the amount awarded by the colector under section 1, the persons interested in al the other land covered by the same notification under secti on 4, sub - section (1) and who are also agrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an aplication to the Colector under section 18, by written aplication to the Colector within three months from the date of the aw ard of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re - determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court : Provided that in computing the period of thre months within which an aplication to the Colector shall be made under this sub - section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Colector shall, on receipt of an aplication under sub - section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable oportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensat ion payable to the aplicants. (3) Any person who has not acepted the award under sub - section (2) may, by written aplication to the Colector, required that the mater be refered by the Colector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, aply to such reference as they aply to a reference under section 18. ´ [Emphasis suplied]
42.2
The Supreme Court in Narendra case , while explaining Section 28A of the LA Act has held that once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined, the benefit must be given to all, even those who could not approach the Court.
It held that even in the absence of exemplars and oth er evidence, a higher compensation can be allowed for those whose land was acquired under the same notification. The Court explained that what neds to be kept in mind in the matter of compulsory acquisition by the Government is that the villagers whose la nd gets acquired are not willing parties but are
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 137 of 171
compelled to sell their land to the State for a public purpose. It was held that failing to award similar compensation would lead to lands situated in similar areas would lead to discrimination to the land owners. The relevant extract of Narendra case is below:
³3. In this backdrop, the question that falls for consideration is as to whether the High Court was precluded from granting compensation at the rate of Rs 297 per square yard which was the rate of compensation awarded to other farmers of the said village whose lands were acquired under the same Notification and were similarly situated ? xxx
xxx
xxx
7. It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be alowed for others whose land was acquired under the same notification. 8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those landowners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicialy determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not aproach the court . It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the legislature.
Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at leser rate than the compensation which is u ltimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a leser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made aplicable an d rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sel of their land. They were compeled to give the land to
the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acqui sition Colector. The Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and apeal to the High Court, etc. In order to ensure that the landowners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for ³IDLUFRPSHQVDWLRQ´2QFHVXFK determined judicialy, al landowners whose land was taken away by the same notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also a mount to discrimination by
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 138 of 171
giving diferent treatment to the persons though identicaly situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned
judgment, this fair treatment canot be denied to them. ´
[Emphasis s uplied]
Compensation a warded i n Vill a ge Behlolpur Khadar & Jasola
43 . The princip a l contention that has been traversed by the learned Senior Counsel /learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the compensation that has ben awarded to the Appellants in the four villages of Khizrabad , Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu is not in acordance with the compensation as awarded for the villages of Behlolpur Khadar and Jasola . It is the contention of the Appellant s that the acquired land while being in the ³)RUZDUG%
area was still being utilized for agriculture. Relying on Section 28A of the LA Act, i t is contended that the compensation as awarded for the acquired land in the adjoining villages such as Behlolpur Khadar should also be similarly awarded to the Appellants as well.
4 4 . A similar argument was taken b efore the Supreme Court in the
judgment of Om Prakash case. In the Om Prakash case, the notification was issued for the acquisition of 3 villages i.e., Bhorgarh, Kureni and Mamurpur , which were located side by side while, the Collector categorised the land into 3 categories, the learned Reference Court gave a finding that the land being similarly situated should be assessed uniformly. The High Court found that in several judgments, escalation had ben granted on difering rates progressively. However, it also noted that market value of agricultural land was less than land which could be used for comercial purposes and enhan ced the compensation in a uniform manner across 3 villages . This
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 139 of 171
compensation was upheld by the Supreme Court . The relevant extract of the Om Prakash case is below:
³4. On 2 - 6 - 1983, a notification was isued under Section 4(1) of the Act, whereby the lands for certain parcels situated within the said area were sought to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of godowns for Fod Corporation of India. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act made on 2 - 7 - 1983. Further proceedings under the Act ensued and on 5 - 9 - 1983, the Land Acquisition Colector made an award in each of the cases. The Colector categorised the lands faling for acquisition into three blocks, QDPHO\µ$¶µ%¶DQGµ&¶ . He awarded a compensation of Rs . 10,0 per bigha IRUODQGLQ%ORFNµ$¶5VSHUELJ ELJKDIRUODQGLQ%ORFNµ&¶+HDOVRD structures. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Colector, t he claimants moved for references under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 12 - 3 - 19 enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to a uniform rate of Rs 36,30 per bigha as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It also granted other reliefs available under the Ac t. xxx
xxx
xxx
6 . In Civil Apeals Nos. 5708 - 09 of 202, the apelant claimants have impugned the judgment of the High Court while the Union of India is in apeal in Civil Apeals Nos. 8591 - 92 of 203 and civil apeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 2135, 21342 - 43, 2385 of 20 02, 1632 and 12968 of 203. 7 .
