Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 1 of 171
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment Pronounced on : 26.09 .2025
+
LA.APP. 59/2007 & CM APPL. 13373/2016
BED RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 372/2007
BHOPAL SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 2 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar,
Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 40/2007
DHARAM VEER
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DA. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Pratek Dhir, Mr. Kuljet Singh and Mr. Shivam Takiar, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 42/2007
SRI RAM & ANR. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 3 of 171
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 43/2007
BED RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr.
Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar,
Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Adv. +
LA.APP. 44/2007
ATTAR SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 4 of 171
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. Ms. Kamna Singh, Panel Counsel for DDA. +
LA.APP. 58/2007
DULI CHAND
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 5 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 1143/2008
UOI & ANR. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA. versus
BHOHTI DECEASED THR.LR'S
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners. Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 911/2010
KEHAR SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 6 of 171
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016
FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. S.A. Khan, Advocate for R - 2. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 339/2015 & CM APPL. 11804/2015
HUKUM SINGH SINCE DECEASED THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Shivansh, Mr. Rajan Sharma, Mr. Depak Gola, Mr. Krishna Kant, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 7 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 144/2019
PRAKASH & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Dhruv Anand, Mr. Dhananjay Khanna, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms.
K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 230/2022
SALEK RAM (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 8 of 171
+
LA.APP. 366/2022, CM APPL. 52464 - 65/2022
SITA RAM (DECEASED) THR. LR CHAVAN & ANR. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Akhil Mittal, ASC with Ms. Navita Gupta, Mr. Sidhant Garg, Advs. for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 61/2007
KESAR SINGH & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 9 of 171
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 62/2007
GANGA RAM & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr.
Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 63/2007
SATTO DEVI & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 10 of 171
versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Mr. Sami Samer Siddiqui, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 64/2007
ANGOORI DEVI (D) THRU. L.R.
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 65/2007
RAJ PAL
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 1 of 171
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr.
Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 66/2007
KAILASH SHARMA & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 12 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 73/2007
TEK CHAND
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 87/2007, CM APL. 808 - 09/2019
PRITAM SINGH & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 13 of 171
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Ms. Meghna, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP.
412/2007
GIRIRAJ & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 89/2007
BALBIR SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 14 of 171
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for DDA. Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 1234/2008
HANS RAJ DECD. THR . LR'S
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI &ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 15 of 171
+
LA.APP. 1235/2008, CM APPL. 6801/2017 & 16070/2024
SURYA PRAKASH & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr.
Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 130/2009
SHRI BHIK RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 16 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 607/2009
NEKI RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for DDA
+
LA.APP. 91/2007
BHIM SINGH DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 17 of 171
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 293/2007
JAGBIR SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 72/2016 & CM APPL. 11271/2016
RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHUBER SINGH @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Y.R. Sharma and Ms. Akshita Sharma, Advocates for LRs of Appellant No.2
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 18 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 335/2008
MUNSHI DECEASED THROUGH L.R'S & ORS
...Apelants
Through:
Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 500/2008
BHARAT SINGH & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 19 of 171
+
LA.APP. 501/2008
ZILE SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R'S
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 508/2008
JAGWATI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 509/2008
BIR SINGH
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 20 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 564/2008
AMAN SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 565/2008
SHASHI VERMA
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 21 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr.
Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 609/2008 & CM APPL. 917/2016
NIMANT RANA & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 2 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 631/2008
DINESH KUMAR & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Amit Dhalla and Mr. Sohan Singh Rawat, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Manish Kr. Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates for R - 2 to 8. +
LA.APP. 737/2008
INDER SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 23 of 171
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
U.O.I & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. Ms.
Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for DDA
+
LA.APP. 739/2008
RAMESH BASISTHA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
U.O.I & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 748/2008, CM APPL. 945/2011, 2181/2011 & 52896/2018
DAL CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 24 of 171
U.O.I & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 816/2008, CM APPL. 12931/2017, 12932/2017, 12933/2017, 36662/2017 & REVIEW PET. 132/2017
KISHAN SAHAI THRU L.R'S
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 817/2008
JAGBIR & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 25 of 171
versus
UOI & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 876/2008
RISHAL SINGH DECD.
THR. LR'S
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates. versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vais h n a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 966/2008
RAJ KUMAR
...Appellant
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 26 of 171
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 992/2008
AJEET SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 994/2008, CM APPL. 12577 - 79/2017, 36659/2017 & REVIEW PET. 128/2017
HARI SINGH
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 27 of 171
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr.
Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 995/2008
PREM SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 28 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 996/2008
RAJENDER PRASHAD & ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 1038/2008, CM APPL. 11903 - 04/2015
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
KHAZAN SINGH &ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 29 of 171
+
LA.APP. 1040/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
CHAMPA DEVI DECD. THR.LR'S
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv.
for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1042/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
RICHA RAM & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+ LA.APP. 1043/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
PHOOL SINGH & ORS. ...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 30 of 171
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1136/2008
JASWANT SINGH RANA (DECEASED) THR. LRS ...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 1141/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
MANSA RAM DECD. THR. LR'S & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 31 of 171
+
LA.APP. 1142/2008, CM APPL. 42668 - 69/2023
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Mr. Aakash Mohar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Adv. for Cla i mant
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr.
Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC with Mr. Gautam Yadav, Mr. Sanjay Singh Rathore, Advocates
versus
KISHORI @ BHOLA DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1144/2008
UOI & ANR. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 32 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. versus
NATHU & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1145/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
BALBIR & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1146/2008, CM APPL. 11470 - 71/2015
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
HARI KISHAN DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 3 of 171
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1147/2008
UOI & ANR. ...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr.
Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. versus
SOHAN THR.HIS LR'S
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+
LA.APP. 1148/2008
UOI
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus
KHAZAN SINGH DECD. THR. LR'S
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 34 of 171
+
LA.APP. 1204/2008
DEVENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 1238/2008
CHINTA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 35 of 171
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 89/2009
OM PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.
M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari and Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocates. Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for DDA
+
LA.APP. 528/2009
SHER SINGH (DECEASED) THR. LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 36 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 550/2009
GUNI RAM DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DD
+
LA.APP. 551/2009
RANJIT KUMAR TRIGUNA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 37 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 552/2009
JAGDIP KUMAR TRIGUNA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 553/2009
BAHADUR DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 38 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 556/2009
ATTAR SINGH DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 39 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 559/2009 & CM APPL. 41913/2019
PEHLAD
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivam Wadhwa, Advocates. Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 560/2009 & CM APPL. 14064/2015
AJIT SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 40 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 576/2009 & CM APPL. 14065/2015
NARENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 580/2009, CM APPL. 14066/2015
KESAR SINGH & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 41 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 595/2009 & CM APPL. 14010/2015
PREM RAJ & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr.
Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 618/2009, CM APPL. 11472 - 73/2015
BADLEY
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 42 of 171
Mr. Gaganmet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harpreet Singh Chadha, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 647/2009, CM APPL. 8877 - 79/2025
MEHAR CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 650/2009
PREM RAJ & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 43 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 101/2010, CM APPL. 14013/2015
RATTO DEVI DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms.
K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 253/2010 & CM APPL. 14060/2015
RAM PAT
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Parmita Nath, Ms. Alka Singh, Mr. Naven K., Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 4 of 171
+
LA.APP. 263/2010 & CM APPL. 14068/2015
RAMESH & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 264/2010 & CM APPL. 14069/2015
HARI SINGH DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 311/2010, CM APPL. 14014/2015 & 6488/2017
MAMRAJ & ORS
...Appellants
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 45 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP.
314/2010
LAKHMI CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Gagandep Sachdeva, Mr. Harshpreet Singh Chadha & Mr. Hardesh Khanna, Advs. for DDA. +
LA.APP. 315/2010 & CM APPL. 14063/2015
JAGGAN & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 46 of 171
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 316/2010 & CM APPL. 14062/2015
RAMESH DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 380/2010
KESAR SINGH & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara, Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus
UOI
...Respondent
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 47 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. +
LA.APP. 454/2010, CM APPL. 14079/2015 & 21034/2019
DAYA KISHAN DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 677/2010, CM APPL. 12572 - 74/2017, 36669/2017 & REVIEW PET. 127/2017
OM PRAKASH & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 48 of 171
+
LA.APP. 678/2010 & CM APPL. 14058/2015
SHRI CHANDERMAN @ CHANDER SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 679/2010, CM APPL. 12927 - 29/2017, 36664/2017 & REVIEW PET. 131/2017
RAM SINGH DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Roshan Lal and Mr. Bhuvan Goel, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 682/2010 & CM APPL. 14067/2015
MOOL CHAND DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 49 of 171
UNION OF INDIA
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 683/2010
YASH PAL & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Ms. Nain Singh, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 699/2010
NAIN SINGH THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 50 of 171
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel with Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mr. Devvrat Arya, Ms. Deya Mittal, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 765/2010 & CM APPL. 14073/2015
DAL CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 827/2010 & CM APPL. 14012/2015
BHOOP SINGH DECD THRU LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 51 of 171
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 1070/2010, CM APPL. 14080/2015, 37746 - 47/2022
RAM KISHAN DECD THRU LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 15/2011 & CM APPL. 14081/2015
MUSADI DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 29/2011
DAL CHAND & ANR
...Appellants
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 52 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 39/2011
UMA DHOWAN & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Tushar Sannu, Panel Counsel with Mr. Sourav Verma, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 54/2011
KARAN SINGH
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 53 of 171
Through:
Mr. Brijesh Chaudhary, Mr. Prins Kumar, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms.
Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 140/2011, CM APPL. 14071/2015, 15510 - 11/2025
RANJEET SINGH DECD THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Parmita Nath, Ms. Alka Singh, Mr. Naven K., Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 155/2011 & CM APPL. 14070/2015
JASPAL SINGH (DEC) THRU.LRS
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 54 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 156/2011 & CM APPL. 14011/2015
BED RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kuljet Singh, Advocate. +
LA.APP. 251/2011 & CM APPL. 14015/2015
HARI CHAND
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 5 of 171
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 708/2011 & CM APPL. 3077/2017
LEKH RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr.
Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 716/2011
GOPAL SINGH & ORS
...Appellants
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 56 of 171
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 5/2012, CM APL. 33879 - 80/2024
SURJAN & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 57 of 171
+
LA.APP. 6/2012
GIAN CHAND DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R - 2/DDA. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Nidhi Raman CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
+
LA.APP. 10/2012 & CM APPL. 44574/2022
ANANT RAM & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 58 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 13/2012
BUDHAN DECD THRU LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 37/2012 & CM APPL. 14072/2015
DAROGA DECD THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 59 of 171
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 218/2012
NET RAM THROUGH LRS AND ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI AND ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 223/2012
HARI SINGH THROUGH LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI AND ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 60 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 49/2013, CM APL. 5014 - 15/2019
SAMARTA LRS AND ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI AND ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 51/2013 & CM APPL. 14061/2015
NET RAM
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI AND ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 61 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA
+
LA.APP. 85/2015 & CM APPL. 2272/2015
LAKHMI CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 86/2015, CM APL. 2282/2015 & 19952/2023
JUGAL KISHORE & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Gaurav Kakar and Mr. Lakshay Raheja, Advocates for LR of Appellant No.1. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 62 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 390/2015
VIRENDER SINGH (SINCE MISSING) THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Rajan Sharma, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 423/2015
HARI KISHAN (DECEASED) THR LEGAL HEIRS ...Apellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 63 of 171
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr.
Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
+
LA.APP. 426/2015
NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for DDA
+
LA.APP. 445/2015
NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 64 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 14/2016 & CM APPL. 354/2016
NAIN SINGH (DECEASED) THR HIS LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 18/2016
MAHIPAL (DECEASED) THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 65 of 171
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.
M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 19/2016
CHHATTAR SINGH
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. +
LA.APP. 173/2016 & CM APPL. 9203/2020
RAM SAROOP THROUGH LRS
...Appellant
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 6 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UOI AND ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 196/2016, CM APPL. 37755/2018 & 28909/2024
BUDH RAM @ BUDH SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Mr. Rajat Sharma, Ms. Ruchika Sharma and Mr. Chetan Sharma, Advocates for LR I (a & c)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 67 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 292/2016 & CM APPL. 37754/2018
HARI KISHAN SHARMA & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 11/2017 & CM APPL. 942/2017
SHASHI KUMAR
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 68 of 171
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 256/2017
POOJA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for DDA
+
LA.APP. 287/2017 & CM APPL. 31509/2017
MEHAR CHAND & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 69 of 171
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 131/2018
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DA
versus
MANMCHAND (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Appearance not given. +
LA.APP. 204/2018
OM PARKASH (DECEASED) THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Gaurav Dua and Mr. Govil Upadhyay, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 209/2018
VIRENDER & ANR
...Appellants
Through:
Appearance not given. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 70 of 171
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
+
LA.APP. 245/2018, CM APPL. 54192 - 94/2018
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Tushar Gupta, Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
versus
BUDH RAM @ BUDH SINGH (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Tushar Gupta and Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advocates for DA. +
LA.APP. 246/2018, CM APPL. 54324 - 26/2018
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms.
K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 71 of 171
versus
HAR KISHAN (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 247/2018, CM APPL. 54360 - 62/2018
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates for R - 2. versus
RAM SAROOP (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates for DA. Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Mr. Bhuvan Goel, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 4/2019, CM APL. 1666 - 68/2019
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. versus
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 72 of 171
RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS..Respondents
Through:
Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 49/2019, CM APPL. 16601/2019, CM APPL.16603 - 04/2019
UNION OF INDIA
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. versus
HANSO (DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Mrinalni Sen, SC with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin and Ms. Gauri Shyam, Advs. for DDA
Ms. Prity Sharma, Advocate for DDA. +
LA.APP. 130/2019, CM APPL.
38327 - 28/2024
DAL CHAND SHARMA & ORS
...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 73 of 171
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DDA. Mr. Neeraj Kumar and Mr. Kartik Garg, Advocates. +
LA.APP. 137/2019 & CM APPL. 38884/2019
BHOOP SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS
...Appellant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
...Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DDA. +
LA.APP. 298/2022
JAI BHAGWAN DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS. ...Appellants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ...Respondents
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 74 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
JUDGMENT
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J. :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
35()$&(««««««««««««««««««««««««« 7 5 %5,())$&76««««««««««««««««« .. «««« . 75
7+(+,6725<2)$66(660(17««««««««« 78
CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT ««««««««««««««. 8 5
CONTENTIONS OF 5(6321'(1712''$«««««« .. 92
&217(17,2162)5(6321'(171282, ... 9 9 5(-2,1'(5%<$33(//$17««««««««««« «100
SUR - 5(-2,1'(5««««««««««««««««««««« 10 3 THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT................................ 10 3 $1$/<6,6 ),1',1*6««««««««« 10 8 7KH$SSHDOV««« ««««««««« ..10 9 Village Khizrabad ««««««««« .. ... 1 10
Village .LORNDUL« « «««««««« .. 11 1 Village Nangli Razapur ««««««« ... .. 11 4 Village Garhi Mendu «««««««« .... 11 7 The Award «««««««««««««««««««««««.1 1 9 The Reference Court Judgments ««««««««««««««1 20
The Aditional Evidence. ««««««« .. 12 2 7KH6WDWXWH«««««««««««««««««««««« « 4 Compensation a warded in Village Behlolpur Khadar & Jasola . . ««««««««««««««« . ................ ... 13 8 Proximity to d eveloped c olonies, a gricultural a ctivities & p RWHQWLDOLW\«««««««««««««««««««««« 14 5 7KH/RFDWLRQ3ODQ«««««««««««««« ..15 2 The Exemplar ««««««««««««««««««««««1 60
&21&/86,21««««««««««««« 1 70
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 75 of 171
PREFACE
Since the issues raised in the above captioned appeals are the same, the above Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The present Appeals were heard together with LA.APP. 59/2007 captioned Bed Ram v.
UOI & Anr. being argued as the lead matter with the consent of the parties . For the sake of brevity, the facts are being recorded from the lead matter captioned .
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 [ KHUHLQDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR ] against the
judgment and decre dated 18.10.2006 passed by the C ourt of L earne d ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in LAC No. 1 of 2003 captioned Bed Ram v. UOI & A nr . [ KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³ ,PSXJQHG-XGJPHQW´ ] . 2. By the Impugned Judgment the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha , which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector [hereinafter refered to as "LAC"] to Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha for the acquired land. The l earned Reference Court
also granted 30% solatium on the value of the land . In addition, it was directed that the Appellant is entitled to 12% interest on the market value of the land and enhanced compensation at rate under Section 28 of the LA Act at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of notification till the date of award or date of dispossession , [whichever is earlier], till the expiry of one year and thereafter @15% per annum . 3. L and was acquired for land development of Delhi in relation to the channelisation of the river Yamuna, by a notification under Section 4 of the
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 76 of 171
LA Act was issued on 23.06.1989 [here in DIWHUUHIHUUHGWR 1RWLILFDWLRQ´@ .
The notification set s out in detail that for acquisition of land admeasuring about 3500 hectares of land starting from a point 1 km upstream, Wazirabad B arage road along eastern Yamuna marginal bund till it mets the boundary of Union Teritory upto point it mets newly constructed NOIDA Bridge then along the Northern Boundary of the Bridge upto Agra Canal then along the eastern boundary of Agra canal upt o Okhla h ead - works and along the Eastern Boundary of regularised unauthorised colonies of Batla House Joga Bai, Village Zakir Nagar, Hinrerbad village and then along the eastern boundary of Women Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute, Kalindi Colony till it mets Ring Road the Eastern Boundary of Ring road till mets Indraprastha Power House then along the Eastern Boundary of Power House and then along the bund upto the point it mets old Railway bridge and then along the road joining Ring Road cross ing near Poakey Bridge then along the Ring Road upto 1 km upstream Wazirabad Water Works along the bund upto 1 km then along the imaginary line running parallel to Wazirabad Barage on the Northern side upto starting point excepting the following land: - (a) Government land ; (b) Land already notified under Section 4 or under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is likely to be acquired under the provisions of the said Act for the purpose above stated. 3. 1 Award No. 14/1992 - 1993 was passed for acquisition of the land admeasuring 2226 Bighas and 5 Biswas situated in village Kilokari . Award No. 18/1992 - 93 was passed for acquisition of land admeasuring 874 Bighas and 4 Biswas in village Khizrabad . Award No. 16/1992 - 93 was passed for acquisition of land admeasuring 2009 Bighas and 10 Biswas in village Nangli
LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 7 of 171
Razapur and Award No. 13/1992 - 93 was passed for acquisition of land admeasuring 1563 Bighas and 1 8 Biswas in village Garhi Mendu [hereinafter FROOHFWLYHO\UHIHUUHGWRDV³DFTXL as set out in the Table below:
Award No.
