Delhi District Court
Arun Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 June, 2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
DLST010000922010
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh.
LAC NO. 22/16
FILING No. 15569/2010
CNR No. DLST01-000092-2010
In the matter of :-
Arun Kumar
S/o Sh. Prakash Dayal
R/o A-7/21, DLF Phase-I
Gurugram, Haryana-122002 ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector (South),
M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi.
2. Chairman
DMRC Ltd.,
Metro Bhawan, 13, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
3. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice-Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. ......Respondents
Date of Institution : 07.05.2010
Reference received on : 07.05.2010
Date on which order was reserved : 29.04.2025
Date of Award : 09.06.2025
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:47:56 +0530
Page 1 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
AWARD BY THE COURT
1. The present reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was received from the office of Land
Acquisition Collector (South) on an application moved by the
petitioner, who has sought enhancement of the monetary award
given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the
assessment of the market value of the acquired land is wholly
inadequate and was done on the lower side without considering
the relevant factors for correctly assessing the market value of the
land in question. The reference was received in this court from
the office of LAC (South) on 07.05.2010.
2. For answering the present reference petition, the relevant
dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act: 07.11.2007
(iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act: 17.12.2007
(iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act: 17.12.2007
(iii) For Project: Construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat-
Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II.
(iv) Date of possession taken: 29.05.2009
(v) Location/Name of Village: Harkesh Nagar
(vi) Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC: 08/2009-10
& date of Award: 11.12.2009
(vii) Area under this reference petition: 331.443 sq. mtrs.
(viii) Market value of land held by LAC: Rs.24978/- per sq.
mtrs. for free hold land and Rs.18733/- per sq. mtrs. for lease
hold land.
(ix) Date of reference petition to LAC: 15.01.2010
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 22/16
16:48:02 +0530
Page 2 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
(x) Petition referred to this Court on: 07.05.2010
3. The present reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act
pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land
situated in Village Harkesh Nagar which was acquired for the
public purpose of ‘Construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat-
Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project, Phase-II’. The land in
question was acquired by the LAC vide award No. 08/2009-10
dated 11.12.2009 pursuant to preliminary notification under
Section 4 of the Act dated 07.11.2007 which was followed up by
notification under Section 6 of the Act on 17.12.2007.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after
considering the relevant factors gave its Award No.08-2009-10
by determining the compensation awarded under Section 11 for
the market value of the free hold land @ Rs.24978/- per sq. mtr.
and market value of the lease hold land @ Rs.18733/- per sq. mtr.
5. Since the petitioner did not accept the award, he
preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act,
1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference
filed by the petitioner along with statement under Section 19 of
the Act, 1894 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition
Collector for answering the same.
6. Reference was forwarded by the LAC with the claim of
the petitioner. As per the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner is
the sole owner of the property bearing No. Z-67, Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II, New Delhi total admeasuring 505.76 sq. mtrs.
situated in the revenue estate of village Harkesh Nagar, New
Delhi and the petitioner is the only interested person as per
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:48:07 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 3 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
Section 3 of Land Acquisition Act. On 24.01.1975, Delhi
Development Authority allotted the above said plot for industrial
purposes and the actual physical possession was handed over to
the petitioner on 05.10.1976 by the D.D.A. The Delhi
Development Authority on 19.01.1982 on behalf of President of
India executed a perpetual lease deed in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner raised the construction of building consisting of
basement, ground, first and second floor in the year 1987 and in
1993-94 for the purpose of using the same for industrial
purposes. That on 07.11.2007 notification U/s 4 (l) of Land
Acquisition Act, in respect of land measuring 331.443 Sq. mtrs.
out of the above said plot was issued vide notification No. F.9
(82)/07/L&B/LA/MRTS(S)/11269 dated 07.11.2007. Thereafter
a declaration U/s 6 of Land Acquisition Act, vide notification No.
F.9 (82)/07/L&B/LA/MRTS(S)/13267 dated 17.12.07 and
notification U/s 17 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide
notification No. F.9(82)/07/L&B/LA/MRTS (S)/13268 dated
17.12.2007 was issued by the Addl. Secretary (L&B)
Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for construction of Viaduct
of Central Secretariat-Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project
Phase-II. The petitioner in pursuance to the notices under Section
9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act issued by the Land Acquisition
Collector south regarding the acquisition of land measuring
331.443 Sq mtrs. out of plot No. Z-67, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi filed his claim/objections wherein the
petitioner claimed the market rate of land for his property @ Rs.
2,00,000/- per Sq mtr. alongwith damages against structure,
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:48:12 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 4 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
damages for severance and damages for loss of revenue suffered
by the petitioner due to non use of premises after acquisition. The
petitioner also filed various evidences in support of his claim.
6.1. The petitioner after filing the claim did not receive
any notice from the officer of Land Acquisition Collector (South)
intimating or communicating the date of pronouncement of the
award, thus the petitioner could not be present before the Land
Acquisition Collector at the time of making and passing the
award. The petitioner was also not represented by any person
before the collector when the award was made. The petitioner on
22.12.09 personally approached to the officials of Land
Acquisition Collector (South) and was handed over a copy of
notice U/s 12 (2) of Land Acquisition Act by the said officials
wherein it was mentioned that the Land Acquisition Collector
(South) has passed an award U/s 11 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 on 11.12.09. Thus the limitation of making reference in the
present case is governed by the provisions of Section 18 (II) (b)
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, the present reference
petition is within the period of limitation.
6.2. That the petitioner after having gone through the
award was shocked to know that the Land Acquisition Collector
did not take into consideration any of the evidence filed by the
petitioner proving the market rate of the acquired property at the
time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 while making and passing the award and has assessed the
market value of the land at a very low price. The Land
Acquisition Collector further did not pass any compensation with
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:48:18 +0530Page 5 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiaregards to the damages for severance, damages for loss of
revenue due to non use of the premises after acquisition etc. and
other claimed by the petitioner in the claim filed by the petitioner
U/s 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner is not
accepting the award No. 08/2009-10 alleged to have been
pronounced on 11.12.09 and is aggrieved by the same requesting
to refer the matter to the Distt. Judge, Distt. South Delhi, New
Delhi U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of
determination of the proper and fair market value of the above
said property inter alia on the following amongst other grounds:
A. That the acquired land and building is situated on the
main road in developed and well known industrial area
known as Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi and
due to location, situation and potentiality of the land is more
advantageous for production and better condition comparing
to the other industrial plot in the area. There are many
commercial shops dealing in industrial and commercial
goods near to the acquired property. The electricity, water,
other amenities including man power is easily available in
the area and due to said reason the acquired property is
capable to fetch higher market value than the other plots in
the adjoining area and much higher than the awarded amount
as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector (South). The
market value of the land was not less than Rs.2,00,000/- per
Sq. mtr. and costs of the construction raised by the petitioner
was not less than Rs.85,00,000/- on the date of notification
issued U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the present
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:48:23 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 6 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiacase. That U/s 3 (a) of L.A. Act, “Land” includes benefits to
arise out of the land and things attached to the earth or
permanently fastened to the earth. Therefore Solatium and
Additional Amount should be paid not just on the value of
land but also on the cost of structure.
B. That the property in question acquired for the purpose of
MRTS Project and the same had commercial use and value
in view of the fact that the DMRC has constructed the Metro
Station at walkable distance and is right opposite to the
Metro Line. The road between Metro line and the property in
question is vide enough and has very high potential market
value.
C. That the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to
get the compensation at the commercial rate in view of the
location potentiality and high quality of the said property. It
is pertinent to submit that the acquired land is in the vicinity
of the commercial center Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-l
wherein DDA has sold the plot @ Rs.3,21,528/- per sq. mtr.
in the open auction held by the DDA on 27.07.07 prior to the
notification U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
Government Authorities itself fixes 3:2 ratio while
calculating the circle rate of commercial and industrial area.
If the said ratio is taking into account then also the fair
market rate of the acquired property would be nearly
2,14,352/- per Sq mtr. The market value of the plot
auctioned by the DDA is even higher than the amount
claimed by the petitioner and much higher than the rate
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:48:27 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 7 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiaoffered by the Land Acquisition Collector. But the petitioner
has restricted his claim for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per Sq.
mtr as fair market value of land of his property.