The only question argued before us was the asesment of the market value of the acquired lands as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. No other isue was canvased. The High Court has corectly found that the topography, potentiality and advantages atached to and available to the lands in the five adjoining villages, namely, Bhorgarh, Kureni, Mamurpur, Narela and Tikri Khurd were almost the same on the date when the noti fication under Section 4 was isued. It also refered to the fact that in its
judgment in Dharambir v. Union of India [ RFA No. 54 of 192, decided on 23 - 9 - 196] the market value of the land had been asesed at Rs 25,0 per bigha as against the asesme nt made by the Reference Court @ Rs 17,50 per bigha. An apeal therefrom was caried to this Court and is the subject - matter of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharambir [ CA No. 405 of 197] . While alowing the apeal of the State Gover nment, this Court held that Rs 16,750 per bigha was the fair market value of al categories of land situate at Vilage Mamurpur as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 30 - 10 - 1963. xxx
xxx
xxx
1. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in working out the fair market value of the lands in question on the basis of Rs 16,750 per bigha as on
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 140 of 171
30 - 10 - 1963. The High Court noticed that in several judgments of this Court escalation at diferent and varying rates i.e. 6% per annum from 1959 to 1965, @ 10% per annum for every year from 196 to 1973 and @ 12% per annum from 1975 had been considered to be reasonabl e increase to arive at the fair market value , assuming that the pace of escalation during this period was normal for the entire period from 1959 onwards. Since no material was placed on record to show that there was any abnormality during the period, the High Court aplied the same principle to the facts and circumstances before it, and accepted increase of 10% every year progresively from 1963 to 1973 and thereafter @ 12% every year progresively up to the date of acquisition. The High Court noticed in the judgment that if escalation is alowed on this basis, the fair market value would be Rs 1,28,89 per bigha. In case progresive increase is alowed @ 10% for the entire period, the amount will work out to Rs 1,08,397 per bigha. Allowing apreciation @ 12% for every year, not cumulatively, but at a flat rate of 12% per anum from 1963 to 1983, the amount would w ork out to Rs 56,12 per bigha.
The High Court in its judgment under appeal pointed out that the market value of Rs 16,750 per bigha fixed in the case of Dharambir v. Union of India [RFA No. 54 of 192, decided on 23 - 9 - 196] was not in respect of comerci al land but only of agricultural land. That the market value of agricultural land is much lower than that of land suitable for comercial purposes, is trite. After having worked out the market value of the lands on various bases and keeping in view the fact that between 8 - 12 - 1982 and 2 - 6 - 1983, the lands in question had at least some comercial potentiality, the High Court decided that the fair market value of a l categories of lands situated in the villages in question as on the date of acquisition should be fixed at Rs 82,25 per bigha ´
[Emphasis suplied]
4 5. The Supreme Court in K. Periasami Vs. Sub - Tehsildar (Land Acquisition ) 26 has held that since the land of the Appellant w as held by the LAC to be in a more advantageous position and a higher rate of compensation was awarded to such land, the other lands situated in the same area acquired by the same notification were also entitled to compensation at parity and the compensation was enhanced acordingly . The relevant extract of the K. Periasami case is out below:
³,WLVQRWGLVSXWHGWKDWWKHPDUNH said notification has been determined by different Benches of the High Court such as Apeal Nos. 538 of 1987 and 126 of 1986 titled Special Tehsildar,
26 (1994) 4 SCC 180
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 141 of 171
Land Acquisition v. Lakshmi Amma l .
The lands for which the Land Acquisition Oficer had awarded at the rate of Rs 70 per cent and the civil court on reference, had enhanced such rate to Rs 850 per cent, the High Court on apeal had enhanced the rate in two cases to Rs 10 per cent and in two other cases to Rs 1050 per cent. Since the lands under consideration in the present apeals are situated in the same area and were acquired under the same acquisition and the Land Acquisition Officer himself had treate d the lands to be in a beter advantageous position than the lands covered in the other apeals, it would be clear that the lands in these apeals are posesed of better advantageous features than the lands covered by the judgment in other apeals by fixing their value at the rate of Rs 92 per cent. This fact was not noticed by the le arned Judge, while disposing of the apeals, as it is observed that there is no evidence as to parity of the advantageous position of the lands to award the same compensation. The observation apears to be incorect. The treatment of the lands by the Land Acquisition Officer himself by awarding to them a rate of Rs 92 per cent in these apeals while he had awarded the rate of Rs 70 per cent of lands in the other apeals furnishes the intrinsic evidence that the lands in question are situated in a beter adv antageous position than the lands concerned in the other apeals. When such is the situation, the apelant also is entitled to parity of market value for the acquired lands. ´
[Emphasis Suplied]
46 . The Appellant has contended that the learned Reference Court failed to consider the exemplar which was placed on record. It was contended that the Respondents produced 5 exemplars of village Kilokari and the highest exemplar is to be considered and not by averaging the diferent types of sale prices for calculating compensation.
Reliance was placed on the Anjani Molu De s sai case . T he Supreme Court has held that where lands are sold under a sale ded and acquired lands of similar nature, there is no justification in taking the lower value of the land. The Court was discussing the under - developed or µbharad ¶ lands and held that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest exemplar, which is a bonafide transaction, is to be taken into consideration. It was further held that where the values as disclosed in sale deds for the same area is di fferent, these cannot be averaged out unless there are several sale deeds in
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 142 of 171
a narow bandwidth and the proper method would be by taking the highest exemplar, unless there are strong circumstances justifying otherwise . The relevant extract of the Anjani Molu De s sai case is set out below:
³ The Land Acquisition Colector however comitted a serious eror in deducting 45% from the sale price disclosed by the sale deed dated 30 - 8 - 1989 towards the cost of development. It is wel setled that deduction for development cost has to be made only wh ere the value of a smal residential/comercial/industrial plot of land in a developed layout is made the basis for ariving at the market value of a nearly large tract of undeveloped agricultural land. Where the land sold under the relied upon sale deed and the acquired lands are both of similar nature (as in this case where both are bharad lands) the question of making any deduction towards development FRVW WR DUULYH DW WKH FRVW RI ³XQGHYH uld not arise. Such a deduction would have been necesary if the sale deed relied upon related to a developed residential or comercial plot .