Vilage Area
Area of land acquisitioned by the Award
Award No. 13/192 - 93
Garhi Mendu
1563 Bighas 1 8 Biswas
Award No. 14/192 - 93
Kilokari
26 Bighas and 5 Biswas
Award No. 16/192 - 93
Nangli Razapur
209 Bighas and 10 Biswas
Award No. 18/19 2 - 93
Khizrabad
874 Bighas and 4 Biswas
4. Pursuant thereto, the notifications under Section 6 and Section 17 of the LA Act were issued on 22.06.1990 in respect of the acquired land
including at villages Madanpur Khadar, Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Chuck Chilla, Okhla, Jogabai, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad , Jasola and on 20.06.1990 in respect of village Garhi Mendu . The possession of the acquired land was taken in the year 1995. 5. The Award No.14/1992 - 93 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 19.06.1992, for land admeasuring 222 6 Bighas and 5 Biswa in village Kilokari whereby compensation or market value of the land was ascertained at Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha was awarded to the Appellant for the acquired land >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV Kilokari $ZDUG´@ The LAC took into consideration sale deds of the land executed during the years 1985 - 89 and took out the average value thereof at Rs. 18,736/ - . In addition, it took into acount a n ofice order no. F.9(20)/80 - L&B/4313 - 16 dated 03.05.1990 >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³2IILF 27.04.1990 and after working out a pro - rata discount, it valued the acquired
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 78 of 171
land at Rs. 27,334/ - per Bigha for the land at village Kilokari. 6.
The LAC similarly assessed the value of the land for the villages Khizrabad , Nangli Raza pur and Garhi Mendu and passed thre separate awards assessing the market value of the land of these villages at a uniform rate of Rs. 27,334/ - per Bigha. The reason as assigned by the LAC for the uniform rate was that the purpose of acquisition of all land w as the same and all villages were adjacent and contiguous to each other. The village wise details of the four awards are set out below:
Award No.
Name of Village
Kind of Land
14/192 - 93
Kilokari
Sailabi
18/192 - 93
Khizrabad
Khadar
16/192 - 93
Nangli Razapur
Khadar
13/192 - 93
Garhi Mendu
Floded land
7. Subsequently, by virtue of a notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act dated 25.01.1995, lands admeasuring 1430 Bighas and 10 Biswas in village Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Nangli Razapur and Chuck - Chilla stood de - notified by the LAC. The reasons as set out by the LAC in its order dated 05.11.2004 for de - notification, was that the lands admeasuring 1430 Bighas and 10 Biswas were submerged or prone to be submerged, and hence were de - notified. THE HISTORY OF ASESMENT
8. In the meantime, being dissatisfied with the low assessment of the market value of the land by the LAC, a reference was filed under S ection 18 of the LA Act before the learned Reference Court on 13.07.1992 to submit
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 79 of 171
that the present market value of the acquired land is about Rs.10,000/ - per square yard and the acquired land does not form part of riverbed and that large portion of land of village , Kilokari was acquired in the year 1959 wherein the LAC assessed the market value of the land at Rs 26,000/ - per Bigha at that time.
It was contended that LAC assessed the market value of acquired land,
without taking into account the prices of land and their enhanced value during the period of 30 years betwen 1959 and 1989, a nd without considering the prevailing market rate of the area. 9. The Reference Petitions were filed in relation to villages at Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu before the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court in terms of the judgment passed in LAC 1RRIWLWOHGµ Attar Singh v UOI ¶ >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIH Attar Singh FDVH´@SHUWDLQLQJWRYLOODJH Khizrabad , allowed the Reference Petitions by an order dated 25.09.2006. The learned Reference Court relying upon the
judgment of Tindey & Ors v UOI & Anr . 1 >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIH Tindey FDVH´@ , increased the compensation awarded to Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha.
9.1
Similarly, the Reference Petitions filed in relation to land in the revenue estate of village Kilokari were decided. The lead matter for the village Kilokari is LAC No. 1/2003 titled µ%HG5DPY82, $ [hereinafter UHIHUUHGWRDV³ Bed Ram Reference Court FDVH´@ZKHUHE\WK was increased by the learned Reference Court to Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha by a
judgment dated 19.06.1992 based on the judgment in the Attar Singh case and the Tindey case. 1 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1070
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 80 of 171
9.2
In respect of Petitions filed for the land acquired at village Nangli Razapur, the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 2/1998 titled µ%KRSDO 6LQJKY8QLRQRI,QGLD $QU¶ by a judgment dated 29.08.2007 [hereinafter UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH³1DQJOL5D]DSXU , relied upon the Attar Singh case and the Bed Ram Reference Court case to award compensation of Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha. 9.3
So far as concerns the village Garhi Mendu, the learned Reference Court by a judgment dated 26.07.2007 passed in LAC No. 96/1 of 2006 titled Khazan Singh v. UOI >KHUHLQDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR Khazan Singh FDVH´@ relying on the judgment of Smt. Chawli Devi (Deceased) through her LRs v. UOI & DDA being LAC No. 334/1 of 2006 , similarly enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha to Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha. 10. As stated above, the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land in all four villages ± Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad to Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha and for Garhi Mendu Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha. The other antecedent directions such as solatium and interest were also awarded by the learned Reference Court. Aggrieved by this award, the Appellants filed the present Appeals before this Court. By a judgment dated 07.06.2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court decided a batch of Appeals, in cluding the present Appeal of which the LA APP. 59/2007 captioned Bed Ram v. Union of India & Anr. was the lead matter to hold that the fair market value of the land acquired in thre villages of Kilokari, Khizrabad and Nangli Razapur as set out by the learned Reference Court was corectly determined
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 81 of 171
at Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha . The Coordinate Bench thus dismissed the batch of Appeals including the present Appeal. 10.1
By a separate order dated 07.06.2011 also, the Coordinate Bench of this Court decided the batch of Appeals including LA. AP. 1038/2008 captioned UOI. v. Khazan Singh & Ors. in respect of village Garhi Mendu, and revised the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court to Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha as in the case of vilage Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Khizrabad . 11.
The order(s) dated 07.06.2011 , as corected by order dated 22.07.2011 passed by this Court , were challenged by the Appellant by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 1939/2012 captioned Union of India v. Ram Lal & Ors. and connected matters >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³6&-X 13.01.2015 passed two directions with respect to the matters in villages Kilokari, Khizrabad Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu . In the first instance, it was held that a Review Petition be filed before the High Court to permit the Appellant to produce additional documents, maps and awards before Single Judge within 30 days. The Court further held that if the Review Petition(s) we re filed within 30 days , the Single Judge would consider the same without going into the question of limitation. The relevant extract of the SC judgment is set out below:
³%ULHIO\VWDWHGWKHIDFWVLQWKH pertains to the determination of fair market value of lands admeasuring 1536 Bigha 10 biswa in village Garhi Mendu , belonging to the claimants/respondents herein. The said land was acquired under Section 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 189 4 (for short, "the Act"), by the apelants/petitioner herein for the public purpose of planed development of Delhi. 3. The said land, along with land in three other villages, namely Khirzahad
[sic: Khizrabad ] , Kilolari [sic: Kilokari] and Chak Chila, was notified by
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 82 of 171
the Government, vide Notification No. F. 9 (1)/89 ²L&B (i.) isued under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 23.06.1989 . The same was followed by Notification No. F. 9 (I)/89 - L&B/LA(i) & (ii) isued under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act, dated 20.0 6 .190. In pursuance of the said Notifications, notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were isued to all interested persons. 4. The L DQG $FTXLVLWLRQ &ROOHFWRU IRU V
consideration Order No.
F - 9(20)/80 - L&B/4313 - 16, isued by the Delhi Administration regarding fixation of minimum price of agricultural land by the LAC, dated 03.05.190. In light of the aforesaid policy of the State administration the LAC vide Award No. 13/192 - 93, determined the
compensation to be awarded at the rate of Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha along with statutory benefits, dated 19.06.192. 5. Disatisfied with the award of the LAC, the respondents herein sought for a reference under Section 1 8 of the Act for adjudication of the fair market value. It was argued by the claimants that the LAC did not consider, inter alia, the potential value of the land, that the revenue estate of the village in which the land was situate was surounded by posh colonies developed by the Delhi Development Authority and other private colonies, and that al l basic civic amenities were available to the land . The Refe rence Court, while considering the contentions raised by the parties to the lis, tok notice of the award of the LAC with regard to land situate in villages Khizrabad , Kilokari and Chak Chilla, dated 19,06.192. By the said awards, the LAC had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha along with statutory benefits, It was further noticed, by the Reference Court, that a reference had been, sought against the said awards, and consequently, taking into consideration the location, potentiality, nature, topography of the said land, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.89,60/ - per bigha . xxx
xxx
xxx
2. In our considered opinion, these facts, as also the maps and relevant documents, may be brought to the notice of the High Court by the apelant(s)/petitioners herein by filing apropriate review petition(s) EHIRUHWKH+LJK&RXUWZLWKLQWKLUW\G . 3. If such review petition(s) is/are filed within the time granted by this Court, we request the learned Single Judge to consider the same in accordance with law, but without going into the question of limitation . 4. Further, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we permit the apelant(s)/petitioners herein to produce the aditional documents, maps, awards, if any, which are in their posesion, before the learned Single Judge along with the sa id review petition(s) . 5. Al contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the learned Single Judge . ´
[Emphasis suplied]
LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 83 of 171
12. Subsequently, several Review Petitions in relation to the acquired land were filed before this Court by the Appellants . By its order dated 13.03.2015, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed that the decision dated 07.06.2011 is withdrawn vis - à - vis the review petitioners and it was directed that the present Appeals would be reconsidered by the roster bench after giving an opportunity to the Appellant/Review Petitioners to place on record further evidence. The relevant extract of the order dated 13.03 . 2015 is below:
³7KHUHYLHZSHWLWLRQHUVDUHUHO\L which include a few judicial determinations in Land Acquisition References made. 4. In ethos with the order pased by the Supreme Court on January 13, 2015, the review petitioners would be entitled to formally lead evidence and prove the documents on which they rely requiring a re - consideration of the mater keeping in light such docum ents which may be proved. 5. Since I am presiding over a Division Bench, it may not be posible to spare time in the near future to record evidence and thereafter decide the isue afresh, as agreed to between the learned counsel for the parties, the review petitions are being disposed of declaring that the decision dated June 07, 201 is withdrawn vis - a - vis the review petitioners. Land Acquisition Apeals filed by the review petitioners would be re - considered by the roster bench, after giving oportunity to the review petitioners to lead further evidence but limited to proving such documents and judicial orders, which have been filed under cover of the review petition . 7KH5HYLHZ3HWLWLRQVVWDQGGLVSRVH
[Emphasis suplied]
13 . By an order dated 30.07.2015, this Court directed that additional evidence and additional documents be filed in the l ead m atter i.e., the Bed Ram case and the other Appellants can rely on these Afidavits and additional documents for other cases.
