Delhi District Court
Lakhpat vs Union Of India on 24 May, 2025
In The Court of Sh. Sanatan Prasad,
District Judge-02, (East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
LAC No.32/16, (Old Nos. 388/1984, M-6/1994, 331/1/06, 26/1/2007 &
17/1/2011/08)
CNR No.DLET01-001075-2016
In the matter of :-
1. Sh. Lakhpat, (now deceased)
Through his legal heirs;
(i) Sh. Hukam Singh, (now deceased),
S/o Late Sh. Lakhpat,
Through his LRs :-
(a) Sh. Raj Kumar,
(b) Sh. Raj Pal,
(c) Sh. Satish,
Sons of late Sh. Hukam Singh
(d) Smt. Baleshwari, W/o Late Sh. Hukam Singh,
All R/o Village Dallupura,
Habura and Bichpatiya Mohalla,
Delhi-110096.
(e) Smt. Munesh, W/o Sh. Bikram Singh,
D/o Sh. Hukam Singh,
R/o Village Attoin, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P.
(f) Smt. Rajwati @ Rajesh, W/o Sh. Dinesh Bhati,
D/o Sh. Hukam Singh,
R/o Village Amainabad, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P.
(g) Smt. Ghyanwati, W/o Sh. Bed Prakash @ Bedu,
D/o Sh. Hukam Singh,
R/o Village Tigaon, District Faridabad, Haryana.
(ii) Sh. Khajan Singh, (Now, deceased),
Through his legal heirs;
(a) Smt. Saroj,
LAC No.32/16 Page No.1 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
W/o Late Sh. Khazan Singh,
(b) Sh. Pawan Kumar,
(c) Sh. Pradeep Kumar,
Both Sons of Late Sh. Khazan Singh,
All R/o 252, Dallupura, Vasundhara
Enclave, East Delhi-110096.
(d) Smt. Beauty,
D/o Late Sh. Khazan Singh,
W/o Sh. Vikram Basoya,
R/o Morna Village, Noida Sector-35,
G.B.Nagar.
(iii) Sh. Charan Singh,
(iv) Sh. Parmal Singh,
Sons of late Sh. Lakhpat,
All R/o Village Dallupura,
Habura and Bichpatiya Mohalla,
Delhi-110096.
2. Sh. Prasadi, S/o Sh. Dalpat,
3. Sh. Udai Singh, S/o Sh. Dalpat,
S.No.2&3 R/o : Village Dallupura,
Habura and Bichpatiya Mohalla,
Delhi-110096.
4. Sh. Aman @ Aman Choudhary,
S/o Sh. Chaman Choudhary,
R/o H.No.33, Village Chilla Saroda Bangar,
Delhi-110091.
5. Sh. Sahil, S/o Sh. Mahipal,
R/o H.No.278, Sector-15A, Noida, U.P.
(Both petitioner No.4 and 5 have been substituted vide Order, dated
28.03.2025, passed by the Court in place of Sh. Jai Singh, S/o Sh.
Dalpat).
6. Sh. Chaman Singh,
S/o Sh. Jai Chand,
R/o Village Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi.
.....Petitioners
LAC No.32/16 Page No.2 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
Versus,
1. Union of India,
Through Land Acquisition Collector/ADM,
East, L.M.Bundh, Shastri Nagar, D.C.Office,
South District, Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman,
INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
.....Respondents
Date of Institution : 01.11.1984
Date of Reserving Order : 09.05.2025
Date of Decision : 24.05.2025
Present: Sh. M.P.S.Kasana, Ld. Counsel for LRs of the deceased petitioner
No.1, namely, Sh. Lakhpat.
Sh. Inder Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners No.4/Sh. Aman @
Aman Choudhary, No.5/Sh. Sahil and No.6/Sh. Chaman Singh.
Sh. Satish Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Union of India.
Sh.M.S.Bhana, Ld. Counsel for the DDA (in LAC No.48/16).
Reference Petition U/s 18 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Against the
Award No.79/1982-83, dated 09.03.1983.