Therefore, we are of the view that the Land Acquisition Colector was not justified in making 45% deduction from t he price disclosed by the sale deed dated 30 - 8 - 1989. xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
19. Further, the award of the Colector specifically states that the land sold under the sale deed dated 30 - 8 - 1989 is a similar land, that is, a bharad land at a distance of 20 m. Significantly, there is no such finding that the subject - mater of the second sale dated 31 - 1 - 190 which was one kilometre away, was a similarly situated land. The sale deed dated 31 - 1 - 190 should therefore be infered to be either an undervalued sale or a distres sale or at all events not a comparable sale. The Land Acquisition Colector was not therefore justified in averaging the sale prices of the two sale deeds. Once it is found that the first sale deed was in regard to a comparable land and the second sale deed was not in regard to a comparable land, the second sale deed da ted 31 - 1 - 1990 ought to have been excluded from consideration. 20 . The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usualy the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose pric es range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly diferent, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to disimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of undervaluation or other price depresing reasons. Co nsequently, averaging cannot be resorted to. We may refer to two decisions of this Court in this behalf. 21.
In M. Vijayalakshmama Rao Bahadur v. Colector of Madras [(1969) 1 MLJ 45], a thre - Judge Bench of this Court observed that the proper method for evaluation of market value is by taking the highest of the exemplars and
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 143 of 171
not by averaging of diferent types of sale transactions. This Court held: (MLJ p. 46 - 47)
³,WVHHPVWRXVWKDWWKHUHLVVXEVWDQ Redy. After al when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to say that he should be given the highest value which similar land in the locality is s hown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seler near about the time of the acquisition. It is not disputed that the transaction represented by Ext. R - 19 was a few months prior to the notificatio n under Section 4 that it was a bona fide transaction and that it was entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seler. The land comprised in the sale deed is 1 grounds and was sold at Rs. 1961 per ground. The land covered by Ext. R - 27 was al so sold before the notification but after the land comprised in Ext. R - 19 was sold. It is true that this land was sold at Rs. 1096 per ground. This, however, is aparently because of two circumstances. One is that beterment levy at Rs. 50 per ground had to be paid by the vendee and the other that the land comprised in it is very much more extensive, that is about 93 grounds or so. Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to diferent transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be prefered to the rest unles there are strong circumstance s justifying a diferent course.
In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in th LVFDVH´
[Emphasis s uplied]
4 7 . The Appellant s ha ve relied upon the evidence as placed on record by PW - 7 [before the learned Trial Court] and AW - 1 [before this Court] to submit that the land is only half a kilometer away from Maharani Bagh and that the village Behlolpur Khadar is adjoining village Kilokari. The Location Plan [se Map in paragraph 5 2 . 2 of this judgment] which forms part of the record does show that while village Behlolpur Khadar exists on the boundary wall of village Kilokari, villages Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu and are also adjacent to the village on the other side of the river while v illage Kh i zrabad
borders to village Kilokari. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 14 of 171
47 .1 The contention of the Respondent , on the other hand, has ben that the amounts as awarded to village Behlolpur Khadar and village Jasola could not be awarded for the villages of Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Kh i zrabad and Garhi Mendu since the potentiality of the land being on the ³)RUZDUG%XQ and being µ6DLODEL¶ in nature was entirely diferent. However, AW - 1 has deposed that the land is not submergible as they had ben cultivating the land and using it for agricultural purposes. 4 8 . The learned Reference Court in the Behlolpur Khadar Reference Court Judgm ent 27 had enhanced the compensation in respect of village Behlolpur Khadar based on the judgment in LAC No. 2 1 /97 captioned Bharat Singh v. Union of India 28 .
The learned Reference Court found that the potential value of the land being in close proximity to developed areas and that it has all amenities that are reasonably capable of being put to use in the future . 48.1
Relying on the 17.03.1988 Exemplar , the Apellant/land owner had in that case contended that the market value of the acquired land on 13.11.1959 was assessed at Rs. 26,000/ - per Bigha and keping in mind the step rise of prices around Delhi, the market value should have ben capitalized at the rate of 12% since then and over 30 years would amoun t to Rs. 7,23,248/ - per Bigha . The Respondent/Revenue had to the contrary contended that the market value sh o uld be enhanced by 3.6 times. 48.2
The learned Reference Court, however, did not acept either contention, finding the enhancement 3.6 times to be too low and 7.23 lakhs
27 Judgment dated 04.01.2011 pased in LAC 75/2008
28 Judgment dated 04.01.2008 pased in LAC 22/1997
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 145 of 171
per Bigha to be too high. Relying on the potentiality of the land and its close proximity to Maharani Bagh and Kalindi colon y which were developed in the ODWH¶VDQGJLYHQLWVSRWHQWLD 2.5 lakhs per Bigha. Thus, it was directed that the enhanced compensation be awarded. The relevant extract is set out below:
³ 7KH QRWLILFDWLRQ XQGHU 6HFWLRQ
23.06.1989. In the late eighties, land prices in Delhi had a spiral rise. The distance and fertility lost significance keeping in view the potentiality of the
acquired land being put to the use of the planed development in the Capital city of India. The land in question lies in close proximity to Maharani Bagh and Kalindi Colony. In late eighties, the question of having amenities or being surounded by developed areas can hardly be an Isue In question.