D. That the Land Acquisition Collector (South) has also
wrongly determined the cost of structure and has assessed
the same as per the valuation assessed by the DMRC
through the Executive Engineer, Public Work Department,
M-112 Delhi against the structure to the tune of
Rs.67,05,934/- whereas the fact is that the construction costs
of the building existing on the date of notification U/s 4 of
L.A. Act, is much higher.
E. That the increasing trend in market rate of the industrial
plot was also not considered by the Land Acquisition
Collector while passing the award and the award has been
passed by considering the sale deeds which were registered
at a very low value despite the well known fact that while
getting the documents of sale deed registered the people in
Delhi do not show the true market rate of their property to
avoid the incidence of stamp duty and capital gains tax. It is
pertinent to mention here that three out of the five sale deeds
considered by LAC have been registered below the Circle
Rates. The acquired property is having more potentiality to
fetch higher market rate due to its situation and location than
the properties considered by the Land Acquisition Collector
in order to determine the true market value of the acquired
land.
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:48:31
+0530
LAC 22/16
Page 8 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
F. That the acquisition rendered the remaining land in
irregular shape and disproportionate frontage to depth and
has further rendered the use of remaining plot inconvenient
and inefficient in its architecture design and utilization of
workable space resulting in reduction of the price of
remaining land. The petitioner is also entitled for damages
and claimed Rs. 2,10,00,000/- in its claim filed U/s 9 & 10
of L.A. Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector has not
determined the said damages in the award for which the
petitioner is liable to be paid by the respondents.
G. That the acquired land is being developed by the DMRC
for construction of Railway Station, Mall, Marketing
Complexes, Cineplex, Video Parlors, Restaurants,
Commercial shops to attract customers and tourist meaning
thereby the DMRC would be using the land for commercial
purposes. The Delhi Development Authority itself has sold
the commercial land @ Rs. 3,25,528/- per Sq. mtr. This fact
has been intentionally, deliberately ignored by the Land
Acquisition Collector (South) while determining the fair
market value of the land and passing the award. Thus the
petitioner is entitled @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per Sq. mtr. of the
acquired land.
H. That the petitioner is also entitled to the damages suffered
by him on account of damages for severance and damages
for loss of revenue due to non use of premises after
acquisition notice. The petitioner is entitled to the
compensation against the damages to the tune of Rs.
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:48:36 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 9 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
4,35,58,800/- which was even claimed by the petitioner in
the claimed filed U/s 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
but the Land Acquisition Collector did not even consider the
same while passing the award.
I. The award in respect of 331.443 Sq. mtr. out of the said
plot has been acquired by your honour vide above mentioned
award and LAC assessed compensation of lease hold
property @ Rs. 18,733/-Sq. mtr. 25% less from the market
value of free hold land as assessed in the award.
J. That the petitioner is also entitled to all the statutory
benefits including the Additional amount, interest, solatium
etc. in accordance with law. Interest U/s 34 should be paid
on the entire amount of compensation including value of
land, value of structure, Additional Amount, Solatium and
damages and not just on the value of land.
7. That there is no delay in filing the present petition and
the same is within the period of limitation.
8. The petitioner sought following reliefs:
a. Fix the market value of the land @ Rs. 2,00,000/-
per sq. mtr. and the cost of the structure @ Rs.
85,00,000/- as on the date of notification U/s 4 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
b. Pass an award towards the damages suffered by the
petitioner on account of loss of severance and
damages for loss of revenue due to non use of
premises after acquisition for a sum of Rs.
4,35,58,800/-.
c. Award Additional amount, solatium, damages and
interest etc. in accordance with law.
d. Any other relief under law for which the petitioner
is entitled to. Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:48:41 +0530LAC 22/16
Page 10 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
9. In its Written Statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed
the claim for enhancement in compensation. It was stated that the
notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the
area Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II in the revenue estate of
village Harkesh Nagar was issued on 07.11.2007. The declaration
under section 6 and 17 of the Act were issued on 17.12.2007. The
land has been acquired for the public purpose namely for
“Purpose of Construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat-
Badarpur Corridor of Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System Project
Phase-II. Notices under section 9 & 10 were issued to the land
owners/interested persons inviting claims of the affected
properties. Pursuant to the notices, number of claims, were filed
by the affected persons claiming different value of the land and
properties. After considering all the claims of the land
owners/interested parties the Land Acquisition Collector made
and pronounced the award under section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, being Award No. 8/2009-2010 on 11.12.2009.
That claim of the petitioner with respect to measurements,
apportionment and compensation of the land is admitted to the
extent of section 19 statement of the Land Acquisition Act. The
compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was
sufficient and reasonable and it reflected the true market value
prevailing at the time of the notification under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act. Various factors were taken into account
while assessing the market value. The petitioner was claiming
excessive and exorbitant market value of the land and structures.
However the answering respondent craved leave of this Court to
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:48:46 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 11 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiarefer and rely upon the Award No. 8/2009-2010 and the
statement under section 19 of the Act for the factual aspect of the
case. The Land Acquisition Collector in order to assess the fair
market value of the land has considered the properties sold in the
area and their value registered in the office of Sub-Registrar for
the proximate period to section 4 notification. The Land
Acquisition Collector considered five sale deeds and takes the
average value of these five sale deeds. As the average value
shows the value of free hold land including structures, for
arriving at the true market value the cost of structures were
deducted. In view of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Inder Presad Vs. UOI, the value was
further deducted by 25% to arrive at the fair market value of a
leasehold property.
9.1. The Land Acquisition Collector rightly assessed the
market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects
enumerated under section 23 & 24 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the fair Market Value of
the land after considering its current use, potentiality for the
future land use, proximity of land to the nearby area. The Land
Acquisition Collector also considered the permissive use of the
land of the area of the land in question, under the master plan.
The market value of the land assessed at Rs. 24,978 per Sq. Mtrs.
For free hold land and Rs.18,733 per Sq. Mtrs. for leasehold land
besides other statutory benefits. The structures appurtenant to the
land under acquisition were got evaluated by the PWD of Govt.
of NCT of Delhi and received through DMRC. The DMRC
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:48:50 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 12 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiaconducted the evaluation and submitted the evaluation reports
after duly vetted by the Public Works Department of Govt. of
NCT of Delhi to the Land Acquisition Collector which were
accepted after due consideration. The details of the same are
mentioned in the Award no. 8/2009-2010. The respondents dis-
satisfied with the said determination of the market value of the
land and structures, preferred a reference under section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation,
which was referred to this Court. It was submitted that the land
owners/interested persons were claiming exorbitant value of the
land structures, which was correctly assessed by the Land
Acquisition Collector. Hence the reference under reply was liable
to be dismissed and the petitioners were not entitled to any
enhancement over and above the value assessed by the Land
Acquisition Collector. It was submitted that none of the land
owner/interested person filed any evidence in support of their
claim, which was exorbitantly high. The claim of the land
owners/interested persons were duly considered and since the
same was without any merit or any documentary evidence the
same was rightly rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector.
10. Respondent No.2/DMRC also filed its written statement.
It was stated in the written statement that there was no cause of
action arose to file the present reference/petition and petition
needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The
reference/petition is not maintainable as Ld. LAC has assessed
the correct market value of the land in question. The value
determined by the Ld. LAC was exact, appropriate and is quite
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:48:59 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 13 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
fair and reasonable. The reference/petition is not maintainable
and is liable to be dismissed as such the Petitioner had failed to
furnish and supply any evidence in his favour in respect of the
relief claimed by him. The reference/petition is barred under
Order VI Rule 15 of C.P.C.
11. Separate rejoinder/replication have been filed to the
written statement of the respondents, wherein petitioner denied
the allegations made by the respondents and reiterated the facts
stated in the petition.
12. Vide order dated 01.11.2011, following issues were
framed by the Learned Predecessor of this Court:
1. What is the market value of the acquired land
on the date of issuance of notification under
Section 4 of the LA Act? (OPP).
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
enhancement of compensation? (OPP)
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for award
towards the damages on account of loss of
severance and damages for loss of revenue?
(OPP).
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
interest/solatium? (OPP).
5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount
(i.e. 25%) being deducted by LAC on the ground
that the property is perpetual lease hold? (OPP).