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of the present petition, are
that the petitioners have filed the present reference petition U/s 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called as ‘The Act‘), 1894, before the Ld.
Land Acquisition Collector, (hereinafter called as ‘LAC’), (DS), Delhi,
namely, Sh. G.C.Pillai, who had referred/marked the same to the Ld. Court of
Sh. P.S.Sharma, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide his letter No.
F.13(29)/83-Lit I/5541, dated 10.07.1984, for its adjudication. The present
reference has been filed against the Award No.79/1982-83, dated 09.03.1983,
passed by Sh. Shiv Raj Tyagi, the then LAC (DS), Delhi, on the averments
that vide notification No.F8(67)76-L&B/LA/33377, dated 17.11.1980, U/s 4
LAC No.32/16 Page No.3 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
of The Act, and declaration made vide notification No.F.9(16)/80-L&B,
dated 29.09.1981, U/s 6 of The Act, the land including the land of the
petitioners, situated in the revenue estate of Village Dallupura, was acquired
by the Government for the Planned Development of Delhi. The Ld. LAC
after completing all requirements, as provided under the Act, announced the
Award in question and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.12,500/- per
bigha, Rs.10,000/- per bigha for Category-A, Rs.8,000/- per bigha for
Category-B and Rs.6,000/- per bigha for Category-C along with the other
statutory benefits and compensation, in respect of trees & groves, also labour
charges for removal of the installation of bored tube wells.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, as awarded by the
Ld. LAC, the petitioners have filed the present petition U/s 18 of The Act for
its adjudication, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount,
of the land in question.
3. In the reference petition, the petitioners No.1 to 4, have sought
enhancement of amount of compensation, on the grounds that they were the
Bhumidars and in possession of the the land bearing khasra numbers 164(4-
12), 165(1-3), 178(4-13), 188(1-7), 307(0-18), 329(0-18), 330(2-5), 337(4-1),
475/393(6-0), 476/393(5-17), 442(8-0), 446(0-6), situated in the revenue
estate of Village Dallupura, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi, which was acquired by
the Government, vide Award, No.79/1982-83, Village Dallupura, Illaqa
Shahdara, Delhi. The petitioners were the co-owners of the above said land.
The award of the LAC is not acceptable to the petitioners. The petitioners
have not received the compensation, assessed in their names. The land of the
petitioners, has, been, greatly under-valued, by the Ld. LAC. The potential
value and its fertility, situation and kind of soil as well as hypothetic use,
have not been taken into consideration, while awarding the compensation of
the land in question. The land of the petitioners is ‘Chahi’ and used to give
LAC No.32/16 Page No.4 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
the yield of 3 to 4 crops in a year and the petitioners were earning
approximately Rs.2,000/- per bigha, after excluding all the expenses, per
annum. The petitioners have a well and two bores for giving waters in the
land in question and this fact has, not been, given weightage, by the Ld.
LAC, while passing the award in question. The relevant sale
transactions/judicial pronouncements, related to the land of Village Dallupura
and of the vicinity, have not been taken into consideration, by the Ld. LAC.
Further, the land is situated within the heart of many developed colonies of
Shahdara area and has potential value on account of its ideal situation and
this fact also, has not been, taken into consideration, by the Ld. LAC. The
land in question is situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, having facility/amenities of roads, parks, water, electricity etc. therein.
Due to ideal situation and potentiality of the land in question, the same can be
used for residential as well as industrial purposes. The land of the petitioners
is adjacent and is quite nearer to NOIDA Industrial Complex, U.P. The Ld.
LAC, has, wrongly, mentioned pits in the land and has, arbitrarily, placed the
land of the petitioners in the lower category. The blocks made by the Ld.
LAC are artificial and illegal and as such, the petitioners are claiming Rs.50/-
per sq. yards of their land, and, if they were allowed to sell the said land, it
could be sold at Rs.100/- per sq. yards in the open market. The petitioners are
also claiming Rs.50,000/- on account of severances allowances and prayed
accordingly.
4. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent/Union of India, After
service, respondent Union of India had filed its written statement, on the
grounds, inter-alia, that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in
dispute, so it reduces the market value of the land considerably; That Smt.
Bhag Devi etc. had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi, in respect of Khasra No. 406, 442 and as such, they should also be
LAC No.32/16 Page No.5 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
impleaded, in the present pettion; That the possession has not been taken so
far with respect to land bearing Khasra No. 180, 307 and compensation of
land bearing Khasra No. 164, 165 and 442 had been sent to the Ld. Court of
ADJ, for adjudication. On merits, it is averred that compensation has been
correctly assessed by the LAC, keeping in mind all the relevant facts and law
and prayed for dismissal of the reference petition with costs.
5. Vide Order, dated 24.09.1985, the present petition was stayed/adjourned
sine die, as the reference U/s 30-31 of The Act was pending adjudication and
was ordered to be revived after the decision/disposal of the said petition U/s
30-31 of The Act and file was ordered to be consigned to the record room.
6. Vide Order, dated 27.02.1997, application under Order 22, rule 10, CPC
moved on behalf of the proposed applicants on 15.03.1995, namely, Smt.
Leelawati and Sh. Chander Singh, wife and son, respectively of late Sh.
Parshadi, i.e., petitioner No.2, was dismissed in default, also for non-
prosecution.
7. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court, vide his Order, dated 29.11.1999, was
of the view that DDA was also a necessary party, in the matter, and in view
of law, as cited/quoted in the decision, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in, 1995 SC 724, the DDA was made a party to the present reference
petition and on the day, Sh. Aashish Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the DDA,
present in the Court, had accepted the service on behalf of the DDA and was
directed to file the written statement, and the matter was listed for framing of
issues and evidence of parties, for 16.12.1999, on which date, the Court was
on leave and on the next date i.e. 20.12.1999, the Ld. Predecessor of this
Court had framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the petitioners have any right, title or interest in the case
property? If so, to what extent ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive enhanced compensation? If
LAC No.32/16 Page No.6 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
so, to what extent ? OPP.
3. Relief; And the matter was listed for PE, on 11.01.2000.
8. On 11.01.2000, DDA, had filed its written statement, wherein, it took
objections therein, on the grounds, inter-alia, that the Ld. LAC, while making
the Award in question, relating to Village Dallupura, Delhi, had taken into
consideration the market value of the land on the basis of the sale deeds of
the adjoining lands of the area as well as other documents, which were made
available and produced before the Ld. LAC. Moreover, the area of the land
and other appurtenance/amenities/facilities were also taken into
consideration, while assessing the compensation, by the Ld. LAC. It is stated
that without prejudice to the aforesaid, the petitioners are not admitted to be
the owner/Bhumidar or interested parties, being in possession of the land,
falling under the said award and as such, the present reference petition is not
maintainable. The amount awarded by the Ld. LAC in the present case is
adequate, sufficient, just and legal and is based on cogent and reliable
evidence and hence, there is no scope for enhancement of the amount of
compensation. The present reference petition is otherwise time-barred.
However, DDA has admitted to the extent that as per the details available in
the land register, Khasra Nos. 164(4-12), 165(1-3), 178(4-13), 188(1-7),
307(0-9), 329(0-18), 330(2-5), 337(4-1), 475/393(6-0), 476/393(5-17),
422(1-1) & 446(0-6), total area measuring 26 bighas 17 biswas, situated in
the revenue estate of Village Dallupura, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi, was acquired
by the Ld. LAC, vide Award, No.79/1982-83, as notified in the Notification,
as above, dated 17.11.1980, except Khasra No.307(0-9) & 188(1-7), and the
possession of the said land had been taken over by the DDA on 11.03.1983,
as notified in the Notification, as above, on 30.03.1983 and the said land had
been transferred to the development area, (CHBS), on 11.03.1983, as per
land records, available with the DDA. Replying on merits, all other
LAC No.32/16 Page No.7 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
averments have been denied and prayer is made for dismissal of the present
petition.