In the mater of Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru V. The Special Land Acquisition Oficer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore & Ors reported in AIR 1979 SC 869, the Apex Court has held that the proces of determination of market value in any case must depend largely on evaluation of any Imponderables and hence it must necesarily be to some extent a mater of conjecture or gues work. 19. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factors in mind, more particularly the sales of the land in almost similar areas and around the sametime and the cited Judgments, though not a conclusive prof of evidence, It would be aford some basis, after taking into consideration that there is a general tendency to under - value the sales for the purpose of evading the stamp duty etc., as also the compensation awarded almost 30 years ago i.e. 1959 as Rs. 26,0/ - per bigha, I would quantify the market value of the la nd, keeping Its potential of being put to beter use, at Rs. 2.5 lakh per bigha ´
[Emphasis suplied]
Proximity t o d eveloped c olonies, a gricultural a ctivities a nd p otentiality
49. The Respondent/DDA has contended that the Awards recor ds that the acquired land is situated betwen two µ)RUZDUG%XQGV¶ and the Yamuna river and thus, there is no construction on the land and only a few tres were found available. Emphasis has thus ben laid by the Respondents on the fact that the acquired land was µ6DLODEL¶ in nature and between the two
"Forward Bunds"
and thus had limited or no potentiality. The learned Reference Court found
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 146 of 171
that the land is not capable of any agricultural nor building construction activity and it cannot be compared with other developed lands. Thus, it was contended that the land a s notified as undeveloped.
49.1
7KH$SSHOODQW¶VZLWQHVV AW - 1 in his evidence clarified that µ6DLODE
meant an area in close proximity to River Yamuna. He further clarified that the Urdu word µ6DLODEL¶ means flood. However, in addition, the witness clarified that the land was neither in the river bed nor in the flood plain, since that part of the land had already ben de - notified under Section 48 of the LA Act on 25.05.1995. AW - 1, Kailash Sharma, also d eposed that he is 50 years of age and during his lifetime he has never experience d any flood or water logging in respect of the land. He further deposed that he and his family had ben cultivating the land in question till it was acquired in the year 1985. 49.2
,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH 5HVSRQGHQW¶V that the DLR Act was applicable to the acquired lands which would lead a reduction in the building potentiality of the lands is also without any basis. The learned Reference Court in the Bed Ram Reference Court case has given a finding that the DLR Act was not applicable to the acquired lands. This finding of the learned Reference Court has not ben challenged by the Respondents. 50 . The Respondent s ha ve vociferously contended that the acquired land did not have any building potentiality as no building activities were permitted in this area. Relying on the judgment in the Periyar case, it was contended that the acquired land does not have permission for building activity and that potentiality would mean the potentiality to raise buildings. It was further contended that since there was water logging in the land, no building activit y
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 147 of 171
was permitted. In support of its contentions, Respondent/DDA has also reference d the Site Inspection Report dated 2.11.2006.
50.1
7KH5HVSRQGHQW¶VZLWQHVVZKRL deposition has however admitted to the proximity of the acquired lands with the developed colonies of Maharani Bagh and Kalindi colony and has also admitted to the fact that multistorie d flats and DDA flats have ben constructed in Siddharth Nagar and Siddharth Nagar Extension. The witness has also deposed that Nangli Razapur is opposite to Akshardham and comonwealth Games Village and situated on the other side of the Nizamudin Bri dge. 51. Concededly, however , the fact that agricultural activities were permitted and were being caried out is clear even from the Inspection Report of the inspection undertaken by the learned Reference Court on 22.11.2006. The Inspection Report sets out that the officials present had stated that the land gets covered with water depending on the amount of discharge of water
from the Yamuna river . However, it does state that the land appears to be utilized for agricultural purposes. In addition, it confirms that some of the k hasras that were submerged or likely to be submerged had already been de - notified and the others had ben acquired. The learned Reference Court has also clearly set out that the land on both sides appear s to be under cultivation. The relevant extract of this report is set out below:
³The spot inspection has been conducted in terms of order dated 13.1.06 in the presence of oficials from DA (Sh. M. M. Rao. Director L.M), Sh. S. K. Singh (LAC South), Sh. Raj Shekhar (D.C. South), Sh. Atul Kumar (Ex. Engineer, Irigation & Flod Control Department) who are accompanied with other team of oficials from respective departments. Counsel for the petitioners as wel as respondents are also present . LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 148 of 171
The oficials led to embankment of River Yamuna in village Nanglirazapur via 0DUJLQDO%XQG5RDGWKURXJKµ3DQWRRQ5R A rough sketch i. e. , Site plan by aproximation; prepared by officials of DDA to give a broad idea of the location of villages has been handed over. The same is Annexure 1 and clearly depicts the location of villages Behlolpur Khadar, Nangli Razapur, Kilokari, Chakchilla, Khizrabad , Jogabai, Okhla, Jasola and Madanpur Khadar. A copy of site plan indicating the khasra no.'s of village Nanglirazapur has been handed over by oficials of LAC South. The oficials explained at site that some of the Khasra no's which are sub - merged or likely to be sub - merged and are adjacent to water stream had been de - notified while the others had been acquired . The same are reflected in different shades in the site plan (Anexure I). The oficials informed that the acquired land extended upto 50 meters and may be more from the stream of water which was flowing curently. The land on both sides at the 'site spot ¶ apeared to be under cultivation . However, it is pertinent to note that oficials from Irigation and Flod Control Department informed that as and when the water level in river Yamuna croses a mark of 204.83, the land gets covered with water, depending an amount of discharge of water i n the river. It was also pointed out that owing to aforesaid reasons no development has been permited from 'Marginal Bund Road til embankment of River Yamun a (As depicted in Annexure I ). It was observed that there was no substantial development except that land apears to be utilized near the site for agricultural purpose. Thereafter the oficials led to show the aproximate location of land of vilage Kilokari, Behlolpur and Khizrabad from Ring Road and D.N.D.Road.