6. Relief.
13. Order dated 17.04.2012 of Ld. Predecessor Court
reflects that that day it was recorded that LAC no. 222/11, LAC
No. 33/11, LAC no. 55/11, LAC no. 54/11 and LAC no. 34/11
are pertaining to the same award and petitioner was allowed to
led evidence in the present case for the purpose of consideration
of the market value at the time notification under Section 4 of LA
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:49:05 +0530
Page 14 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
Act and the present matter was allowed to be taken as a lead case
at request of Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
14. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. Petitioner
examined himself as PW1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way
of affidavit Ex.PW-1/1 and relied on the following documents:
i) Certified copy of perpetual lease dated 19.01.1982 as Ex.
PW1/2.
ii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 09.06.2008 as Ex. PW1/3.
iii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 27.05.2008 as Ex.PW1/4.
iv) Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.12.2007 as Ex. PW1/5.
v) Certified copy of sale deed dated 14.12.2007 as Ex.PW1/6.
vi) Certified copy of sale deed dated 19.09.2007 as Ex. PW1/7.
vii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 10.04.2007 as Ex. PW1/8.
viii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 15.01.2007 as Ex.PW1/9.
ix) Certified copy of valuation of building structure as
Ex.PW1/10.
x) Chart showing the calculation of the land rate after deduction
of the cost of building structure as Mark A.
xi) Auction brochure as Mark B.
xii) Information sought under RTI Act by the petitioner vide
letter dated 14.07.2010 as Ex. PW1/11.
xiii) Copy of zonal plan F from DDA as Mark C.
xiv) Copy of layout plan from DDA to Okhla Industrial Area
Phase-I as Mark D.
xv) Copy of layout plan from DDA to Okhla Industrial Area
Phase-II is Mark E.Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:49:11 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 15 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiaxvi) Copy of layout plan showing the locations of industrial plots
in Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I & II on a single map as Mark F.
xvii) Copy of letter issued by respondent no.2 under RTI Act
vide its letter no. 2009/DMRC/PR/RTI/1052 dated 29.06.2009 as
Ex. PW1/12.
xviii) Map alongwith the said letter as Mark G.
xix) Prescribed form by the DDA for the year 2007-08 as Ex.
PW1/13.
xx) Copy of letter dated DDA dated 20.04.2007 showing rate of
conversion from leasehold to free hold for the year 2007-08 as
Mark H.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsels for DMRC
and UOI.
15. PW-2 is Himangshu Kumar Sarma, Asst. Manager,
Public Relations, DMRC. He brought the photocopy of the letter
dated 29.06.2009 and 29.07.2009. During his examination he
stated that original letters had been sent to Sh. Arun Kumar and
exhibited the copies of said letters as Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2.
16. PW-3 is Sh. Mahender Singh, Assistant, DDA, Office At
C Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan INA. He brought the attested
copy of circular dated 20.04.2007 regarding the revised rates for
conversion of commercial/built up property and industrial
properties into freehold for the financial year 2007-2008 and
exhibited the same as Ex.PW3/1. He was cross-examined by Ld.
counsels for DMRC and UOI.
17. PW-4 is Sh. Arun Kumar Vasisht, Asst. Director (Plg.),
Area Planning-I, DDA, Vikas Minar, New Delhi. He brought the
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:49:15 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 16 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
attested copy of the map bearing item no. 21/PLG/97, File no. F-
1 (22)/92/ZP and exhibited the same as Ex.PW4/1. The property
bearing Z-67 situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II was
marked at Point A and Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I was
marked at point B. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsels for
DMRC and UOI.
18. PW-5 is Sh. Nav Rattan Singh, Draftsman, Town
Planning Deptt., MCD, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi.
He brought the original layout plan (map) for Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase I & Phase II but he did not bring the certified copies
of the same. He was directed to bring the certified copies of the
documents. His examination-in-chief was deferred. Thereafter on
08.01.2013, official from MCD was appeared, however, he had
not brought the relevant summoned document. He stated that he
is working on contract basis and may not be bound down.
19. PW-6 is Sh. Rama Shanker, Planning Assistant (Contract
Basis), MCD, Town Planning, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New
Delhi. He brought the summoned record i.e. original layout plan
(map) for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and original layout plan
(map) for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. Certified copy of
layout plan for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I was exhibited as
Ex.PW-6/1 (OSR) and certified copy of layout plan for Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-II was exhibited as Ex.PW-6/2 (OSR). He
was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for UOI.
20. PW-7 is Sh. Saurabh Kumar Mishra, Senior Manager,
Recovery Division, DSIIDC, Parpar Ganj, Udyog Sadan, Delhi.
He brought the summoned record i.e. photocopy of auction
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:49:20 +0530LAC 22/16
Page 17 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiabrochure dated 30.03.2010 and marked the same as Mark A. The
said copy already marked as Mark B was in the file and the said
photocopy was the same. He further brought the record of lease
deed and free hold conveyance deed. The conveyance deed was
exhibited as Ex.PW7/1 (OSR). He also brought another
conveyance deed dated 04.09.2012, which was exhibited as
Ex.PW7/2 (OSR). He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for
UOI. He was again cross-examined on 28.01.2014.
21. PW-8 is Sh. Nand Kumar, Assistant Commercial
Accountant (Recovery), DSIDC, Udyog Sadan, Parparganj, New
Delhi. He brought the summoned record i.e. attested copy of
conveyance deed dated 23.05.2012 and marked as Mark-A. His
examination-in-chief was deferred as he did not bring the original
documents on that day and thereafter he never appeared.
22. Thereafter, PE was closed on vide order dated
28.01.2014.
23. On behalf of the respondent No.1/Union of India, Sh.
S.K. Puri, Advocate for UOI tendered the copy of the award of
Village Harkesh Nagar as Ex.R-1. He also tendered the
photocopy of sale deed dated 19.04.2007 entered between Kesho
Nath Vs Rinku Sobti for Rs.1,65,00,000/- pertaining to Village
Okhla. The same was exhibited as Ex.RW1/A.
24. Respondent no.2/DMRC examined Sh. A.S. Rao, Law
Officer, DMRC as RW2 in RE. He relied upon photocopy of sale
deed dated 10.5.2007 entered between M/s Navjeevan Associate
Pvt. Ltd and M/s Unique Technobuild Pvt. Ltd for
Rs.9,81,00,000/- pertaining to Mohan Cooperative Industrial
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:49:24 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 18 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
Area and exhibited the same as Ex.RW2/A. He also relied upon
copy of the judgment dated 21.4.2017 in LAC no.101/16, titled
as Mate Ram Vs UOI & Ors decided by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, ADJ-
02 West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and exhibited the same as
Ex.RW2/B.
25. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of respondents no.1/UOI
and respondent no.2/DMRC was closed on 09.01.2018 vide
separate statements of their respective counsels.
26. During the proceedings, one application on behalf of
DMRC under Section 151 CPC for reopening the respondent
evidence was filed which was allowed vide order dated
09.07.2024 and opportunity was given to DMRC to lead
additional evidence.
27. Thereafter, DMRC examined Sh. Sushant Tripathi, Law
Officer, DMRC, Metro Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi
as RW-3. He relied upon the following documents:
i) Certified copy of sale deed dated 14.06.2007 registered
with Sub-Registrar with registration no. 7416 in Book no. 1,
volume no. 7397 from pages 99-110 and exhibited the same as
Ex.RW-3/A (objected to as mode of proof).
ii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.10.2007 registered
with Sub-Registrar with registration no. 12863 in Additional
Book no. 1, volume no. 7728 from pages 88-139 and exhibited
the same as Ex. RW-3/B (objected to as mode of proof).
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the
petitioner. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of respondent
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:49:27 +0530LAC 22/16
Page 19 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiano.2/DMRC was closed on 09.07.2024 vide separate statement of
Law Officer, DMRC.
28. On 03.09.2024, one application on behalf of the UOI
under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of DDA being
proper and necessary party was filed, which was allowed vide
order dated 05.11.2024 and DDA was impleaded as respondent
no.3 in the present case.
29. Written statement on behalf of DDA alongwith
documents was filed on 04.12.2024.
30. Replication on behalf of petitioner to the written
statement of respondent no.3/DDA was filed on 08.01.2025.