9. Vide Order, dated 03.05.2007, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had
opined that the application for revival of the proceedings of this reference
petition, filed on 20.01.1994, had not been decided, yet, and thus, in order to
avoid any technical objections, the Ld. Predecessor had revived the reference
petition and restored the same with the direction that the interest on the
enhanced compensation, if any, awarded by the reference Court for the
period from the date of adjourning this reference sine-die till the date of filing
of the revival application shall be considered at the final stage of this
reference. Further, vide Order of even date, the application filed by the
applicant Sh. Chaman Singh, under Order 1, Rule 10, r/w Section 151 CPC,
seeking his impleadment, as party, in the reference, stood allowed and Sh.
Chaman Singh, through Sh. R.S.Kataria, was ordered to be impleaded as
party/petitioner No.5, to the present reference petition and the matter was
listed for filing of the amended memo of parties, also framing of additional
issues, if any.
10. Vide Order, dated 22.05.2007, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had
framed the following issues :-
1. What are the rights, title or interest in the petitioners in respect of the land
bearing khasra numbers as per the statement U/s 19 of the LA Act which is
in question ? Onus on parties.
2. What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance
of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act ? Onus on parties.
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement in compensation, if
any, to what amount ? OPP.
4. Relief; And the matter was listed for petitioner’s evidence, on 02.07.2007.
11. On 19.07.2007, Sh. Khazan Singh, S/o Sh. Lakhpat examined, himself, as
LAC No.32/16 Page No.8 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
P1W1, who had tendered his evidentiary affidavit, as Ex.P1W1/P, also
identifying his signatures thereupon, at points A&B. He has further relied
upon the documents, i.e., photocopy of the judgment, dated 30.11.1993,
passed by then Ld. ADJ, Delhi, in LAC No.511 of 1993, titled as Rattan Lal
& Ors. v. UOI, vide Award No.79/82-83, as Ex.P1W1/A; Original
Assignment Deed, executed on 17.01.1995, as Ex.P1W1/1; Original Will,
dated 15.01.1996, as Ex.P1W1/2; Original death certificate of Sh. Lakhpat
Singh, who died on 22.08.1996, as Ex.P1W1/3; Photocopy of the khatoni for
the year 1977-78 of Village Dallupura, Delhi, as Mark-X and Photocopy of
the payment report issued by the LAC, as Ex.P1W1/4.
12. On 26.07.2007, Sh. Udai Singh/petitioner No.3 & Sh. Jai Singh/petitioner
No.4, examined, themselves, as P3W1 & P4W1, respectively, who had
tendered their evidentiary affidavits, as Ex.P3W1/P and Ex.P4W1/P, also
identifying their signatures, thereupon, at points A&B. They have further
relied upon the documents, i.e., photocopy of the judgment, dated
30.11.1993, passed by then Ld. ADJ, Delhi, as Ex.P1W1/A. They were, duly,
cross-examined on behalf of the Union of India and the Counsel for DDA
had adopted the cross-examination, as done by the Union of India.
13. Further, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner No.5/Chaman Singh, in support of
his claim, has examined/relied, in evidence, certified copy of the Assignment
Deed, dated 19.10.1993, executed by Sh. Ram Swaroop Kataria, in favour of
Sh. Chaman Singh, as Ex.P-5/1; Certified copy of the Declaration, dated
18.09.1995 by Sh. Chaman Singh before Sub-Registrar, Delhi, as Ex.P-5/2;
Certified copy of the payment certificate issued by the LAC, dated
15.03.1995, as Ex.P-5/3; Certified copy of the Letter, dated 06.03.2006,
issued by the LAC,(East), Delhi, as Ex.P-5/4; Certified copy of the Letter,
dated 19.04.2007 along with Naqsha Muntzamin, certified copy of RD
Register in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.475/393 & 476/393, issued
LAC No.32/16 Page No.9 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
by the LAC,(East), before the Court, in case LAC No.M-143/06, as
Ex.P-5/5(colly); Certified copy of the Order, dated 03.05.2007, passed by the
Court, in LAC No.M-143/06, as Ex.P-5/6; Certified copy of affidavit of Sh.