The relevant extract of the order dated 30.07.2015 is set out below:
³&RXQVHOIRU8QLRQRI,QGLDVWDWHVWK the records and, therefore, seeks an adjournment. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 84 of 171
Upon remand by the Supreme Court with liberty to file aditional evidence at WKHEHKHVWRIWKHDSSHOODQWVFODLPDQWV reviewed his judgment disposing of the apeals on 07.06.201 and that is how the mater is listed befo re this Court. Let one set of aditional afidavit and aditional documents to be led in evidence be filed in lead case, i.e. LA Ap No.59/207, titled Bed Ram v. Union of India. Since the said evidence is sought to be relied by al the other apelants, there is no nece sity of filing separate afidavit of evidence in the other cases. If any of the other apellants wishes to file any aditional documents, they may file the same in their respective apeals. However, the counsels shal cordinate and prepare a comon compilation of aditional documents to be relied upon. The compilation shall be filed in the lead case, i.e. LA Ap No.59/207, Bed Ram v. Union of India . Advance copies shall be furnished to counsel for the respondent. This exercise be completed within four weeks. Learned counsels state that only documentary evidence of unimpeachable nature is required to be filed «´
[Emphasis suplied]
14. Pursuant thereto, the evidence was led by the Appellants in the Bed Ram case and the case captioned Karan Singh v. Union of India, LA.AP. >KHUHLQDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR Karan Singh FDVH´@ IRU WK matters . Afidavits statements of AW1/Kailash Sharma in the Bed Ram case and AW1/Karan Singh in the Karan Singh case were filed and they were cross - examined by the Respondents. Evidence was also led by RW1/Ravinder Dang on behalf of Respondent before this Court. 15. Subsequently, by an order dated 26.11.2015, the Court directed that the additional evidence recorded and led in the Bed Ram case and the Karan Singh case shall be read in so far as relevant for the remaining Appeals and listed the matters before the Joint Registrar of this Court for recording of evidence. LA.APP.
59/207 & conected
Page 85 of 171
16. Once the evidence was concluded, these Appeals were listed before this Court in pursuance of the aforegoing decisions of the Supreme Court and the Coordinate Bench.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELANT S
17.
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s ha ve
divided their
submissions into 3 primary contentions:
(i)
location of land and its potentiality;
(ii)
submissions of exemplars;
(iii)
land being µS DLODEL¶ cannot have much potentiality is not a corect analysis.
18 . Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit
that land was assessed by LAC at rate of Rs. 26,000/ - in the year 1959. Hence, the Award by LAC in the year 1992 at the rate of Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha was not the fair market value. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the Reference Court in the I mpugned J udgment had observed that, since the market value of land increases over the years , it is unlikely that prices of land have remained stagnant from the year 1959 when market price was Rs. 26,000/ - per Bigha and therefore ra te of land would have ben 10% per annum from 1959. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that as per 10% p.a. progressive increase from 1959 to 1989 as observed in the I mpugned J udgment the actual market value should be more than Rs. 1000/ - per square yard or approximately Rs. 30 lakhs per Bigha . The learned Reference Court on 18.10.2006 passed the Impugned
Judgment assessing market value of acquired land at rate of Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha as on 23.06.1989. Other antecedents relate d to the acquired land
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 86 of 171
pertaining to solatium and interest was also awarded. While assessing market value of acquired land in village Kilokari, the learned Reference Court dr e w comparison with village Khizrabad stating that both lands stood acquired by same notification and for the same purpose and the location is also within the same vicinity and acordingly awarded the same market value as awarded in Tindey case. 18.1
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that land of village, Kilokari , Behlolpur Khadar , Nangli Razapur, Ch u ck - ch i lla admeasuring 1430 Bigha and 10 biswa was de - notified under Section 48(1) of the LA Act by a gazette notification dated 25.01.1995 . On 05.11.2004, order was passed by the LAC assigning reasons that since part of the land was found to be submerged in the river Yamuna land was de - notified . Emphasis is laid on the fact that the land not submerged was retained and acquired by the Respondents and the acquired land in these Appeals forms part of the land. 18.2
It was contended that the Section 4 notification was also the same in respect of land acquired for village Behlolpur Khadar and the compensation awarded by the LAC in this village was enhanced by the learned Reference Court to Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha in ter ms of a judgment dated 04.01.201 passed by the learned Reference Court in LAC 75/2008 captioned Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr . 1 8.2.1 It was further contended that relying on the testimony of AW - 1, Kailash Sharma , that the witness had stated that they had ben cultivating the land in question until its acquisition in 1989 and that there was no examination
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 87 of 171
conducted on the aspect of flooding. In fact, it is stated that the land was irigated from the water of river Yamuna and not submerged.
18.3
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit
that the market value for the land of v illage , Behlolpur Khadar and Jasola , both acquired under the same notification as the acquired land , has ben assessed at rate of Rs. 2.5 l acs per Bigha for Behlolpur Khadar and Rs. 4948/ - per sq. yard for Jasola respectively. For the village, Behlolpur Khadar
compensation has already ben received by the claimants. R eliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ba l Ram & Anr 2 to submit that if the nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr 3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors . 4 to submit that there should be no discrimination betwen landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari while village Behlolpur Khadar is also a part of adjoining village Kilokari, yet a distinction has ben drawn by the learned Reference Court i n the award for these four vilages of Kilokari, Khizrabad , Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu without any legal basis. 2 (2010) 5 SCC 747
3 (2004) 10 SCC 627
4 2009 (8) SCC 582
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 8 of 171
18.4
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot Hotel etc. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon the testimony of RW - l, Mr. Ravinder Dang [ Naib Tehsildar at office of LAC ] and testimony of R W - 2, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Chandra [ Scientist with Central Ground Water Authority ] . 18.5
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that they are also entitled for 12% per annum additional market value under S ection 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land . 18.6
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the DFTXLUHGODQG¶V potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires a reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land . It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause (4) of Section 24 of the LA Act. 18.7
Relying on the sale ded dated 17.03.1988 [Ex. PW3/1] which references a sale of one Bigha for Rs.2,07,500/ - per Bigha , i t was contended that the sale ded was proved before the learned Reference Court and that the
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 89 of 171
witness stood his ground, despite which the learned Reference Court came to a conclusion that the sale deed could not be relied upon. 18.8
The exemplar in respect of village Behlolpur Khadar wherein the compensation was enhanced by the learned Reference Court by its order dated 04.01.2011 to Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha , was also relied upon to contend that this exemplar was not taken into consideration by the learned Reference Court in the present case .
It is further contended that Respondent No.1/UOI has not challenged these findings in respect of village Jasola and Behlolpur Khadar
except in two cases 5 and in all other cases, the land owners have received the compensation, thus, parity must be maintained in respect of adjoining adjacent lands with similar potentiality. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Periasami Vs. Sub - Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) 6 to submit that the acquired land is entitled to compensation at the parity with the other lands situated in the same area and acquired by the same notification as the acquired land . 18.9
In addition, reliance has also ben placed on the Award No.21/92 - 93
pertaining to village Jasola wherein the LAC awarded the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha while the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 224 of 2011 captioned Jagdish Gulati v. UOI & Anr. decided on 29.11.2011 substantially enhanced the amount to Rs. 4948 / - per sq uare yard . It is stated again that even against the present award only two Appeals 7 were
5 LA.AP. 129/2016 captioned Union of India v. Hari Kishan @ Harkesh (Deceased) Thr. LRs & Ors. and;
LA AP. 128/2016 captioned Union of India v. Kesar Singh & Ors. 6 (1994) 4 SCC 180
7 LA.AP. 224/2012 captioned Union of India v. Jagdish Gulati and ; LA.AP.225/2012 captioned Union of India v. Sadhna Gupta & Anr. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 90 of 171
filed again by Respondent No. 1 and compensation to remaining land owners was received in terms of order of the learned Reference Court. 18.10 Lastly, on the aspect of the land being µ6DLODEL¶ which means submergible, it is contended by the Respondents that the land does not have much potentiality.