31. During the proceedings, an application on behalf of
DMRC under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC
alongwith certain documents was again filed on 01.10.2024,
which was allowed vide order dated 28.01.2025 and documents
filed alongwith the application were taken on record.
32. On 28.01.2025, an application on behalf of DMRC under
Section 151 CPC for reopening RE alongwith annexures was
filed, which was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2025.
33. Thereafter, RW2 Sh. A.S. Rao, DGM, Legal, DMRC
tendered additional evidence. He relied upon the following
documents:
i) Certified copy of the agreement to sell dated 09.08.2006
entered into between Sh. Arun Bhatia and Sh. Nitin Juneja as
Ex.RW2/C (Objected to as mode of proof).
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:49:31
+0530LAC 22/16
Page 20 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
ii) Copy of requisition dated 15.06.2007 submitted by
DMRC to Secretary, Land and Building Department for
acquisition as Ex.RW2/D (OSR).
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the
petitioner. Thereafter, RE on behalf of DMRC was closed on
04.03.2025.
34. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. counsels for the
parties and perused the material on record. My issue-wise
findings are as under :
Issue No.1: What is the market value of the acquired land on the
date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act?
(OPP).
Petitioner’s Evidence:-
35. The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner and in
order to prove the issue the petitioner led evidence by examining
himself as PW1 and certain officials from the government offices
as PW2 to PW8.
36. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon documents Ex.PW1/2 to PW1/13 and
Mark-A to Mark-H.
37. Ex.PW1/2 is perpetual lease deed dated 19.01.1982 of
the subject land in petitioner’s favour. This document was not
relied upon by the petitioner to prove the actual market value of
the subject land but only to show his entitlement for the
compensation. Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9 are certified copies of
Sale Deeds dated 09.06.2008, 27.05.2008, 18.12.2007,
14.12.2007, 19.09.2007, 10.04.2007 and 15.01.2007 respectively.
Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:49:36 +0530 Page 21 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
During the final arguments, Ld. counsel for the petitioner fairly
admitted that the Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 were
executed after the present case Section 4 notification LA Act,
1894.
38. The judgment dated 26.07.1995 passed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 704-706/19860 in case titled
State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. was relied upon by the
respondent no.2 to oppose the consideration of these sale deeds to
determine the market value of the subject land. In this case, the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para 3 which is reproduced as
under:
“….. as on the date of the determination of the
compensation. Its consideration should alone be
confined to the market value prevailing as on the date
of the notification under Section 4(1).”
39. The locality of exemplar Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to
Ex.PW1/6 are different to the present case subject land. The
subject land is situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Z
Block having plot No. 67. However, the subject land of Sale
Deed Ex.PW1/3 is situated at B-18/1, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi. The exemplar Ex.PW1/4 is situated at D-
177, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. The exemplar
Ex.PW1/5 is Sale Deed of plot No. E-49/11, Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II and the exemplar Ex.PW1/6 is the Sale Deed of
Plot No. D-10/8, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. Documents
Mark-D, Mark-E and Mark-F which are the maps of layout plans
of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and Phase-II show considerable
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 22/16
16:49:42 +0530Page 22 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiadistance between exemplar lands and subject land of the present
case. Moreover, there is no deliberations with respect to the
actual distance of the acquired land with the exemplars or any
locational advantages and disadvantages factor with regard to the
specifications of location of acquired land vis-a-vis the exemplars
and also considering that any party to the sale deed was not
examined to prove the bonafideness of the transaction. The Sale
Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 cannot be relied upon to assess
the actual market value of the subject land. In view of the
abovesaid settled legal position also the Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3
and Ex.PW1/6 fall within the ambit of subsequent development
after the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
40. Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/9 are the three other exemplar sale
deeds. The locality of Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/9 are
different to the present case subject land. The present case subject
land is situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Z Block
having plot No. 67. The subject land of exemplar Ex.PW1/7 is
situated at Okhla Industiral Area, Phase-II, Block-A and bearing
Plot No. 86. The exemplar Ex.PW1/8 is situated at Okhla
Industiral Area, Phase-I, Block-F and bearing plot No. 90/25 and
the exemplar Ex.PW1/9 is Sale Deed of Plot No. 63, F-Block,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. However, document
Mark-D i.e. copy of layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-
I, document Mark-E i.e. copy of layout plan of Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II and document Mark-F i.e. copy of layout plan
showing locations of industrial plot in Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I and II on single map show a considerable distance
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:49:47 +0530
Page 23 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
between the exemplar lands and the subject land of the present
case. The subject land of exemplars Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 are
situated in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, however,
the subject land of the present case is situated in Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II. The abovesaid layout plans show that these
properties are situated at the opposite ends of Phase-I and Phase-
II and accordingly a considerable distance lies between these
exemplars and subject land. The subject land exemplar Ex.PW1/7
and the subject land of the present case both are situated in Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-II. However, Ex.PW1/7 is in A-Block
having plot No. 86 and the subject land of the present case is
situated in Z-Block having plot No. 67 and as per the abovesaid
layout plans, both these lands are situated at extreme ends of
North-East and South-West directions of Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II.
41. During final arguments, certain photographs were put
before this court on behalf of the respondents, which were also
showed to Ld. counsel for the petitioner. These photographs were
produced in order to show the surrounding locations of the
subject land. It was argued by Ld. counsel for the respondents
that acquired land is surrounded by the jhuggis/encroachments
and in front of the acquired properties there is an open Nala and
there was no proper access to approach the subject properties. It
was further argued that even the present petitioner himself filed a
writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide CWP
No. 3624/2014 titled Arun Kumar Vs. DMRC to remove the
garbage and encroachments in that area. They argued that the
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:49:51 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 24 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
acquired properties were only accessible through service road
which is totally encroached by the jhuggis. It was argued that just
behind the acquired properties there is an unauthorized
residential colony and there is no access to the subject land from
that side. These facts were not denied by the Ld. counsel for the
petitioner. These facts were argued on behalf of the respondents
in order to show that the subject land area lacks development till
date and in these circumstances, the market price of the highly
developed area of the Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I might not be
considered in order to determine the market value.
42. In a case Union of India Versus Pramod Gupta(Dead) by
LRs and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, Hon’ble
Supreme Court considered the two methods laying down the
principles for determining the market value. Firstly, what a
willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the
willing purchaser. Secondly, comparison of sale deeds. In the
absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take
recourse to various other known methods. The area of land, the
nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein
amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the
actual market value of the land.
43. In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001)
7SCC 650, Hon’ble Supreme Court made pertinent observation
about comparable sales method of valuation and relevant factors
thereunder in the following words;
3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt Comparable Sales
Method of valuation of land while fixing the market
value of the acquired land. While fixing the market
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:49:55 +0530
Page 25 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales Method of
valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of
land such as Capitalisation of Net Income Method or
Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales Method of
valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence
for determination of the market value of the acquired
land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the
acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the
time of issue of notification under Section 4of the Act.
However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation of
land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is
not always conclusive. There are certain factors which
are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those
factors the compensation can be awarded,according to
the value the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid
down” inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine
transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been
executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of
notification under Section 4of the Act, that (3) the land
covered by the sales must be in the vicinity of the
acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sale must
be similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of
plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to
the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then
there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered
by the sales be not given for the acquired land.
However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality,
shape, site or nature of land between land covered by
sales and land acquired, it is open to Court to
proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired
land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon
the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.
44. The scale is of a willing seller and a willing purchaser
and the domain is a fair and reasonable understanding of the
potentiality of land and a just decision based thereupon. The onus
is upon the claimants to show in quantitative terms, the existing
and prospective development of the acquired land so as to enable
the Court to fairly adjudge the market value of the said land.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:49:59 +0530 Page 26 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
45. It is settled law that the exemplar to be considered has to
be that of a comparable land in respect of being contemporary in
time and also enjoying situational proximity so as to give a fair
idea of the market value of similarly placed lands in the
immediate vicinity or in the neighbouring areas at the relevant
time of issuance of notification.