The oficials showed that no activity/development on the land near to the embankment could be undertaken except for agricultural activity . The spot inspection comenced at about 2.40 p.m and has been completed at about 4.45 p.m. ´ [Emphasis suplied]
51.1
This also becomes clear from the photographs which were annexed along with the Inspection Report. These photographs evidence the cultivation of the land and reflect that agricultural activity on the land . They show dry
cultivated land with some bushes and shrubs as well and that the lands appear to be irigated . Some of these photographs are reproduced below:
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 149 of 171
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 150 of 171
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 151 of 171
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 152 of 171
The Location Plan
5 2 . Undisputably, the Notification was issued for the acquisition of 9 villages. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce the rough location plan of the nine villages which was placed on record by Respondent No. 2 >KHUHLQDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR DV WKH ³ disputed by the parties. The Location Plan also forms part of the site Inspection Report of the Inspection conducted on 22.11.2006 by the learned
Reference Court, as is discussed above . 52.1
The Village Garhi Mendu, as clarified by both parties, although not clearly marked on the Location Plan, is contained as the portion marked in gren just below Village Nangli Razapur. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 153 of 171
5 2 . 2 These villages have ben shown in the Location Plan which is set out below:
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 154 of 171
5 2 . 3 The Location Plan reflects that the land of villages Khizrabad , Kilokari and Nangli Razapur were along the bank of river Yamuna as it flowed past National Highway - 24 South till it passes village Khizrabad .
The land of village Garhi Mendu was by the river Yamuna cross National Highway - 24. The land of Kilokari and Khizrabad were on the western bank of Yamuna river while the Nangli Razapur and Chuck Chilla were on the eastern bank along with the Garhi Mendu. Village Khizrabad abuts village Kilokari on its sout hern side . 5 2 . 4 Village Behlolpur Khadar is also on the western bank of the river Yamuna abutting village Kilokari . Across from village Behlolpur Khadar is village Nangli Razapur on the other side of the river . 53. The Impugned Judgment has laid emphasis on the Spot Inspection Report which formed part of the record. This Court has carefully examined the location plan which was attached to the Spot Inspection Report. The location plan clearly shows the presence of the DND road running through the land at Kilokari . It also shows the fact that Behlolpur K hadar is adjacent to Kilokari as well as Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu . The areas, Indraprastha Estate, ISBT, Sarai Kalen Khan and Ring Road are also reflected in the l ocation plan. The proximity to Maharani Bagh is set out as well. The learned Reference Court during his inspection sems to have laid emphasis on the fact that the oficials of the LAC, South, who were present on the spot in inspection, who said that as an d when the water level in river Yamuna crosses the mark of 204.83, the land gets covered with water depending on the amount of discharge. However, the oficials had also explained, and which forms part of the site inspection report, that some of the Khasra numbers, which were
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 15 of 171
submerged or likely to be submerged and are adjacent to the water stream, have already ben de - notified, while others acquired. 54.
It cannot , however, also be denied that the land was acquired for Plan ned Development of Delhi and that initially 3,500 hectares of land was acquired under the 20.03.19 8 9 Notification. It is not disputed that a large track of land forming part of village Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Nangli Razapur and Chakchila was de - notified under Section 48(1) of the LA Act and on 05.11.2004, the LAC passed a detailed order assigning reasons for the d e - notification since that land was either submergible or submerged. In any event, the contention of the Respondents that the land is submergible or µ6DLODEL¶ in nature and thus, even agricultural activities cannot take place on the land, is not borne from the record nor the evidence. 54. 1 A review of the Kilokari Award also shows that the award itself states that the possession of land which was under a stay and which was submerged in the water was not taken . The reasonable assumption can thus be made that the acquired land was neither submerged nor submergible and the µ6DLODE
land was already de - notified in the year 2004. The relevant extract of the Kilokari Award is set out below:
³« The posesion of land under stay and submerged in the water was not taken « ³ 54.2
The Appellants have also relied upon Nangli Razapur Award wherein it is noted that the entire land is being irigated by the Yamuna river. Thus, if the land was submerged or µ6DLODEL¶ there would be no question of it being irigated. The relevant extract of the Na n gli Razapur Award is below:
³6LQFHWKHHQWLUHODQGLVEHLQJLUULJ proper justification to clasify the lands into Blocks as al the land is similar LQTXDOLW\´
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 156 of 171
This has also ben affirmed by AW - 1, Mr. Kailash Verma who has stated that he has never experienced flooding or water logging in this land and that the land is being cultivated for the last 50 years.
