Delhi District Court
Awneet Kaur Bhatia (29/2002-03) vs Uoi And Anr (Shahbad Daulat Pur) on 25 January, 2025
DLNT010061292017
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABAS
DISTRICT JUDGE (NORTH-01): ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No. 73/17
Smt. Awneet Kaur Bhatia (deceased) through LR's:-
i. Sh. Gurvinder Singh Bhatia (son)
ii. Sh. Parvinder Singh Bhatia (son)
r/o 98- Second Floor, Chanderlok,
Pitam Pura, Delhi.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India through
Land Acquisition Collector (North)
Office DM North,Alipur, Delhi.
2.Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice-Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA, Delhi.
...... Respondents
Award No. 29/2002-03 Village Shahbad Daulatpur Notification U/s 4 LA Act F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA /11394 dt. 27.10.1999 Notification U/s 6 LA Act F.10 (29)/96/L&B/LA/20 dt. 03.04.2000 Date of possession 19.05.2000
Date of Announcement of LAC Award : 01.11.2002
Date of Receipt of Reference : 16.05.2017
Date of Arguments : 25.01.2025
Date of Decision: 25.01.2025
LAC no. 73/17 Page 1 of 11
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
AWARD:
(BY THE COURT U/S 26 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT-
1894 ON REFERENCE PETITION U/S 18 OF THE ACT):
1. This is a reference made by the Land
Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as ‘LAC’)
under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as ‘LA Act‘). The reference was
initiated on a petition made by the petitioner who was
aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the
LAC vide above-referred award.
2. As per the reference, a large tract of land
measuring 2641 bighas and 03 biswas of village Shahbad
Daulatpur, Delhi, was acquired by the Government for a
public purpose namely Rohini Residential Scheme, Phase-
IV & V. The notification under Section 4 of The LA Act
as mentioned on the index page was issued. The
Declaration under Section 6 was made as mentioned on
the index page. Thereafter, above-referred award was
announced by the LAC. The LAC determined the market
price of the acquired land as Rs.12.16 lacs per acre.
3. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the
LAC no. 73/17 Page 2 of 11
market value determined by the LAC, filed the present
petition u/s 18 of the LA Act, seeking reference to this
court. The LAC forwarded the same to this Court for
adjudication.
4. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was
the owner/bhumidhar in actual, physical and cultivator of
the land bearing in khasra numbers as mentioned in the
Statement u/s 19 of the LA Act that was annexed with the
present reference and admitted during the stage of
admission/denial of documents, situated within the
Revenue Estate of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi (the
said land). The petitioner is having full share in the said
land. The said land was acquired vide notification dated
27.10.1999.
5. The petitioner has challenged the said award
inter-alia on the ground of inadequacy of compensation
and incorrect assessment of market value of land inter-alia
due to non-consideration of relevant factors like
potentiality and fertility of the suit land, the surrounding
colonies and developed areas, the market value of the
adjoining areas/villages, the sale deeds of other lands of
the contemporary period, nearness to the National
LAC no. 73/17 Page 3 of 11
Highway and industrial areas, the amenities available in
the suit land etc.
6. The petitioner has prayed compensation at
enhanced rate besides interest thereon and solatium in
addition to the compensation.
7. The respondent no.1/the Union of India
(UOI)/Land Acquisition Collector and respondent
no.2/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) contested the
reference petition by filing their respective Written
Statements.
8. In the preliminary objections respondent no.
1 /UOI has stated that the petition is barred by limitation.
Further, the DLR Act was applicable at the time of
acquisition that reduced the market value of the land and
therefore, LAC has correctly assessed the market value of
the land after taking into account the market rates
prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 of
LA Act.
In written statement R-2/DDA also supported
the contention of R-1/UOI.
9. During the proceedings, the petitioner expired.
Consequently, application u/o 22 Rule 3 CPC was moved
LAC no. 73/17 Page 4 of 11
to implead her LRs. Vide order dated 28.03.2023 passed
by the Undersigned, said application for impleadment of
LRs of petitioner was allowed. LRs mentioned in the LRs
report were impleaded. Amended memo of parties was
also filed.
10. During admission-denial of documents, the
counsel for petitioner admitted the statement given u/s 19
of the Act. The following issues were framed :-
(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to
enhancement in compensation, if so,
to what amount?
(ii) Whether the present petition is within the
period of limitation ?
(iii) Relief.
11. In evidence, the petitioner relied upon the
evidence led on behalf of petitioner in case titled Hem
Chander Malik Vs. UOI, LA Appeal no. 358/07 DOD 26-
09-2011.
12. The respondent no.1/Union of India, in its
evidence, tendered the award as Ex. R1. However, the
respondent no.2/Delhi Development Authority adopted the
evidence led on behalf of respondent no.1/UOI.
13. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties
and have also carefully considered the record. My issue-
LAC no. 73/17 Page 5 of 11
wise findings are given hereinafter.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1 :-
14. Petitioner has contended that valuation of land
determined by LAC is not reasonable as LAC has not
adopted the correct method of valuation. However, he has
not led any evidence to support his contention as to how
the LAC was wrong in fixing market value of land. Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner has only relied upon the
judgment titled as Hem Chander Malik Vs. UOI, LA
Appeal no.358/07 decided on 26-09-2011 (Delhi High
Court) and conceded that award be passed in terms of the
said judgment and the same enhancement which was
granted in the said judgment be also granted to him.