46. It is settled law that each piece of land might suffer from
locational advantages or disadvantages and cannot simply be
equated to apply to any land, even in the same village. Nothing
has been placed on record to show as to how the sale
amount/consideration in the exemplars relied upon by petitioner,
can be applied to the acquired land. There is no deliberation with
respect to the actual distance of acquired land with the exemplars
relied upon or any locational advantageous or disadvantageous
factor with regard to specification of location of acquired land
vis-a-vis the exemplars. There is nothing to show that the
acquired land enjoys similar locational advantages and
disadvantages.
47. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kanwar Singh
& Ors. V. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 317 observed regarding
compensation awarded to the claimants of adjoining village, as
follows:
“9. The contention of appellants counsel that
appellants deserved to be awarded the same rate of
compensation as it was awarded to the claimants of
village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, in the present
facts and circumstances of the case. is not tenable. If
we go by the compensation awarded to claimants of
adjoining village it would not lead to the correct
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:50:04 +0530Page 27 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiaassessment of market value of the land acquired in
the village Rangpuri. For example village ‘A’ adjoins
village ‘B’, village ‘B’ adjoins village ‘C’, village ‘C’
adjoins village ‘D’, so on and so forth and in that
process the entire Delhi would be covered. Generally
there would be different situation and potentiality of
the land situated in two different villages unless it is
proved that the situation and potentiality of the land
in two different villages are the same.”
48. In the present case also the exemplar Ex.PW1/8 and
Ex.PW1/9 are situated in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and
subject land of the present case is situated at Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II. Phase-I and Phase-II are adjoining to each other
and accordingly, on the same analogy, the observation of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Kanwar Singh (supra) is fairly applicable in the
present case also. In view of the abovesaid discussion, settled
legal prepositions, these sale deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9 also
do not fairly indicate the prevailing market value of the acquired
land as on the date of notification.
49. Ex.PW1/10 is valuation report of the subject land of this
case alongwith a covering letter sent by Executive Engineer,
PWD to the petitioner herein. As per the valuation report, the
assessed value for the subject land is Rs.6705934/-. During his
cross-examination dated 17.04.2012, PW1 answered that he has
not challenged the compensation for construction upon the land
in question. Moreover, no separate issue regarding any enhanced
compensation for construction upon the subject land was also
framed or ever pressed for in the present case. Accordingly, the
compensation for construction upon the subject land is not in
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:50:09 +0530
Page 28 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
issue. Perusal of the valuation report itself shows that while
preparing the valuation report the value of the land was not
considered. As per para 6 of the affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1
of petitioner/PW1, Ex.PW1/10 was filed to prove the value of the
structure and the method of valuation. Accordingly, this
document also cannot be considered to determine the actual
market value of the acquired land.
50. PW1 also filed on a document Mark-A, which is a
comparable calculation chart. PW1 explained this document in
para 7 of his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1. This calculation
chart prepared by the petitioner shows valuation of building
structure of the abovestated Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9.
It was claimed that the valuation of structure for these seven Sale
Deeds had been calculated on the same basis as has been done by
Executive Engineer, PWD for the subject land property. It has
further been averred that this document clearly proves market
value of the acquired land which was much lesser than the true
market rate on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
However, during the final arguments this document was not
explained on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, the document
was also not proved by calling any expert witness. Otherwise
also, as per the petitioner’s claim itself this document pertains to
the valuation of the building structure of the abovesaid sale
deeds. At the maximum, valuation of structure over the subject
land of these sale deeds may be somewhere similar to the
structure over the present case subject land but that scenario also
shall not be useful to assess the actual market value of the present
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:50:13 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 29 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
case subject land because the cost of structure does not depend
upon the market value of the land. Even otherwise, the total cost
of building structure as per this document Mark-A also is
different for all of the Sale Deeds. It is not a hidden fact that
factors governing the market value of the land are different to the
factors which affect the cost of the structure. Accordingly, this
document is of no help to assess the actual market value of the
subject land.
51. Ex.PW1/11 is an information under RTI Act as furnished
by DSIIDC to the petitioner through letter dated 14.07.2010.
Perusal of the RTI information shows that it was regarding
auction details of shed number 188-189 of DSIIDC, Okhla
Industrial Complex, Phase-I, New Delhi.
Document Mark-B as filed by PW1 during his evidence on
17.04.2012 is an auction brochure, wherein the auction details
regarding abovesaid property No. 188-189 of DSIIDC, Okhla
Industrial Complex, Phase-I have been mentioned. As per this
document, the date of auction is 30.03.2010 i.e. post notification
under Section 4 of LA Act, 1894 in the present case.
PW-7 was a summoned witness from DSIIDC, Udyog
Sadan, Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. conveyance
deed of these properties. The conveyance deed of property no.
188, Phase-I at Okhla Industrial Complex was exhibited as
Ex.PW7/1 and this conveyance deed is found to be registered on
21.06.2012. The conveyance deed of property no. 189, Phase-I at
Okhla Industrial Complex was exhibited as Ex.PW7/2 and this
conveyance deed is found to be registered on 10.09.2012.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 LAC 22/16 16:50:18 +0530 Page 30 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
52. Regarding the exemplars of auction sales, it is held by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag
and Ors.” Appeal Nos. 51-52 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C)
Nos. 27805/2009), Civil decided on 04.01.2011 that “Unless
there are indications to hold otherwise, all sale transactions under
registered sale deeds will be assumed to be normal sales by
willing sellers to willing purchasers. Where however there is
evidence or indications that the sale was not at prevailing fair
market value, it has to be ignored. But auction sales stand on a
different footing. When purchasers start bidding for a property in
an auction, an element of competition enters into the auction.
Human ego, and desire to do better and excel other competitors,
leads to competitive bidding, each trying to outbid the others.
Thus in a well advertised open auction sale, where a large
number of bidders participate, there is always a tendency for the
price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On the
other hand, where the auction sale is by banks or financial
institutions, courts, etc. to recover dues, there is an element of
distress, a cloud regarding title, and a chance of litigation, which
have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders and
making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There is
therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or
lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of
sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction sale
transactions when other regular traditional sale transactions are
available while determining the market value of the acquired
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:50:23 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 31 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
land. This Court in Raj Kumar v. Haryana State
MANU/SC/7864/2007: 2007 (7) SCC 609, observed that the
element of competition in auction sales makes them unsafe
guides for determining the market value.”.
Section 24 of LA, Act provides that any increase of value
of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use of which it will
be put when acquired is required to be neglected while
determining compensation. Hon’ble Apex Court in State of
Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. (supra) observed that in order
to determine market value of the acquired land its consideration
should be confined to the market value prevailing as on the date
of the notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894.
It is settled law that the exemplar to be considered has to
be that of a comparable land in respect of being contemporary in
time and also enjoying situational proximity so as to give a fair
idea of the market value of similarly placed lands in the
immediate vicinity or in the neighbouring areas at the relevant
time of issuance of notification.
It is also settled law that each piece of land might suffer
from locational advantages or disadvantages and cannot simply
be equated to apply to any land, even in the same village.
Nothing has been placed on record to show as to how the sale
amount/consideration in the exemplars relied upon by petitioners,
can be applied to the acquired land. There is no deliberation with
respect to the actual distance of acquired land with the exemplars
relied upon or any locational advantageous or disadvantageous
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:50:28 +0530LAC 22/16
Page 32 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiafactor with regard to specification of location of acquired land
vis-a-vis the exemplars.
When there is no evidence regarding comparability of the
exemplars with subject land then in view of the abovesaid settled
legal position regarding auction sale transactions and sale
transactions took place after issuance of Section 4 notification of
the LA Act, 1894, these documents cannot be relied upon to
assess the actual market value of the subject land.
53. Ex.PW1/12 is an information dated 29.06.2009 under
RTI Act, 2005 furnished by DMRC to the petitioner herein.
Through this letter dated 9.06.2009, DMRC provided the
information regarding certain dimensions. However, except the
mentioning of dimensions no other detail has been mentioned in
the letter. However, the petitioner also filed a map alongwith
letter Ex.PW1/12 and the map is marked as Mark-G. After seeing
the map, it is clear that the dimensions as mentioned in document
Ex.PW1/12 are regarding balance area left out with owner i.e.
petitioner herein. The map contains the dimensions of the subject
land. This document is also not relevant to determine the market
value of the acquired land on the date of notification under
Section 4 of LA Act as it is not related to the valuation of the
subject land.