54.3
The Location Plan also shows the proximity of the villages that have already been acquired. The a cquisition in Vilage Ja s ola has be en assessed at the rate of approximately Rs. 4,948 / - per sq. yards while Village Behlolpur Khadar at the rate of Rs. 2.5 lakhs per Bighas. These villages are also abutting the river Yamuna. 55 . The emphasis of the arguments of the Respondent/UOI has also ben on the fact that there has ben no development of the land and no applications have ben made for change of land use. It has been averred that no evidence has ben placed on record in respect of the building potentiality of the land. Reliance was placed on P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Oficer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & Ors. 29 . The Supreme Court in the P. Ram Reddy case held that the µbuilding potentiality ¶ of an acquired land must be taken into acount in determining its market value. The Court clarified that market value is not to be confined merely to the actual use of land at the time of acquisition, but must include the value attributable to its forese able potential for the possibility of development in the imediate or near future. The Court emphasised that ³EXLOGL SRWHQWLDOLW\´ must be established on the basis of factors such as situation of the acquired land vis - à - vis the city growing in size , suit ability for putting up the buildings , possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupant of buildings to be put up etc . Once building potentiality is established, the
29 (1995) 2 SCC 305
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 157 of 171
valuation method requires consideration of both the curent market value as well as the potential increase in that market value in the imediate or near future .
Hence, the Court held that valuation must rest on evidence, not conjectures, and must be grounded in realistic market conditions . The relevant extract of the P. Ram Reddy case is below:
³8. Building potentiality of acquired land. ² 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 beter use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future. Posibility of the acquired land put to cert ain use on the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, of becoming available for beter 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 determine d 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 date, but also on the posibility of it becoming available in the immediate or near future for beter use, i.e., on its potentiality. When the acquired land has the potentiality of being used for building purposes in the imediate or near future it is such potentiality which is regarded as building potentiality of the acquired land. Therefore, if t he acquired land has the building potentiality, its value, like the value of any other potentiality of the land should necesarily 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 seler 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 necesarily inclu de that portion of the price of the land atributable 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 hav e 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. ´ [Emphasis suplied]
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 158 of 171
5 5 .1 The Court further held that at the time of determining market value of the land acquired with building potentiality, the possibility of the acquired land used for putting up buildings in the near future has to be sen and a hypothetical layout of the build ing plots in the acquired land has to be prepared. It further held that whether or not the acquired land as a building potentiality as to be decided with reference to the material on record. The relevant extract is below:
³10. Then, comes the question of determining the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality. Undoubtedly such market value of the acquired land with building potentiality comprises of the market value of the land having regard to the use to wh ich 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 puting 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 seler from a willing purchaser, such price could be taken to be the market value of the acquired land, in that, it would have compris ed of the market value of the land as was being actually used plus increase in price atributable to its building potentiality. If the prices fetched by sale of similar land with building potentiality in the neighbourhod 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 necesary to find out whether any building plots laid out in a land similar to the acquired land had been sold by a willing seler t o a wiling buyer on or nearabout 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 it had been sold by making it into bu ilding plots similar to those sold.
In other words, a hypothetical layout of building plots in the acquired land similar to that of the layout of building plots actualy made in the other similar land, has to be prepared, and the price fetched by sale of building plots in the layout actualy 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 facto rs and minus factors involved in the proces . xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
12. 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 potentialit y, is also required to be determined with
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 159 of 171
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 gues. ´
[Emphasis s uplied]
5 6. The Supreme Court in P. Ram Reddy case has held that the potentiality of a land can be assessed to include the value attributable for its potential
development in the near and imediate future. It is further held that the valuation must be raised on evidence and be granted in realistic market conditions based on the evidence placed on record. 5 6.1
In the present case, the existing conditions as ha ve ben set out in the evidence of the Appellants is that the areas in and around the acquired lands were developed in the early 1970s. Kalindi Kunj and Maharani Bagh started developing in the year 1970. The acquired lands in village Kilokari touches New Fri ends Colony, Kalindi Kunj and Maharani Bagh and other colonies of Delhi and in the vicinity of Akshardham Temple and the Comonwealth Games Village. The villages of Kilokari, Khizrabad , Nangli Razapu r, Behlolpur Khadar and Jasola had already been urbanized prior to the
23.06.19 8 9 Notification. These villages are also adjoining ITO, Ashram Chowk and the Ring Road. Thus, the Appellants have placed evidence on record in support of these contention s as well , while the Respondents have not ben able to show otherwise. 57.
In any event and in the context of ever - expanding city like Delhi, history shows that where once development takes place in a particular area, it usually has a ripple effect in adjoining areas. Development is not an overnight process but a gradual one. The presence of development in areas adjoining the acquired land are good parameters of potentiality. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 160 of 171
The Exemplar
5 8 . The 17.03.1988 Exemplar has ben challenged by the Respondents to submit that the sale ded was executed at inflated prices to claim higher compensation. It has ben contended that it is likely that the residents in the locality g o t to know of this acquisition and thus, the sale ded was executed at an inflated price to claim a higher compensation. The other ground raised is that the purchaser was not an income tax assesse and thus, a transaction ZDVQRWµDERYHERDUG¶
5 8 .1 These arguments of the Respondents are liable to be rejected in view of the fact that these are based on assumptions, and no evidence has ben placed on record by the Respondents in support of these
contentions . The sale deed was concededly executed a year and a half prior to the 23.06.1989 Notification
and is a duly registered document. T he purchaser of the land was produced as a witness by the Appellants [PW - 3, Vinod Kumar] and his evidence remain s unimpeached. 5 8 .2 In addition , a perusal of Clause 10 of the sale deed [ which is exhibited as Ex. PW 3/1 ] sets out that the vendor [PW - 3] has obtained the required income tax clearance certificate from the ofice of the Income Tax in the following terms:
³10. That the vendor has also obtained the required income tax clearance certificate on Form No. 34 - $IURPWKHRIILFHRIWKH,
58.3
The requisite stamp duty and registration charges have also ben paid on the sale deed. The purchaser of the land [PW - 3] was produced as a witness
and his testimony , as stated above, remains unimpeached. On the other hand, no evidence to the contrary has been placed on record by the Respondents. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 161 of 171
59 . The Appellants have relied on 17.03.1988 Exemplar to submit that when such an Exemplar was available at Rs. 2,07,500 / - per Bigha , the learned Reference Court could not have unilaterally reduce d the market value to Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha . 59.1
The learned Reference Court has relied on the assessment in the Khizrabad case. In addition, a finding was given in respect of sale exemplars. The learned Reference Court examined the 17.03.1988 sale ded, which gave a sale price at Rs.2,07,50/ - per Bigha , as well as the four sale deds produced by the Respondents where the prices varied from approximately Rs.19,440/ - to Rs.52,920/ - . However, the learned Reference Court held that there was no evidence to reflect a huge increase in the value of the lan d as was reflected in the sale ded of the Appellant , and based on the fact that the nature of land was Sailabi and relying on the Khizrabad Reference Court assessment, the learned Reference Court assessed the value of the land Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha . 60. The 17.03.1988 Exemplar is a registered sale ded, is the highest value exemplar.