15. In Hem Chander Malik’s case (supra), an
elaborate and detailed discussion was made before
determining the amount of compensation. With respect to
the land of the village Shahbad Daulatpur (involved
herein), acquired through the same notification (as made
herein), the Hon’ble High Court determined the market
value of the land as Rs.12,96,455.89/- per acre. Since no
different evidence has been led by the petitioner in the
present case, I have no reason to give a different treatment
LAC no. 73/17 Page 6 of 11
to the land of the petitioner and to give a determination,
different from that determined in the Hem Chander
Malik’s case (Supra). The fair market value of the acquired
land is adjudicated as Rs.12,96,455.89/-per acre as
determined in Hem Chander Malik’s case (Supra).
Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner would be entitled to
market value @ Rs.12,96,455.89/- per acre.
16. Petitioner has also claimed compensation for
crops, tree, tubewell etc. However, the petitioner has failed
to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim or to
establish that he was not awarded sufficient compensation
for same. Accordingly, I hold that petitioner is not entitled
to any enhancement in compensation on this count.
17. Besides above, petitioner shall be entitled to
other statutory benefits under the LA Act viz. 12%
additional amount [as per section 23 (1A)] and 30%
solatium [u/s 23 (2)] and will be entitled to interest under
Section 28 of L.A Act on the fair market value @ 9% per
annum for the first year and @ 15% for subsequent year
till the making of payment of enhanced compensation by
LAC as per provision of Section 28 of the Act.
Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
LAC no. 73/17 Page 7 of 11
Findings on Issue No.:2
18. As far as question of limitation is concerned,
onus of proving the same was wrongly placed upon
petitioners. In fact R-1 & R-2 have raised the issue of
limitation and onus of proving the fact that the present
petition is barred by limitation is upon R-1&R-2.
19. Ld. counsel for petitioners has relied upon
following three cases:-
a. Fateh Singh vs. the Land Acquisition Collector (Narela)
& Anr., i.e. Civil Writ Petition No.4513 of 1996 decided
on 19.04.2011 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi;
b. Khem Chand & Ors., vs. UOI & Anr. i.e. LA Appeal
No.954/2010 decided on 23.09.2015 by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi and
c. State of Punjab vs. Qaisar Jahan Begum and Ors., Civil
Appeal No.592 of 1961 decided on 11.02.1963 by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
20. In Fateh Singh‘s case (Supra) Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi has observed as under:-
“13. When a person interested makes an application
for reference seeking the benefit of six months period
from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him
to prove that he (or his representative) was not present
when the Award was made, that he did not receive any
notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act, and that he did not have theLAC no. 73/17 Page 8 of 11
knowledge of the contents of the Award during a
period of six months prior to the filing the application
for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting
these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the
negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the
claimant/person interested it is for the Land Acquisition
Collector to establish that the person interested was
present either in person or through his representative
when the Award was made or that he had received a
Notice u/s 12(2) of the Act or that he had knowledge of
the contents of the Award. Actual or constructive
knowledge of the contents of the Award can be
established by the Collector by proving that the person
interested had received or drawn the compensation
amount for the acquired land or had attested the
mahazar/panchnama/ proceedings delivering
possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the
acquisition or had filed a case challenging the Award
or had acknowledged the making of the Award in any
document or in statement on oath or evidence. The
person interested, not being in possession of the
acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee
being entered in the Revenue Municipal Records
coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of
constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such
evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person
interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will
be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances
to not to do so.”
21. Perusal of Award in question i.e. Award
no.29/2002-03 shows that in second paragraph of said
Award it has been mentioned that “In view of the urgency
of the scheme provision section 17 (1) of the Act are
applicable to this land”.
22. On the other hand the respondents or the Land
Acquisition Collector have miserably failed to show/prove
that the present petition is barred by limitation. It is
LAC no. 73/17 Page 9 of 11
pertinent to mention that no evidence has been led by
respondents/LAC in this regard. Since, the respondents
/LAC have failed to prove that the present petition is
barred by limitation, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of
petitioner and against the respondent/LAC and it is held
that the present petition is not barred by limitation.
23. Findings on Issue No.3 – RELIEF
In view of the findings on Issue no.1&2, the
petitioner/s are granted the following reliefs: –
1. fair market value @ Rs.12,96,455.89/- per acre for the
acquired land as per statement u/s 19 of the LA Act;
2. additional amount @ 12% per annum on the fair market
value u/s 23 (1A) of the LA Act , from the date of
notification u/s 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or
dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
3. solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced
amount of market value ;
4. interest under Section 28 of L.A Act @ 9% per annum
for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the
rate of 15% per annum on the difference between the
enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the
compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent
LAC no. 73/17 Page 10 of 11
period till its payment.
24. The share(s) of the petitioner(s) would be
determinable as per the statement u/s 19 of the L.A. Act
proved on record and the said statement shall constitute a
part of this award.
25. Reference petition stands answered. Parties to
bear their own costs. A copy of this award be sent to the
LAC for necessary information, action and expeditious
compliance for remittance of the amount. File be
consigned to record room. Digitally
signed by
DEEPAK
DEEPAK DABAS
DABAS Date:
Announced in the 2025.01.25
19:53:26
Open Court on 25.01.2025 +0530
(DEEPAK DABAS)
Distict Judge-01/North,
Rohini Courts/Delhi
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS
LAC no. 73/17 Page 11 of 11