54. Ex.PW1/13 is a booklet published by DDA in August,
2003 containing scheme of conversion from lease hold to free
hold. One document Mark-H was also filed during the evidence
of PW1/petitioner, which is one circular of DDA dated
20.04.2007 showing market rates of commercial properties and
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:51:30 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 33 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
market rates of industrial properties in various zones of Delhi for
conversion of these properties into free hold. This circular dated
20.04.2007 was also filed by PW3, who was examined as
summoned witness alongwith the attested copy of circular dated
20.04.2007 and it was exhibited as Ex.PW3/1. The letter
Ex.PW3/1 and letter marked as Mark-H are copies of same
circular. However, it was not explained on behalf of the
petitioner that how these documents may be relied upon to decide
the actual market value of the subject land and as it has been
mentioned in the abovesaid circular dated 20.04.2007 itself that
the same were being circulated on provisional basis subject to
approval of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of
India. Any relevant document showing subsequent approval of
the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India in
respect of this circular dated 20.04.2007 was not placed on record
on behalf of the petitioner. It is also noted in the circular itself
that these rights are applicable only for the purpose of
computation of conversion charges for commercial/industrial
plots for allowing conversion from lease hold to free hold and
would not at all be applicable for allotment of plots at market
rates, etc. Accordingly, in absence of any relevant document
showing approval by concerned authority, the document
Ex.PW3/1/Mark-H cannot be considered to determine the actual
market value of the land at the relevant point of time.
55. Document Ex.PW1/13 was relied upon by the petitioner
only in order to show the calculation method for abovesaid
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:51:35 +0530LAC 22/16
Page 34 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiaconversion charges and it is also not relevant to decide the actual
market value of the subject land.
56. The petitioner also relied upon copy of Zonal Plan of
Zone F from DDA and the same was marked as Mark-C during
his evidence. Nature of the subject land use is not in dispute and
the parties admitted that the nature of land use of the subject land
is industrial. As per affidavit Ex.PW1/1 of PW1 this document
was filed to show the location of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I
and II. Accordingly, this document was filed with sole purpose of
understanding the location of Phase I and Phase II and apart from
this it does not have any direct bearing on the assessment of
actual market value of the acquired land at the relevant point of
time.
57. Petitioner also examined summoned witnesses i.e. PW2
to PW9.
58. PW2 appeared from DMRC alongwith letter dated
29.06.2009 and 29.07.2009 which were exhibited as Ex.PW2/1
and Ex.PW2/2 respectively. Ex.PW2/1 is the same document
which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/12 during the evidence of the
petitioner/PW1 and the same has already been discussed above
and need not to be discussed again. Ex.PW2/2 is letter dated
29.07.2009 vide which the information under RTI Act, 2005 was
furnished by the DMRC to the petitioner herein. However, this
document only mentions that the reply to the queries of the
petitioner had already been provided to him vide letter dated
29.06.2009 and the letter dated 29.06.2009 is nothing but the
abovesaid document Ex.PW2/1 which has already been
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:51:39 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 35 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
discussed. Accordingly, these documents are of no help to assess
the actual market value of the subject land.
59. PW3 is Assistant from DDA Vikas Sadan, INA and he
exhibited the document Ex.PW3/1 i.e. circular dated 20.04.2007
regarding the revised rates of conversion from
commercial/industrial properties to free hold for the financial
year 2007-08 during his evidence, which has already been
discussed above alongwith document Mark-H as filed by PW1
and need not to be discussed again.
60. PW4 is Assistant Director (Plg.), DDA, Vikas Mandir,
who brought the summoned record i.e. attested copy of map and
it was exhibited as Ex.PW4/1. Ex.PW4/1 and abovesaid
discussed document Mark-C as filed during the evidence of PW1
are same. In Ex.PW4/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I is marked
as Mark-B and Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II where the subject
land is situated has been marked as Mark-A. Undisputedly, both
the Phase-I and Phase-II are adjoining to each other. However,
this court cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the fact that the subject
land is situated at remote end of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II
towards Harkesh Nagar and not towards Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase I. So, this document for the purpose of comparison of the
subject land in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II with the lands of
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I cannot be considered because
there is a considerable distance between the subject land and
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II.
61. PW5 appeared from MCD office on 18.09.2012 and his
examination-in-chief was deferred for want of certified copies of
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:51:43 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 36 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
the layout plan (map) of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and
Phase-II. Perusal of the record shows that thereafter, PW5 did not
appear for remaining examination. Accordingly, his incomplete
evidence cannot be read. However, PW5 was summoned only for
the purpose of bringing on record the original/certified copy of
layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and Phase-II and
these documents have already been discussed while discussing
documents Mark-D, Mark-E and Mark-F as filed by
PW1/petitioner during his evidence.
62. PW6 is summoned witness from MCD, who brought the
original layout plan for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and Phase-
II . The certified copies of these layout plans were exhibited as
Ex.PW6/1 and PW6/2 respectively for Phase-I and Phase-II.
These lay out plans have already been discussed above and need
not to be discussed again to avoid repetition.
63. PW7 is a summoned witness from DSIIDC, who brought
the conveyance deeds Ex.PW7/1 and Ex.PW7/2. These
documents have already been discussed above alognwith
documents Ex.PW1/11 and document Mark B and need not to be
discussed again in order to avoid repetition. PW8 is also a
summoned witness from DSIIDC, who was partly examined on
22.10.2013 and his further examination was deferred for want of
original documents, however, thereafter PW8 did not to appear
and accordingly his incomplete examination cannot be read in
evidence. He filed one conveyance deed dated 23.05.2012 which
was marked as Mark-A during his evidence and otherwise also
this document cannot be considered to assess the market value of
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:51:46 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 37 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
the subject land as it was executed post notification under Section
4 of LA Act in the present case. Even Ld. counsel for petitioner
also did not discuss this document during final arguments.
Respondents’ Evidence:-
64. Ld. counsel for UOI examined himself as RW1 and filed
sale deed dated 19.04.2007 pertaining to F Block of Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-II and exhibited it as Ex.RW1/A. During
final arguments, Ld. counsel for UOI submitted that the sale deed
was not of the same locality and UOI does not rely upon that
document. On submissions on behalf of UOI and also
considering that this sale deed pertains to different Block and
there is no deliberation with respect to the actual distance of
acquired land with the exemplar or any locational advantages or
disadvantages factor with regard to specification of location of
acquired land vis-à-vis the exemplar and also considering that
any party to the sale deed was not examined to prove the
bonafideness of the transaction, this document cannot be relied
upon to determine the actual market value of the subject land.
65. The Law Officer, DMRC examined himself as RW2 and
on 09.01.2018 filed copy of sale deed dated 10.05.2007 exhibited
as Ex.RW2/A pertaining to Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area.
During his evidence, one copy of judgment dated 21.04.2017 in
LAC No. 1101/16 tilted as Mate Ram Vs. UOI & Ors. were also
filed and exhibited as Ex. RW2/B. However, during final
arguments, it was submitted by DMRC that the abovesaid
documents as filed on behalf of DMRC on 09.01.2018 pertain to
different locality and need not to be taken into consideration to
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:51:50 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 38 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
determine the market value of the subject land. In view of the
submissions and considering no evidence regarding
comparability of present case subject land with the subject land
of these cases, these documents are also liable to be ignored to
assess the market value of the subject land.
66. Thereafter, on 04.03.2025, RW2 was further examined
for additional evidence and that day he filed agreement to sell
dated 09.08.2006 exhibited as Ex.RW2/C, copy of DMRC’s
requisition dated 15.06.2007 Ex.RW2/D (OSR). Document
Ex.PW2/C was objected to on the ground of mode of proof on
behalf of the petitioner.
One another witness RW3 on behalf of DMRC filed
certified copy of sale deeds dated 14.06.2007 and 18.10.2007,
which were exhibited as Ex. RW3/A and Ex.RW3/B respectively.
Both these documents were also objected to on the ground of
mode of proof on behalf of the petitioner.
67. Document Ex.RW2/D is merely an intimation letter from
DMRC to the Secretary, Land & Building Department regarding
requirement of private land on permanent basis in connection
with Construction of Central Secretariat – Badarpur Corridor of
Delhi MRTS Project, Phase-II. This document does not speak
anything about the market value of the subject land. The purpose
of filing of this document was also not explained on behalf of
DMRC. Accordingly, this document is useless to determine the
actual market value of the subject land.