It is submitted that this submission does not take into acount the 1430 Bighas 10 Biswa land which was de - notified by the Respondents, in pursuance of which on 05.11.2004, the LAC passed a detailed
order stating that the reasons for the de - notification was that the land was submerged or submergible. It is contended that the remaining land which i ncludes the acquired land was thereafter taken into possession on the recommendation of Respondent No.2/DDA while 1,430 Bigha 10 Biswa land was de - notified. Thus, it is avered by the Appellant that the remaining land which includes the acquired land was clearly not submergible or µ6DLODE
land. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the Reference Court inspected the site on 22.06.2011 and observed that the land as situated in the heart of the city and that the land ³DSSHDUVWRE IRUDJULFXOWXUDOSXUSRVHV´ . 18.10.1 Relying on the notification dated 1 3 .11.1959 pertaining to village Kilokari, it was contended that at that time a uniform rate of compensation was awarded by the LAC for diferent types of land, i.e., GM Nala, Sailab i , Chahi and Rosli and compensation of Rs.26,000/ - per Bigha was awarded irespective of the type of land. Learned Counsel contends that LAC has used the term µ6 DLODEL¶ to describe the land pertaining to village Kilokari, the term µ.KDGDU¶WRGHVFULEHWKHODQGRIY QGµ6DLODEL to describe the land situated in village Behlolpur. Thus, these terms have ben
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 91 of 171
used interchangeably. Since Khadar also means low alluvial land fit for cultivation, the type of land in all three villages is the same, thus the compensation cannot be varied. 7KH $SSHOODQW¶V ZLWQHVVHV Sharma [ in LA.AP. 5 9 /20 07 ], in his cross examination has contended that he has never witnessed any flooding or water logging during his lifetime and this is recorded in his statement as given on 23.01.2016. 18.10.3 Reliance is also placed on LA.AP.372/2007 captioned Bhopal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. [Award No.16/92 - 93 dated 19.06.1992] [hereinafter refered to as ³Bhopal Singh FDVH´@ passed for village Nangli Razapur wherein it is noted that the entire land is being irigated by the Yamuna River and since it is irigated, there is no question of the same being µSailabi ¶ in nature. 18.11 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s have
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjani Molu Des s ai Vs. State of Goa & Anr .
8 to submit that for calculating compensation highest exemplar is to be considered by the Court and not by averaging the diferent types of sale prices . Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Oficer Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb 9 to submit that sale instances of solitary sale deed or small pieces of land can be relied upon while determining the amount of compensation. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 10
8 (2010) 13 SCC 710
9 (2011) 7 SCC 714
10 (2017) 9 SCC 426
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 92 of 171
to submit that benefit of higher compensation should be granted to even those landowners who could not approach the court . Reliance is placed upon the
judgment of Coordinate bench of this Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India
& Anr. 11 to submit that for determination of market value of land when no sale ded is available principle of escalation is to be applied. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s further relie d upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Trishala Jain & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. 12 to submit that concept of guesstimation is to be used for determining the market value of the land when no sale deed is available principle of escalation is to be applied .
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2/DDA
19 . Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 /DDA has contended that LAC in the Award has specifically recorded that the acquired land is situated between two
"Forward Bunds" and the river Yamuna , and that there were no constructions on the land and only a few tres were found available on the land at the time of its acquisition. 19 .1 The LAC relied on an ofice order dated 03.05.1990 wherein the Government of NCT of Delhi had notified the maximum price of agricultural land in Delhi as Rs. 4.5 lakhs per acre for agricultural land and Rs. 1.5 lakhs per acre for land situated on the riverbed. The fair market value for the land was thus notified by the LAC on 23.06.1989 as Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha on the basis of minimum price as notified on 03.05.1989 given the nature of the land. 1 2001 SCC Online Del 325
12 (2011) 6 SCC 47
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 93 of 171
19 .2 It was further contended that the market value of the land as assessed by learned Reference Court is at Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha . Learned Reference Court gave findings that the acquired land situated in the riverbed on the ³)RUZDUG%XQG´ will be covered with water during some parts of the year and land may be cultivable for remaining parts of the year. The Appellants/Claimants have failed to le a d any evidence to disprove the fact that subject land was not situated in ³)RUZDUG %XQG´ area. The Learned Reference Court found that the land is not capable of being utilised neither as an agricultural land nor for constructing a building and consequently, cannot be compared with other developed lands. Further, isolated constructions on the acquired land cannot lead to an inference that land can be used for building structures or that the land is comparable to other lands falling outside the
³)RUZDUG%XQG´ area . 19 .3 The Respondents have also relied upon a site inspection report, and photographs of the area and a spot report dated 21.11.2006 which was prepared by the learned Reference Court along with spot note [hereinafter
collectively refered to as the "Site Report"]. Relying on this Site Report, it was contended that the site inspection found that the land "appears to be under cultivation".
However, when the water level of the Yamuna cross es 204 mark, the land gets submerged in water depending on the amount of discharge from the river. In addition, the Site Report states that there are no substantial development s on the land near the site for agricultural purposes. It is thus contended that the land is unfit for development. 19 .4 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the learned Reference Court by order dated 04.01.2011 had rejected the evidence
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 94 of 171
relied upon by the Appellants to claim higher compensation. The Appellants had exhibited a sale ded dated l7.03.1988 of land of approximately 1 Bigha
sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/ - . Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents in the locality in advance a nd prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. 19 .4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW - 3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW - 3 himself admits that he was not an income tax paye in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing a parcel of land for sum of Rs. 2,07,500/ - to the income tax authority. 19 .5 It was contended that, the testimony of PW - 4, Mr.
S.P. Singh [ Assistant at Ofice of DDA ] cannot be relied upon to assess the market value of the subject land as PW - 4 admits in his cross - examination that he was neither aware of the date of notification nor he was aware of the date of the award by which land was allotted to Akshar Dham Mandir, nor the date of acquisition and consequently he cannot be said to be aware of the prevailing market rate of the area. Further, the testimony of PW - 5, Mr. Anwar Abbasi [ Assistant Manager Toll Plaza, DND Flyway ] cannot be relied upon as he failed to prove the authenticity of the Sale agrements and site plans. 19 .6 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that Respondent No.1/UOI had adduced 5 sale deds [Exhibit R1 to R5] in evidence , of land situated in the same area as acquired land and sold around
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 95 of 171
the same time when the notification was issued. These exhibited sale deds reflected average market value was at Rs. 18,736/ - per Bigha . 19 .7 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 contends that burden lies on the Appellants to prove the prevailing market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act and to prove that the acquired land had building potentiality. In the event of failure to adduce cogent evidence, the claim ought to have ben rejected. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Tandon v Allahabad Development Authority & Anr . 13 to submit that the burden of proof lies upon the Claimant to prove that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate . 19 .8 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 relies on the Tinde y case to submit that when land has similar potentiality and location advantages, it must be similarly valued.
The corect approach is to ascertain what a willing vendor and a willing purchaser would reasonably transact at, keeping in mind the principles of fairness and justice . It is well - settled that the burden lies on
t he claimant to adduce evidence showing that the land has high potential value. 19 .9 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that no development has ben undertaken on the acquired land and it has no building potentiality because it a µ6DLODEL/DQG¶ and is land which is in close proximity to river Yamuna. µ6DLODEL¶ lands are valued lower than agricultural land due to seasonal inundation . Learned Counsel further states that the Appellant/PW - 7, Bed Ram in his testimony has deposed that some portion of the land in
13 2004 (10) SCC 745
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 96 of 171
village Kilokari was developed as New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh and Kalindi Colony and he admitted that there is no abadi around the petrol pump and the two shops and that there is a drainage in village Kilokari but it is far away from acquired land. F urther, testimony of PW - 6, Mr. P.K. Mena suggests that land is capable of being used for cultivation only when it is not covered by the Yamuna river. 19 .9.1 It is contended that the testimony of AW - 1, Mr. Karan Singh in LA AP.54/2011 reflects that he never raised an objection to the term µ6DLODE
used for the acquired land and he never applied to the MCD seking sanction of the layout plan for the subject land. Learned Counsel submits that the government did not allow any construction to be raised other than a petrol pump and the two shops of marble on the land of village Kilokari. Learned Counsel submits that all these goes to suggest that subject la nd has no potential to build structures.
19 .10 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the argument of the Appellants that the subject land falls in the vicinity of posh colonies and hence, a higher amount of compensation should be awarded is misconceived. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the subject land is prone to water logging and flooding as it was situated in the ³)RUZDU %XQG´ area. He further submits that Appellants have not placed on record any evidence to show that the land can be used for agriculture or residential purposes. Further, the Apellant is his testimony has admitted that except for a petrol pump and the two shops , there is no abadi around the subject land and till date there has been no development on the subject land which supports the
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 97 of 171
fact that subject land is qualitatively distinguishable from the land on which posh colonies are developed. 19 .11 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the land owners have failed to show other comparable sale deds and that the l and owners have failed to show that the acquired land is similar in nature and potentiality to other comparable same village or neighbouring village. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Mohd. Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition Oficer 14 . 19 .12 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the Appellants have failed to show any similarity of the acquired land with the lands situated in Jasola or Behlolpur Khadar . Learned Senior Counsel submits that mere contiguity of the acquired land with the other land situated in an urban area is not the aceptable criteria for grant of similar rate. Reliance is placed upon Kanwar Singh & Ors v UOI 15 to submit that the Supreme Court has held that mere contiguity of two villages cannot be adopted to determine the market value of two vilages unless similarity and advantages of both the lands are proved.