In terms of the judgment in the Anjani Molu De s sai case, the proper method for evaluating the market value is taking up the highest of the exemplars. 61 . The learned Counsel for the Respondents have emphasized that the learned Reference Court has relied on the judgment in the Tindey case . H owever, i n the Tindey case, there was no separate evidence made available,
and the learned Reference Court ascertain ed the market value of the land by relying upon an earlier award of the year 1961, which allow ed a 12% escalation per annum. It was also held therein that since the land was in the
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 162 of 171
river Yamuna, escalation at Rs. 1,000/ - will not be reasonable. The relevant extract of the Tindey case is below:
³:HZLOOKDYHWRSODFHUHOLDQFHXSRQG (supra) wherein in 1961 also acquisition had taken place for similar purpose as in the instant case and compensation was fixed at Rs. 12,50/ - per bigha. It is a fact that there has been increase in market value of the land. In the absence of any other material, we presume that in this locality increase must have taken place from 1961 to 1976 at a normal pace. It will not be unreasonable to alow an increase @ 12% p.a. in order to arive at market value. In Prakash Chand Kashyap v. Union of India, AIR 198 Delhi 316, an escalation of 12% p.a. was considered as reasonable instead of past practice of Court in alowing escalation @ Rs. 1,0/ - per bigha. In Rameshwar Solanki's v. Union of India, 57 (195) DLT 410, also placing reliance on the decision in Prakash Chand Kashyap's case (supra). Divisions Bench observed that it would be apropriate to d iscard the past pra ctice of this Court to give escalation @ Rs. 1,0/ - per bigha and to alow escalation @ 12% p.a., which has been given following statutory provisions made by the amendments in the Act.
In the absence of any other material in the i nstant case also, we are of the view that the market value as on 10.5.1976 can be worked out by placing reliance upon the earlier award of the Court in Deewan Ram Sarop's case (supra) and by alowing 12% p.a. escalation thereon. Otherwise also as the land was situated in Yamuna, we are of the view that the past practice of alowing escalation @ Rs. 1,0/ - per bigha p.a. will not be reasonable. As such, we are of the view that the market value as on 10.5.1976 wo uld be Rs. 35,0/ - per bigha. Consequently, we alow the apeal with proportionate costs, holding the apelants to be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 35,0/ - per bigha. Over and above the amount of compensation, the apelants are also entitled to solatium @ 15% and interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of Colector taking over posesion till date of making payment. ´
[Emphasis Suplied]
6 1.1
There is another distinction as well. In the Tindey case, reliance was placed by the learned Reference Court on an earlier award of 1961 which fixed compensation at Rs. 12,500/ - per Bigha . The market value of the land at village Kilokari was assessed at Rs. 26,0/ - per Bigha , by the Kilokari
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 163 of 171
Award in the year 1992 - 93 which is more than double of the assessment done in the award relied upon in the Tindey case. 6 2 . In any event, t he evidence on record does not show any justification for
not relying on the 17.03.1988 Exemplary. Emphasis was laid by both the witnesses produced by the Appellants , that the acquired land was in close proximity of the colonies like Maharani Bagh and French Colony which had all civic amenities and facilities for convenience of residence.
6 2 .1 RW1, the Naib Tehsildar, who deposed on behalf of the Respondents, deposed that there was construction on the Ring Road adjacent to the Petrol Pump in the acquired land. He further deposed that the land in Village Nangli Razapur is opposite Akshardham and comonwealth games village and situated on the other side of the Nizamuddin Bridge. A specific question was put to the witness with respect to the consortium of multi storied DDA flats in Siddharth Nagar, which is adjacent to th e acquired land and dur ing his deposition he clarified that Siddharth Nagar is adjoining area to the acquired land. 62 .2 The Naib Teshsildar also deposed that there were developed DDA Flats constructed in Siddharth Nagar and Siddharth Nagar Extension and that in Indraprastha Millenium Depot is adjacent to village Behlolpur . The witness also deposed that there is water logging problem in Siddharth Nagar which was an area adjoining in the acquired land and that there is a power station which chimney on the river side of the Ring Road adjacent to the petrol pump in the acquired land. Thus, the evidence showed that despite issues of water logging and being near the river Yamuna, multi - storied flats were constructed in the proximate Siddharth Nagar and Siddharth Nagar Extension. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 164 of 171
62.3
In addition and as s t ated above, the Kilokari Award itself refers to the fact that the submerged land was not acquired. 63 . The Supreme Court has in the Anjani Molu Dessai case while relying on the judgment in the Sri Ram M. Vijayalakshmama Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyur v. Collector of Madras , 30 held that where there are several exemplars, usually the highest transaction is to be taken into consideration, unless there are strong circumstances justifying otherwise. This Court is unable to agre with the finding of the learned Reference Court given the settled law in this behalf.