68. Document Ex.RW3/A is a Sale Deed for an industrial
plot bearing No. 129, Block-A measuring 1226.5 sq. yards
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:51:55 +0530
Page 39 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
situated in revenue estate of Village Bahapur and Jasola in the
layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. Document
Ex.RW3/B is Sale Deed of an industrial plot bearing No. 20/1 in
D Block, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. However, these
documents were objected on behalf of the petitioner on the
ground of mode of proof. These documents cannot be relied upon
to determine the actual market value of the subject land as there
is no deliberations with respect to the actual distance of the
acquired land with the exemplars or any locational advantages
and disadvantages factor with regard to the specifications of
location of acquired land vis-a-vis the exemplars. Moreover, any
party to the sale deed was also not examined to prove the
bonafideness of the transaction.
69. However, one fact which may not be ignored is that as
per sale deed Ex.RW3/A, the subject land of this sale deed is
situated in Block A of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, in the
revenue estate of Village Bahapur and Jasola. On the other hand,
subject land of the present case is situated in the Block Z of
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, in the revenue estate of the
Village Harkesh Nagar. It shows that even the Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II is not situated in the revenue estate of any single
village what to talk of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II and Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-I put together. In these circumstances, the
observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh & Ors.
(supra) cannot be ignored.
70. Document Ex.RW2/C is certified copy of Agreement to
Sell dated 09.08.2006 entered into between one Sh. Arun Bhatia
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:52:00 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 40 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
and Sh. Nitin Juneja. This Agreement to Sell pertains to the
subject land of one connected case LAC No. 110/16 titled Nitin
Juneja Vs. UOI. During the evidence of RW2, this document was
objected to on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of mode of
proof.
On 29.04.2025, it was requested on behalf of the
respondents that judicial notice of the sale transactions of the
subject land in connected case bearing LAC 105/16 tilted Rakesh
Verma Vs. UOI and LAC 92/16 in case titled Jagdeep Singh
Sapra Vs. UOI may also be taken.
Perusal of the order dated 29.04.2025 shows that that day
Ld. counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the veracity of the
documents of sale transactions as relied upon by respondents and
on inquiry Ld. counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
original of these documents were never produced before this
court.
It is also pertinent to mention here that on 01.11.2011, it
was submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that there were
five other connected matters alongwith the present case and the
present case be treated as a lead case and prayed for leading his
evidence in the present case. Thereafter, on submissions on
behalf of the petitioner common evidences were led only in the
present case. During the final arguments also, Ld. counsel for the
petitioner requested to read the evidence of this case in other
connected cases also. It is also a factual as well as admitted
position of the parties that the subject lands of these connected
cases are adjacent to each other and are similarly located. The
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:52:04 +0530Page 41 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiasale and purchase documents of these properties are best piece of
evidence to assess the actual market value of the subject land in
view of the settled legal position.
In Special Deputy Collector & Anr. Etc vs Kurra
Sambasiva Rao & Ors. Etc‘, AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT
2625, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“The best evidence of the value of property are the
sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to
which the claimant himself is a party; the time at
which the property comes to be sold; nature of the
consideration and the manner in which the
transaction came to be brought out. They are all
relevant factors.”
Accordingly, the judicial notice of sale transactions of the
subject land of abovestated connected cases is hereby taken.
The Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.2006 was entered into
between Sh. Arun Bhatia and Sh. Nitin Juneja for sale of
industrial Plot No. 61, Block Z, measuring 487.78 sq. mtrs.
situated in layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I for sale
consideration of Rs.29,50,000/- is hereby taken. As per this sale
transaction the subject land of connected case LAC No. 110/16 in
case titled Nitin Juneja Vs. UOI was purchased for a
consideration amount of Rs.6,047.70/- per sq. mtrs. The
transaction took place around 15 months before the notification
under Section 4 of LA Act dated 07.11.2007 in the present case.
Even by applying the progressive increase @ 15% per annum,
consideration amount of this transaction remains below the
compensation awarded by the LAC in the present case.
The agreement to sell dated 16.02.2004 pertaining to
subject land of connected case LAC No. 105/16 in case titled
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:52:08 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 42 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
Rakesh Verma Vs UOI was entered into between Sh. Sushil
Kumar and Sh. Rakesh Verma for sale of industrial plot bearing
No. Z-65 measuring 605 sq. yards (505.85 sq. mtrs.) situated at
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi for a sale
consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- i.e. Rs.6611.57/- per sq. yards
(7907.48 per sq. mtrs.). The transaction took place around 45
months before the notification under Section 4 of LA Act dated
07.11.2007 in the present case. Even by applying the progressive
increase @ 15% per annum, the consideration amount of this
transaction remains below the compensation awarded by the
LAC in the present case.
The sale deed dated 22.08.2008 pertaining to subject land
of connected case LAC No. 92/16 in case titled Jagdeep Singh
Sapra Vs UOI is found to be executed in favour of Sh.
Gagandeep Singh Sapra and Sh. Jagdeep Singh Sapra for sale of
free hold property bearing No. Z-62, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II admeasuring 534 sq. mtrs. and other common easement
together with undivided, indivisible and impartial proportionate
ownership rights of the land underneath the said building for a
total consideration of Rs.99,70,000/- i.e. Rs.18670/- per sq. mtrs.
Again the consideration amount of this sale deed also is lesser to
the compensation awarded by the LAC in the present case.
It is also pertinent to mention here that per square meter
value of the abovesaid subject lands of the connected cases has
been calculated without deducting the construction cost of the
structure available on the subject lands of these sale deeds
/agreement to sell of connected cases and despite this their
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:52:12 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 43 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
consideration amount remain lesser to the compensation awarded
by the LAC only for the acquired land in the present case.
71. In view of the abovesaid discussion, case laws, material
available on record and considering the abovesaid best piece of
evidence in form of sale transactions of the subject lands of the
abovesaid connected cases, I am of the considered opinion that
LAC has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land
as on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act, 1894.
Hence, issue No.1 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of
compensation? (OPP)
72. As issue no.1 is decided by upholding the market value
of the acquired land as determined by LAC, so the petitioner is
held not entitled for any enhanced compensation. Accordingly,
issue no.2 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.3: Whether the petitioner is entitled for award towards
the damages on account of loss of severance and damages for
loss of revenue? (OPP).
73. The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. The
petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove the actual loss of
severance and damages for loss of revenue in support of his
present claim on account of these damages. Due to the reasons
best known to the petitioner himself, he neither filed balance
sheet, profit or loss account or receipt of his business, if any, on
the subject land either before or after Section 4 notification of LA
Act. During his cross-examination dated 17.04.2012 he also
admitted that he had not challenged the compensation for
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:52:18 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 44 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiaconstruction upon the land in question. Respondents relied upon
the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case titled
Binny Ltd., Madras Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Madras,
Appeal No. 696 of 1975 decided on 29.11.1977 by Double
Bench, where it has been observed as under:
“4. One another head of claim which was made by the
claimant was severance compensation under Section
23(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. What is urged by
Mr. Ramasubramaniam is that by reason of the
acquisition the frontage of the property has been
sufficiently and conspicuously cut and the left out
portion is at a disadvantage having lost such an access
to the east of it. But the question is whether there has
been severance at all and if there was a severance
whether there was a damage as a result thereof and if
such damage is alleged whether it has been proved. ….
Severance compensation which is the subject-matter of
Clause (3) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act,
has a special significance. It is not every severance
within the dictionary meaning of, that word that could
provoke the owner! whose property has been sliced to
come to the court or ask for the same before the Land
Acquisition Officer. It is such severance which in the
eye of law could be said to have damnified by reason of
a compulsory acquisition that could be the subject-
matter of the claim. In every case such damage has not
only to be pleaded, but also to be proved by acceptable
evidence.”