19 .12.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 refutes the contention of the Appellants claiming parity with market value of the land situated at village Behlolpur Khadar which has ben assessed at Rs. 2.5 lakhs per Bigha in case of Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v UOI & Anr .; LAC No.75/2008 and Village Jasola at Rs. 4,948 per sq. yard in the case of Jagdish Gulati v. UOI ; LAC No. 224/11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that market value of
14 (2009) 14 SCC 367
15 1998 (8) SCC 136
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 98 of 171
the land assessed, as mentioned above, by the learned Reference Court was made by ignoring and overlooking the market value as determined by this Court and thus is a nullity. It is further contended that the learned Reference Court ought to have balanced the public interest and private interest while determining market value rate. Reliance is placed on the case of Periyar & Parekani Rubbers Ltd. v State of Kerala 16 to submit that lands must be assessed at fair and reasonable market value of the land and too much HPSKDVLVRQFODLPDQW¶VULJKWWRFR upon the public exchequer. 19.13 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v Asha Ram (dead) through LRs and Others 17 to submit that market value of land must be determined based on comparable sale instances that are proximate in time and location to the acquisition notification . 19.14 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that even if acquired land lies near Yamuna River and building structures is presently prohibited due to environmental regulations, potentiality of the land must still be assessed. However, there is n o material on record showing development on the subject land on the date of the notification or at the time of possession of the land.
No evidence has been led showing any application made for change of land use from agricultural to residential purpos es, nor is there any such prayer in the documents on record. Learned Counsel submits that mere proximity to developed colonies cannot by itself establish potentiality. Once the land is found to lack building potentiality, no benefit of higher
16 1991 (4) SCC 195
17 2021 (17) SCC 289
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 9 of 171
compensation can be granted. Therefore, it is contended that there is no infirmity in the market value of the land as fixed by the learned Reference Court i.e. Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha .
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/UOI
20 .
Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that no evidence has been b r ought on record by the Appellant s to attribute any building potentiality to the acquired land. Learned Counsel submits that in order to determine the market value of the acquired land, the building potentiality of the land must be considered. However, no material has ben brought on recor d to show any development on the acquired land either on the date of the notification or on the date of possession of the land.
20 .1
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that as per t he Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWR , permission from the authority is mandatory to change the nature of land use and no such permission for change of land use from agriculture to building purposes has ben b r ought on record by the Appellants to evidence any "change of user" application.
20 .2
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has reiterated the contentions as set out by Respondent No. 2 that while awarding the compensation, the LAC/learned Reference Court has to ascertain the market value of the land keping in mind what a willing vendor ma y reasonably except to obtain from a willing purchaser. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Supreme Court in the Periyar case.
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 10 of 171
20 .3
Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the learned Reference Court while passing the Impugned Judgment has corectly relied upon Tindey case, wherein the land of village, Khizrabad was held to have no building potentiality at the relevant time i.e., at the time of publication of the notification and the amount of compensation was awarded acordingly.
20 .4
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that the evidence led by the Appellants at best supports that acquired land is used for agriculture purposes only and not for construction of a building. Acquisition of the land for building purposes cannot be suficient circumstance to presume land has building potentiality. Acordingly, the acquired land has no building potentiality and hence, no additional compensation should be granted. REJOINDER BY APPELANTS
21 . Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the characterisation of the land as µ6DLODEL¶ does not per se negate its development potential. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that out of total acquired land, pockets of land may have ben prone to flooding but not the entire acquired land. Siddharth Nagar and Ganga Vihar, similarly situated as acquired land, have ben fully developed. Therefore, the argument that µ6DLODEL ' l and s lacks potentiality is untenable. 21 .1 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the land which was not submerged by the river Yamuna was retained and not de - notified in terms of the notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act on 25.01.1995. It is contended that the possession was taken by the
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 101 of 171
Respondents and hence the argument of the Respondents that the entire land being µS ailabi ¶ land cannot be used for development purposes is misplaced. 21 .2 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that for market value of land to be assessed at higher value , reliance is placed upon testimony of PW - 3/Mr. Vinod Kumar (land purchaser) who purchased 1 Bigha and 1 biswa of land in village Kilokari through Sale ded dated l7.03.1988 for consideration of Rs. 2,07,50/ - [hereinafter refered to as
"17.03.1988 Exemplar"]. The sale ded is dated one year and thre months prior to the date of notification of the subject land and is thus a relevant exemplar. The allegation that the sale ded is inflated to secure higher compensation is without basis. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s clarif y that only one Bigha or 3,025 square yards was purcha sed by PW - 3, and the transaction stands unimpeached and the criticism regarding the purchaser not being an Income Tax paye is irrelevant and speculative.
21 .3 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that the 17.03.1988 Exemplar was rejected by the learned Reference Court on assumption that landowners had prior knowledge about the acquisition , which
is not corect. In this regard , l earned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Appellant s places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahamaya General Finance Company v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 18 wherein a similar speculative finding that the Appellants had prior knowledge of the acquisition which was adopted by the learned Reference Court without any reasons , was disapproved by the Supreme Court. 18 (2014) 1 5 SCC 290
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 102 of 171
21 .4 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Appellant s submit that testimony of PW2/Gopal Singh is not being relied upon. The emphasis is only upon the testimony of PW3, in relation to the 17.03.1988 Exemplar, which testimony remains unimpeachable. 21 .5 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Appellant s further reiterates that the land in Behlolpur Khadar which even as per the map and rough location plan relied upon by the Respondents is a village bordering Kilokari and that the learned Reference Court gave a finding enhancing the compensation of the said land to Rs. 250/ - per sq. yd./Rs. 2.5 lacs per Bigha
[approximately] and the same compensation must be awarded to village Kilokari, village Nangli Razapur and village Khizrabad . 21 .6 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Appellant s further distinguished the Tindey case. It was submitted that the Tindey case was based in respect of Section 4 notification of 1976 whereas the notification in the present case is of 1989. The other distinction sought to be drawn was that the Tindey case was related to village Khizrabad , whereas the present case is of village Kilokari.
In addition, it was submitted that in the Tindey case, there is a clear finding of the Court that no evidence was led and thus, the Coordina te Bench of this Court relied upon in earlier notification and added escalation at the rate of 12% per annum to arive at the final value given the fact that there were exemplars provided. No reliance could have ben placed by the learned Reference Court i n the Tindey case. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 103 of 171
SUR - REJOINDER
2 2 . A brief Sur - Rejoinder was given by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 to contend that there is no denial that the acquired land is situated betwen two
"Forward Bunds" and the river and thus, any distinction cannot be sought to be drawn betwen the acquired land and the land which was de - notified under Section 48 of the LA Act on 25.01.1995. In addition, it was contended that there is no evidence was led by the Appellant s to show future building potentiality. THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
23 . As stated above, the Kilokari A ward was passed on 19.06.1992 by the LAC for the acquisition of land admeasuring 2226 Bighas and 5 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village, Kilokari for development of Delhi
channelization of river Yamuna . The LAC while assessing the market value relied upon various similar awards passed for the land within the vicinity of the acquired land and also relied upon the Ofice Order of 1990 wherein the minimum price for agricultural land had been fixed at Rs. 1.5 lacs per acre as on 27.04.1990 and treat ing the land as µSailabi ¶ land situated between two ³F orward B unds ´ by discounting 15% per annum, LAC assessed the market value at Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha . 23 .1 Similarly, the award no.
18/1992 - 93 was passed for acquisition of 874 Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Khizrabad
>KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDVµ Khizrabad $ZDUG¶@7KH/$&VL
consideration the Ofice Order of 1990 and discounting it as in the Kilokari Award, assessed the fair market value for the land at Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 104 of 171
23.2
The award no. 16/1992 - 93 for land admeasuring 2009 Bighas and 10 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Nangli Razapur as notified was also passed on 19.06. 1992 >KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHG $ZDUG¶@7KH/$&IRXQGWKDWWKHNL market value of the land, as it did in the case of Kilokari and Khizrabad Award as Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha. 23 .3 In the case of land situated in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu, the award no. 13/1992 was passed in the acquisition of 1563 Bighas and 1 8 Biswas in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu >KHUHLQDIWHUUHI 0HQGX$ZDUG¶@ . The classification in the Garhi Mendu Award of the land was of flooded land and the LAC assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha. 23.4
The Appellant s challenged this determination by filing a Reference Petition s under Section 18 of the LA Act. The Appellant s claimed the value of acquired land at about Rs 10,000/ - per square yard and avered that the land i s not situated under the riverbed. 23.5
The f ollowing issues were framed by the l earned Reference Court in Attar Singh case and Bed Ram Reference Court case : (i)
Whether the provisions of the DLR Act is applicable to the land in dispute, if so, to what efect? (ii)
What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification u nder s ection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 ? (iii)
To what enhancement in compensation, the Appellant is entitled to? LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 105 of 171
23. 6 An additional issue was framed by the learned Reference Court in the Bhopal Singh case, which is reproduced below:
³( i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to amount u/s 23(1)A of the LA Act with respect to Khasra nos. of which the posesion has been taken subsequently, for the period during which the proceedings for the acquisition of land were held up on account of an y stay or injunction? ´ 23 .7 No evidence was led by the Respondent No.2 /DDA in his support before the learned Reference Court.
