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