74. In the present case also, the alleged damage due to
severance was not proved by the petitioner by acceptable
evidence. I am also not inclined to accept the contention of Ld.
counsel for the petitioner that for severance compensation should
mechanically be granted because a major portion of the subject
land has been acquired because damage, if any, due to the
severance not only to be pleaded but also has to be proved by
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 22/16 16:52:23 +0530
Page 45 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
acceptable evidence. In the present case not even a single
evidence on this issue to prove damages was led on behalf of the
petitioner.
In view of the abovesaid discussion, material available on
record, in absence of acceptable evidence and the settled legal
position, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not
entitled for award towards the damages on account of loss of
severance and damages for loss of severance. Accordingly, issue
No.3 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.4: Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
interest/solatium? (OPP).
75. Section 23(2) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
provides that in addition to the market value of the land as above
provided, the court shall in every case award a sum of 30 per
centum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory
nature of the acquisition.
76. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Pubjab Vs.
Amarjit Singh & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 1494 of 2011 decided
on 08.02.2011 declares that the additional amount under Section
23(1A) of the Act was payable only on the market value
determined under Section 23(1) of the Act and cannot be
calculated on solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act.
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“7. Thus a person whose land is acquired is entitled to
the following amounts under the Act.
(a) Compensation determined under Section 23(1) of
the Act (comprising the market value of the land
referred to as the first factor and any
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:52:28 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 46 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of Indiadamages/expenses referred to as the second to sixth
factors under the said sub-section).
(b) Solatium at 30% on the market value determined
as the first factor under section 23(1) of the Act.
(c) Additional amount at 12% per annum of the
market value of the land referred to as the first factor
under Section 23(1) of the Act, for the period
specified in Section 23(2).
(d) Interest on the aggregate of (a), (b) and (c) above
for the period between the date of taking possession
to date of payment/deposit at the rate of 9% per
annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the
remaining period.
Payments made are to be adjusted and accounted in
the manner set out in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of
India (2006) 8 SCC 457.”
77. Perusal of Award Ex.R-1 shows that solatium @ 30%
alongwith additional amunt @ 12% under Section 23(1)(a) and
interest @ 9% has already been awarded by the Ld. LAC. In the
present reference, the market value of the acquired land as
determined by the Ld. LAC has been upheld in issue No.1.
Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of further
interest/solatium in respect of the acquired land. Moreover, no
evidence was placed on record on behalf of the petitioner to
claim any further interest/solatium on the acquired land.
Accordingly, the issue no.4 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.5: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount (i.e.
25%) being deducted by LAC on the ground that the property is
perpetual lease hold? (OPP).
78. Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that Ld. LAC
wrongly deducted 25% from the market value for free hold and
lease hold property. It was further argued that the petitioner was
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 22/16
16:52:33 +0530
Page 47 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
entitled for conversion of acquired land from lease hold to free
hold at the time of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
Perusal of Award R-1 shows that Ld. LAC relied upon
judgment in case titled Inder Parshad Vs. Union of India (UOI)
& Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 239 while passing the award.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Parshad case (supra)
observed as under:
“5. In this case admittedly the Government being the
owner of the land, the appellant held the demised land
as lessee with super-structure built thereon and was in
possession and enjoyment of the same on the date of
acquisition. …. Take a case where the Govt. granted
the lease of the open land with permission to the lessee
to construct a building for his quiet enjoyment with
appropriate covenants and the lessee with permission
constructed the building and by complying with the
covenants of the lease was in quiet enjoyment. The
self-same property, when required for public purpose,
the Govt. cannot unilaterally determine the lease and
call upon the lessee to deliver the possession.
Therefore, the Govt. is required to exercise the power
of eminent domain by invoking the provisions under
the Land Acquisition Act for getting such land. The
Collector shall have to determine the compensation
towards the leasehold interest held by the lessee, if
assessable separately and determine the compensation.
The lessee being the owner of the super structure and
the Govt. being the owner of the land, if compensation
is determined for both the components, then the same
has to be apportioned between them. At what
proportion the lessor and the lessee are entitled to
receive the compensation has to be determined. In the
absence of any covenant in the lease for payment and in
the absence of any specific data available to him, the
Collector has to determine the respective shares at
which the compensation is to be apportioned between
the Govt. and the lessee,…. Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:52:37 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 48 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
8. …. The High Court by its judgment and decree under
the present appeal has modified the apportionment of
compensation payable for land as 75 per cent for the
lessee and 25 per cent for the lessor. Under these
circumstances it cannot be said that the Land
Acquisition Collector had determined the compensation
only towards the leasehold interest held by the
appellant and that, therefore, the appellant is entitled to
the entire compensation determined by the Collector.
Therefore, the judgment and decree under appeal does
not call for interference and the appeal is, accordingly
dismissed. But in the circumstances, the parties are
directed to bear their own costs.”
79. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Mangat Ram, etc. Vs.
State of Haryana and others, etc., in Civil Appeals Nos. 8879-80
of 1996 decided on 22.04.1996 has held as under:
“7. As regards apportionment of the compensation, the
High Court has directed to pay 1/4 to the tenant and 3/4
to the Wakf Board. In view of the Judgment in Col. Sir
Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal & Ors.
Etc. MANU/SC/0738/1994: [1994] 3 SCR87 and Inder
Parshad v. Union of India & Ors.
MANU/SC/0790/1994: (1994)5SCC239, the tenants
are entitled to 3/4 of the compensation while the
landlord is entitled to 1/4 of the compensation. In view
of the above law, the order of the High Court in appeals
arising from reference under Section 30 is modified to
the extent that appellants/tenants – Mangat Ram and
Ors. are entitled to 3/4th while the Wakf Board is
entitled to l/4th of the compensation amount. The
amount awarded in the judgment of the single Judge
under Section 23(1-A) also requires to be apportioned
accordingly.”
80. Respondents also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Delhi Devleopment Authority Vs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
16:52:41 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 49 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India& Ors., Civil Appeal No. 34/1995 decided on 26.08.2003 where
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“10. …..DDA is a creature of the Statute and any policy
decision or guidelines formulated by such authority will
have a binding effect on the parties, in absence of rules
to the contrary.
11. Furthermore, clauses 4, 5 and 8 of the lease deed, as
extracted, envisage that the lessee cannot sell, transfer
or part with the possession of the whole or any part of
the commercial plot except with the previous consent
of the lessor in writing, with a rider that the lessor can
refuse the transfer. It is also provided in proviso to
clause 4(b) that in the event of sale or foreclosure of the
mortgaged or charged property, the lessor shall be
entitled to claim and recover the 50% of unearned
increase in the value of the plot. … ”
81. Ld. counsel for the respondents further relied upon
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled M/s Jaiprakash
Industries Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority in Civil Appeal
No.8336 of 2009 decided on 05.04.2024, where Hon’ble
Supreme Court approved the relevant clause of the lease, which
covers involuntary transfers as well for determining unearned
income.
82. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that in the
present case also, subject land perpetual lease deed Ex.PW1/2
contains relevant clause (6), which provides that the Lessor’s
right to the recovery of fifty per cent of the unearned increase and
the per-emptive right to purchase the property as mentioned
herein before shall apply equally to an involuntary sale or
transfer whether it be by or through an executing or insolvency
court. They argued that this is the fit case where market value of
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
16:52:46 +0530
LAC 22/16
Page 50 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Arun Kumar Vs Union of India
the lease hold land should have been determined after deducting
50% from the market value of the free hold property and not only
25% of the market value for free hold property.
In view of the abovesaid discussion, material on record,
evidences, considering clause (6) of the lease deed Ex.PW1/2
which provides for lessor’s right to the recovery of fifty percent
of the unearned increase on involuntary sale or transfer also and
settled legal position, I am of the considered opinion that LAC
rightly deducted 25% for lease hold property on the market value
for free hold property and there is no reason to interfere with this
deduction as made by LAC while passing the award.
Accordingly, issue no.5 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.6: Relief.
83. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition is
dismissed. Both the sides will bear their own costs.
84. The reference petition under Section 18 of LA Act is
answered in terms of findings on issues no.1 to 6. Statement
under Section 19 of the L.A. Act be annexed to the award. Copy
be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for
information and necessary compliance. Thereafter, file be
consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
Pronounced in the open Court SINGH Date:
on this 9th June, 2025.
2025.06.09
16:52:51 +0530(DR. YADVENDER SINGH)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHILAC 22/16
Page 51 of 51 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025