However, evidence in support of their
contentions was led by the Appellant and the Respondent No.1/UOI. 2 3 .8 The learned Reference Court held that no evidence has ben led by the Appellant to show acquired land was not situated in
"Forward Bund" area and hence it cannot be compared with other lands. It was held that the land in village, Khizrabad and acquired land both fall in the
"Forward Bund" area and are comparative lands. Since the rate of land in village, Khizrabad has ben assessed at rate of Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha and is µ6DLODEL¶ land in LAC 1RRIWLWOHGµ Sri Ram v. UOI ¶/$&1RRI µAttar Singh v UOI ¶ and LAC No. 19 of 2005 titled µBed Ram Vs. UOI ¶ has also ben assessed at the rate Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha , the acquired land being similarly situated is assessed at the same rate. Learned Reference Court also relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Tindey case for village Khizrabad , to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,600/ - per Bigha . Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI 19 . 19 (2001) 7 SCC 211
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 106 of 171
24 . Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola village and that there was no evidence to show that the land was not situated in a
"Forward Bund" area. Reliance was also placed by the Appellant on the judgment in Dhoom i Singh & Anr. v. UOI 20 wherein this Court enhanced the compensation of the land acquired for village Jasola by Rs.2,240/ - per square yard , which was land acquired in village Kilokari by an Award in 1981 . 2 4 .1 The Respondents/DDA and UOI on the other hand had contended that the DLR Act is applicable to the acquired land and had also relied on exemplars of the land to submit that the LAC had corectly assessed the valuation for the acquired land at Rs.27,344/ - per Bigha. 2 5 . The learned Reference Court gave a finding that the DLR Act was not applicable to the acquired land.
It further relied upon the sale deds/exemplars as placed on record by the Appellant and the Respondent/DDA the details whereof are set out below : Apellants : S.No.
Ex.No.
Date of
Sale ded
Village
Area of land
Total
C onsideration
with stamp duty
1. Ex.P1
1 7 . 0 3. 1988
Kilokari
1 Bigha
1 Bis wa
2 , 07 , 5 00/ -
20 Judgment dated 19.10.2001 in RFA 408/1986 ± Delhi High Court
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 107 of 171
Respondents : S.No.
Ex.No.
Date of
Sale ded
Village
Area of land
Total
C onsiderati on with stamp duty
1. Ex.R1
6.4.87
Kilokari
1 Big ha
43,200/ -
2. Ex.R2
1.11.85
Kilokari
1 Bigha
9 Biswa
5 2 ,920/ -
3. Ex.R3
9.9.83
Kilokari
1 Big ha
2,160/ -
4. Ex.R4
28 /31 .3.84
Kilokari
5 Bigha
12 Biswa
15,120 / - 1 Bigha 13 Biswa
5. Ex.R5
28/ 31.3.8 4 Kilokari
9 B igha
19,440/ -
25 .1 The learned Reference Court further held that the land is situated in the
"Forward Bund" in river b e d and is µ6DLODEL¶ in nature. The learned Reference Court found that the exemplar given by the Appellant did not appear to be reliable while Ex. R2 to R5 also appear that they have ben undervalued to save stamp duty. The learned Reference Court then relied on the judgment in the Tindey case as assessed in terms of the Award No. 19/1992 - 93 which was also notified along with village Kilokari and granted compensation at the same rate as was granted for village Khizrabad in the Tindey case at Rs.89,600 per Bigha. The relevant extract of the findings in the Impugned
Judgment is below:
³«
In the present case the land under acquisition is also located in forward bund in river bed and apears to be similarly situated as in the case of land acquired in village Khizrabad . Considering the location of village Kilokari, there is no reason to asume that rate of land in village Kilokari would be les than in village Khizrahad . There apears to be no reason as t o why the rate of land asesed in Award No. 19/92 - 93 involving the same date of notification in village Khizrabad may not be adopted i n present case . 1 may also mention that for asesment of land (other than situated in forward bund in river bed) which is not covered under the provisions of DLR Act, a
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 108 of 171
marginal increase in compensation can be granted on account of urbanization when the same is compared with land to which provisions of D L R Act arc aplicable. However in the present case as the land is situated in forward bund area in the river bed, the posibility of any distinct advantage is remote and the fact that the village Kilokari had been urbanized may not be of much consequence . Any benefit on account of u r EDQL]DWLRQZDVDOVRGHQLHGE\+RQ¶EOH on account of urba nization of village Khizrabad though the same was claimed to have been also urbanized, in view of typical location and sailabi nature of land. in view of above, I am not inclined to grant rate of compensation in village Kilokari at any higher rate that asesed in village Khizrabad . I am therefore of the view that it shall be fair to ases the market value of land @ Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha folowing the rate of land asesed by this Court in village Khizrabad wherein the land had been acquired for same purpo se and involves the same date of notification «´
[Emphasis suplied]
ANAYLSIS & FINDINGS
2 6 . $VVWDWHGDERYHWKHOHDUQHG5HI VSRW¶LQVSHFWLRQRIWKHVLWHDQG Impugned Judgment. 27 . At this stage , it is apposite to set out that the Appeals listed before this Court were in relation to four villages i.e., Khizrabad , Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu.
It is apposite to set out the details by way of a tabular chart below:
S.No.
Total No. of Cases
Vilage Name
Award No. & Date
Rate as Awarded by Reference Court
Rate as awarded by Predecesor Bench of this Court on 07.06.201
1. 21
Khizrabad
18/192 - 93 19.06.192
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
2. 62
Kilokari
14/192 - 93
17.06.193
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
3. 48
Nangli 16/192 - 93
Rs.89,60/ - Rs.89,60/ -
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 109 of 171
The Apeals
28 .
Learned Counsel for the parties contended that the reasoning of the learned Reference Court is par i materia in the Impugned Orders in relation to these villages and thus all 144 Appeals can be heard together and with the consent of the parties LA.AP. 59/2007 captioned being Bed Ram v. UOI & Anr. was argued as the lead matter.
29 . P ursuant to the SC J udgment , t he Appellant s essentially relied upon the evidence which was already available with the learned Reference Court albeit both in the Bed Ram case as well as in connected matters. The Appellant s have also relied upon the exemplars in the form of sale deds which were available on record, including of village Behlolpur Khadar and village Jasola.
29 .1 T he Respondents have relied upon the building potentiality of the land and have stated that the land being 'Sailabi' in nature did not have the same building potentiality as the land which was in its vicinity for development. It is additionally contended that the burden of proof in such cases is on the Claimants to show the value of the land.
29 .2 The parties agred that no further evidence (other than what was already led by the parties before this Court) was required to be led by either party nor was cross - examination on the sale exemplars necessary a s the Respondents made their submissions contradictin g these exemplars.
Razapur
19.06.192
per Bigha
per Bigha
4. 13
G arhi M endu
13/192 - 93
19.06.192
Rs.90,102/ - per Bigha
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 10 of 171
Village Khizrabad
30.
The learned Reference Court passed a judgment in the LAC No. 18 of WLWOHGµ Attar Singh v UOI ¶ on 25.09.2006 [hereinafter referred to as the
" Khizrabad
Judgment"]. The Khizrabad
Judgment in essence made the calculations with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tindey case to award Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha . The 21 cases that have ben decided are set out below:
S. No.
Case No. & Case Title
1. LA.AP. 40/207
Dharam Veer vs. UOI & Anr. 2. LA.AP. 42/207
Sri Ram &Anr. vs. UOI & Anr. 3. LA.AP. 43/207
Bed Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 4. LA.AP. 4/207
Atar Singh vs. UOI & Anr. 5. LA.AP. 293/207
Jagbir Singh vs. UOI & Anr
6. LA.AP. 72/2016
Raghubar Dayal @ Raghuber Singh @ Raghbar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
7. LA.AP. 35/208
Munshi Deceased Through LRs & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
8. LA.AP. 647/209
Mehar Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
9. LA.AP. 650/209
Prem Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
10. LA.AP. 31/2010
Mamraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. 1. LA.AP. 314/2010
Lakhmi Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. 12. LA.AP. 315/2010
Jagan vs. Union of India & Anr. 13. LA.AP. 316/2010
Ramesh Decd Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. 14. LA.AP. 69/2010
Nain Singh Decsd. Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
15. LA.AP. 13/2012
Budhan Decsd. Thru LRs vs. Union of India & Ors
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 1 of 171
16. LA.AP. 37/2012
Daroga Decsd. Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
17. LA.AP. 85/2015
Lakhmi Chand & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr
18. LA.AP. 14/2016
Nain Singh (Deceased) Thr His LRs vs. Union of India
19. LA.AP. 131/2018
Union of India vs. Mamchand (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
20. LA.AP. 204/2018
Om Prakash (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of
India & Anr
21. LA.AP. 4/2019
Union of India vs Raghubar Dayal @ Raghbar Singh & Ors. Village Kilokari
3 1 . The judgment in the Bed Ram Reference Court case relied upon the Attar Singh and the Tindey case to calculate the compensation in these matters were listed before this Court in respect of the revenue estate of village
Kilokari , which are set out below :
S. No.
Case No. & Case Title
1. LA.AP. 58/207
Duli Chand vs. UOI &Anr. 2. LA.AP. 59/207
Lead mater
Bed Ram vs. vs. UOI & Anr. 3. LA.AP. 38/2015
Fakir Chand (Deceased) Thr.
Lr & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr. 4. LA.AP. 39/2015
Hukum Singh Since Deceased Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr. 5. LA.AP. 14/2019
Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
6. LA.AP. 230/202
Salek Ram (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr. 7. LA.AP. 36/202
Sita Ram (Deceased) Thr. LR Chavan &Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. 8. LA.AP. 61/207
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr. 9. LA.AP. 62/207
Ganga Ram &Anr vs. UOI &Anr
10. LA.AP. 63/207
Sato Devi & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 12 of 171
1. LA.AP. 64/207
Angori Devi (D) Thru. LR vs. UOI &Anr
12. LA.AP. 65/207
Raj Pal vs. UOI & Anr
13. LA.AP. 6/207
Kailash Sharma &Anr. vs. UOI &Anr
14. LA.AP. 73/207
Tek Chand vs. UOI &Anr
15. LA.AP. 87/207
Pritam Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
16. LA.AP. 412/207
Giriraj & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
17. LA.AP. 89/207
Balbir Singh vs. UOI &Anr
18. LA.AP. 130/209
Shri Bhik Ram vs. Union of India & Ors. 19. LA.AP. 91/207
Bhim Singh Decd. Thr. LRs & Or vs. UOI &Anr
20. LA.AP. 50/208
Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
21. LA.AP. 748/208
Dal Chand & Ors. vs. U.O.I & Ors. 2. LA.AP. 89/209
Om Prakash (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors. 23. LA.AP. 528/209
Sher Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI &Anr. 24. LA.AP. 53/209
Bahadur DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
25. LA.AP. 59/209
Pehlad vs. Union of India &Anr
26. LA.AP. 595/209
Prem Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
27. LA.AP. 101/2010
Rato Devi Decd Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
28. LA.AP. 380/2010
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. UOI and Anr. 29. LA.AP. 765/2010
Dal Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. 30. LA.AP.