63.1
The 17.03.1988 Exemplar was available but was not considered by the learned Reference Court. There is no evidence or circumstances record ed to justify non - reliance on the 17.03.1988 Exemplar. In addition , the sale deds that were relied upon by the Respondents were not proved in acordance with law. Although, t he Respondents filed the sale deds in evidence, however, neither the vendors nor any vendes of these sale deeds were produced. Thus, the reliance on the Respondents sale deds to disentitle the Appellants to the 17.03.1988 Exemplar cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, the Court finds no justification for not applying the value of the 17.03.1988 Exemplar. 6 4 . The p roximity to developed/posh colonies was not denied but in fact admitted by the Respondents . The potentiality has to be sen not from actual use but to what use can it be put in foreseeable future. The land was clearly being used for agricultural purposes whether we consider Site Inspection 5HSRUWRU$SSHOODQW¶VHYLGHQFH>%H
30 1963 SCC OnLine SC 305
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 165 of 171
what produced by the Respondent s that acquired land gets/remains repeatedly submerged. 6 4 . 1 In addition, a similar reference/assessment was done in the cases pending of the other villages as well. The Appellant s in village Nangli Razapur as well as Ghari Mendu , [ the Petitioners in the Bhopal Singh case ] , which was in respect of assessment for Village Nangli Razapur , refered to the fact that Village Nangli Razapur was next to the Nizamuddin Railway Station and had ISBT and Sarai Kalan Khan at half a kilometre away, Pragati Maidan and Connaught Place were four kilometres away. The village was touching the border s of posh colonies like Friends Colony and Maharani Bagh and it was also next to Village Behlolpur K hadar.
Evidence in respect of a Petrol Pump being in existence was also placed on record. 6 5 . There is another aspect to this as well. Although, the purpose for acquisition for the land in the villages Kilokari, Khizrabad , Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu was the same and all villages were adjacent and contiguous to each other, the LAC in its Awards gave a diferent categori s ation for the land in these contiguous villages in the following terms:
Name of Village
Categorisation of Land
Kilokari
Sailabi
Khizrabad
Khadar
Nangli Razapur
Khadar
Garhi Mendu
Floded land
6 5 .1 Thus, even though the nature of the land was diferent, the LAC still awarded the same amount of Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha whether the land was
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 16 of 171
³flooded ´ as in the case of Garhi Mendu or ³N haddar ´ as in the case of Khizrabad and Nangli Razapur or µ6DLODEL¶ as in the case of Kilokari . The categorization of all these lands in view of their potentiality and proximity to developed colonies as assessed by the LAC i s the same . 6 5 .2 The approach of LAC in awarding similar compensation in respect of village having Khadar land and flooded land [Garhi Mendu] also shows that the Government viewed the lands for potential development on an equal scale. Hence, the vast diference betwen the award of village Behlolpur Khadar and village s that are covered in this reference is unwaranted. 6 6 . The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bal Ram and Anr. 31 had held that while taking into consideration the lands coming under different villages which had ben acquired for the same purpose and whether the nature and quality of the lands is by and large similar, there was no justification to make any distinction between the lands lying in different villages. The Court was deciding the lands acquired in 13 villages for the Plan Development Area near the Palam Airport.
The Court held that the view taken that it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owner s when the purpose of acquisition is the same and the lands are identical and similar though lying in diferent villages, could not be interfered with. The relevant extract is below:
³3. The ground urged before us is that in view of the decision in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India contiguity of villages could not by itself be suficient to draw an inference of similarity in character of the lands in awarding the compensation and, therefore, the reasoning of the High Court is not corect. 4. The High Court inded did not rely upon the contiguity of the lands alone but it found that the nature/quality of the lands is by and large similar to those lands considered in Satpal case. If that is the finding of the High Court, we do not think there would be any justification to make any distinction
31 (2010) 5 SCC 747
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 167 of 171
between lands which had been lying in Palam and Shahbad Mohamadpur. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court canot be faulted with. The High Court also found that it would be unfair to discriminate between the landowners to pay more to some and les to others when the purpose of acquisition is same and lands are identical and similar, though lying in different vilages. 5. We find the judgment of the High Court to be fair and reasonable and no interference is caled for. Therefore, the apeal stands dismised. ´ [Emphasis suplied]
66.1
In matters of compulsory acquisition, the Government neds to kep in mind that the villagers whose land is acquired are not willing parties but are parties who are compelled to sell their lands to the State for public purpose. Thus, failing to award simil ar compensation in similar areas would lead to discrimination between the land owners. 67.
The emphasis laid by the Respondents on the land being flooded or in the two µ)RUZDUG %XQGV¶ is also not supported by evidence by the Respondents. The Site Inspection Report of 2006 makes a reference to flooding happening on ocasion; however, this too is based on the statement of the oficials and without any documentary evidence. Given the amount of water logging in any part of Delhi during heavy rains, this aspect would also get diluted. 6 8 . The Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) thr. LRs & Ors. 32 has held where there is no direct evidence of relevant sale exemplars, it is reasonable to make an