827/2010
Bhop Singh Decd Thr LRs vs. UOI &Anr
31. LA.AP. 1070/2010
Ram Kishan Decd Thru LRs & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr. 32. LA.AP. 15/201
Musadi Decsd Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Ors. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 13 of 171
3. LA.AP. 29/201
Dal Chand &Anr vs. Union of India
34. LA.AP. 39/201
Uma Dhawan & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr. 35. LA.AP. 54/201
Karan Singh vs. Union of India &Anr
36. LA.AP. 15/201
Jaspal Singh (Dec) Thr LRs vs. UOI &Anr
37. LA.AP. 156/201
Bed Ram vs. UOI &Anr. 38. LA.AP. 251/201
Hari Chand vs Union of India & Ors
39. LA.AP. 5/2012
Surjan & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
40. LA.AP. 6/2012
Gian Chand Decsd. Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
41. LA.AP. 10/2012
Anant Ram &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
42. LA.AP. 218/2012
Net Ram Through LRs and Anr vs. UOI &Anr
43. LA.AP. 23/2012
Hari Singh Through LRs vs. UOI &Anr. 4. LA.AP. 49/2013
Samarta Decsd. Thru LRs and Ors vs. UOI and Anr
45. LA.AP. 51/2013
Net Ram vs. UOI &Anr
46. LA.AP. 86/2015
Jugal Kishore & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
47. LA.AP. 423/2015
Hari Kishan (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
48. LA.AP. 426/2015
Nathu (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
49. LA.AP. 45/2015
Nathu (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
50. LA.AP. 173/2016
Ram Sarop Through LRs vs. UOI and Anr
51. LA.AP. 196/2016
Budh Ram @ Budh Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
52. LA.AP. 292/2016
Hari Kishan Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
53. LA.AP. 1/2017
Shashi Kumar vs. Union of India &Anr
54. LA.AP. 287/2017
Mehar Chand & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 14 of 171
5. LA.AP. 209/2018
Virender &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
56. LA.AP.
245/2018
Union of India vs. Budh Ram @ Budh Singh (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
57. LA.AP. 246/2018
Union of India vs. Hari Kishan (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
58. LA.AP. 247/2018
Union of India vs. Ram Sarop (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
59. LA.AP. 49/2019
Union of India vs. Hanso (Deceased) Thr LRs &Anr
60. LA.AP. 130/2019
Dal Chand Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
61. LA.AP. 137/2019
Bhop Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
62. LA.AP. 298/202
Jai Bhagwan Deceased Through His Legal Heirs and Ors vs. Union of India and Anr. 3 1 .1 T hese Appeals emanate either from the Impugned Judgment or judgments passed by the Reference Court thereafter , relying on the Impugned
Judgment . Village Nangli Razapur
3 2 . So far as concerns the village Nangli Razapur , t he lead matter for this village is LA.AP. 372/2007 captioned Bhopal Singh vs. UOI & Anr. The learned Reference Court by a judgment dated 29.08.2007 in LAC No. 2/1998 titled as Bhopal Singh v. UOI & Anr. / Nangli Razapur Reference Court
Judgment ascertained the compensation to be awarded at the same rate as those in village Kilokari at Rs.89,600/ - per Bigha . The learned Reference Court in this matter relied on the judgment in the Attar Singh case in respect of village Khizrabad to hold that the compensation should be awarded. The learned Reference Court discusse d the sale exemplars relied in the Bed Ram
Reference Court case of village Kilokari , referencing the fact that the land
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 15 of 171
was situated in the ³)RUZDUG %XQG´ area . The details of the 48 cases in relation to village Nangli Razapur are set out below:
S. No.
Case No. & Case Title
1. LA.AP. 91/2010
Kehar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. 2. LA.AP. 1234/208
Hans Raj Decd. Thr LRs vs. UOI & Anr
3. LA.AP. 1235/208
Surya Prakash & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
4. LA.AP. 607/209
Neki Ram vs. UOI
5. LA.AP. 372/207
Lead Mater
Bhopal Singh vs. UOI &Anr
6. LA.AP. 501/208
Zile Singh (Deceased) Through LRs vs. UOI & Anr
7. LA.AP. 508/208
Jagwati vs. UOI & Anr
8. LA.AP. 509/208
Bir Singh vs. UOI & Anr
9. LA.AP. 564/208
Aman Singh vs. UOI & Anr
10. LA.AP. 565/208
Shashi Verma vs. UOI & Anr
1. LA.AP. 609/208
Nimant Rana & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
12. LA.AP. 631/208
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
13. LA.AP. 737/208
Inder Singh vs. U.O.I & Anr
14. LA.AP. 739/208
Ramesh Basistha vs. U.O.I & Ors
15. LA.AP. 816/208
Kishan Sahai Thru LRs vs. UOI & Anr
16. LA.AP. 817/208
Jagbir & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
17. LA.AP. 876/208
Rishal Singh Decd. Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Anr
18. LA.AP. 96/208
Raj Kumar vs. UOI & Ors. 19. LA.AP. 92/208
Ajeet Singh vs. UOI & Ors. LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 16 of 171
20. LA.AP. 94/208
Hari Singh vs. UOI & Anr
21. LA.AP. 95/208
Prem Singh vs. UOI & Anr
2. LA.AP. 96/208
Rajender Prashad & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
23. LA.AP. 136/208
Jaswant Singh Rana (Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Anr
24. LA.AP. 1204/208
Devender Kumar Triguna vs. UOI & Anr. 25. LA.AP. 1238/208
Chinta vs. UOI &Anr. 26. LA.AP. 50/209
Guni Ram Decsd. Through LRs vs. Union of India & Ors. 27. LA.AP. 51/209
Ranjit Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India & Anr
28.
LA.AP. 52/209
Jagdip Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India &Anr
29. LA.AP. 56/209
Atar Singh DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
30. LA.AP. 560/209
Ajit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. 31. LA.AP. 576/209
Narender Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India &Anr
32. LA.AP. 580/209
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
3. LA.AP. 253/2010
Ram Pat vs. Union of India & Anr. 34. LA.AP. 263/2010
Ramesh &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
35. LA.AP. 264/2010
Hari Singh DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
36. LA.AP. 454/2010
Daya Kishan Decd Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr. 37. LA.AP. 67/2010
Om Prakash &Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. 38. LA.AP. 678/2010
Shri Chanderman @ Chander Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. 39. LA.AP. 679/2010
Ram Singh Decsd Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors. 40. LA.AP. 682/2010
Mol Chand Decd Thr LRs vs. Union of India and Ors. 41. LA.AP. 683/2010
Yash Pal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 42. LA.AP. 140/201
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 17 of 171
Ranjet Singh Decd Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
43. LA.AP. 708/201
Lekh Ram vs. Union of India & Anr
4. LA.AP. 716/201
Gopal Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Anr
45. LA.AP. 390/2015
Virender Singh (Since Mising) Thr. LRs & Ors vs. Union of India &
Anr
46. LA.AP. 18/2016
Mahipal (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
47. LA.AP. 19/2016
Chatar Singh vs. Union of India & Anr
48. LA.AP. 256/2017
Poja vs. Union of India & Anr
Village Garhi Mendu
3 3 . As stated in paragraph 9.3 above, the learned Reference Court had enhanced the market value of the land as acquired from Rs. 27,344/ - per Bigha to Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha in the lead matter in this village being LA.APP.
1038/2008 captioned UOI vs. Khazan Singh & Ors. by a judgment dated 26.07.2007 [hereinafter referred to as the " Garhi Mendu
Judgment"] . Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Smt. Chawli Devi
(Deceased) through her LRs v. UOI & Anr. , being
order dated 31.05.20 0 7 passed in LAC No. 334/1 of 2006 by the learned Reference Court . The details of 13 matters in relation to village Gar h i M en du which were listed before this Court as below :
S. No.
Case No. & Case Title in High Court
1.
LA.AP. 143/208
UOI &Anr. vs. Bhohti Deceased Through LRs
2.
LA.AP. 1038/208
UOI vs. Khazan Singh & Ors.
3.
LA.AP. 1040/208
UOI vs. Champa Devi Decd. Thr LRs.
4.
LA.AP. 1042/208
UOI vs. Richa Ram & Ors.
5.
LA.AP. 1043/208
LA.APP. 59/207 & conected
Page 18 of 171
UOI vs. Phol Singh & Ors.
6.
LA.AP. 141/208
UOI vs. Mansa Ram Decd. Thr. LRs & Ors.
7.
LA.AP. 142/208
UOI vs Kishori @ Bhola Decd. Thr. LRs & Ors.
8.
LA.AP. 14/208
UOI &Anr vs. Nathu & Ors.
9.
LA.AP. 145/208
UOI vs. Balbir & Ors.
10.
LA.AP. 146/208