Lakhpat, dated 07.05.1983, filed by the LAC in the Award File of Award
No.79/1982-83, of Village Dallupura, Delhi, as Ex.P-5/7; Certified copy of
the affidavit of Sh. Parshadi filed before the LAC in respect of payment of
Award File No.79/1982-83 of Village Dallupura, Delhi, dated 13.04.1983, as
Ex.P-5/8; Certified copy of the Affidavit of Sh. Udai Singh filed before the
LAC in respect of payment of Award File No.79/1982-83 of Village
Dallupura, Delhi, dated 13.04.1983, as Ex.P-5/9; Certified copy of affidavit
of Sh. Jai Singh filed before the LAC in respect of payment of Award File
No.79/1982-83 of Village Dallupura, Delhi, dated 13.04.1983, as Ex.P-5/10
and copy of reported judgment, dated 03.08.2004, as 2004, VIII, AD, (SC),
in Civil Appeal No.6767/2002, titled as Delhi Development Authority v.
Baliram Sharma, pertaining to Village Dallupura, Delhi of notification, dated
17.11.1980, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court had fixed the market value @
Rs.76,550/- per bigha, as Ex.P-5/11.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has tendered in
evidence, copy of the Award No.79/1982-83 of Village Dallupura, Delhi, as
Ex.R-1.
15. Thereafter, the arguments were advanced by the Ld. Counsels for the
parties and the Ld. Predecessor of the Court had pronounced the judgment,
after delivering its findings on the subsequent four issues, framed, as above,
by holding and fixing the market value of the land in question, total
measuring 39 bighas 10 biswas, situated at Village Dallupura, Delhi @
Rs.76,550/- per bighas, as on 17.11.1980 and petitioners No.1&3 to 5 were
declared to be entitled to the enhanced compensation, as per their shares,
mentioned in the statement U/s 19 of the Act and also shares, decided in their
LAC No.32/16 Page No.10 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
favour in the award by the Reference Court along with interest/(s), as detailed
in the judgment. It was, further, held that the petitioners were not entitled to
the enhanced compensation in respect of the land bearing khasra Numbers
i.e. 446(0-6), 442 min(0-10), 164(4-19), 165(1-13) & 442 min, as there was a
dispute pending before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the District Court,
Delhi.
16. Thereafter, aggrieved with the Award/Order, dated 11.05.2007, Union of
India along with the DDA and LRs of the petitioner No.1, namely, Sh.
Lakhpat, through Khajan Singh & Ors., also petitioner No.2 Sh. Parshadi,
again, petitioner No.3 Sh. Udai Singh, preferred separate L.A.Appeal,/(s),
Nos.500 of 2009; 402 of 2007; 326 of 2008; And 332 of 2008, respectively,
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and had challenged the judgment &
decree, dated 05.11.2007, passed by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court, and the
Hon’ble High Court/HMJ Mr. P.K.Bhasin, after going the trial court’s record,
framed the following additional issues :-
A. Whether the documents allegedly executed by late Lakhpat and legal
heirs of Dalpat, namely, Prasadi, Udai Singh and Jai Singh relinquishing
their share in the disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup Kataria are
forged ? If so, to what extent.
B. If the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of Chaman Singh, whether
he is still not entitled to any compensation for the reason that those
documents did not in law convey any right or title in respect of the
disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup Kataria?
C. Whether appellant Prasadi had executed any assignment deed in
respect of his 1/6th share in favour of late Sh. Lakhpat, as is beingLAC No.32/16 Page No.11 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
claimed by his legal heirs?; And further, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi, vide a consent and common Order, dated 30.11.2010, disposed off
all the four appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment & decree, as
above, while remanding back the matter to the trial Court/this Court for a
fresh decision, on the issues already, framed as well as the aforesaid
additional issues with the direction that the trial Court shall permit the
parties to adduce further evidence, if they so desire. Further, Union of
India was also granted liberty to urge before the trial Court that it is not
liable to pay any interest for the period, during which the proceedings had
adjourned/remained sine die and parties were directed to appear before
the trial court on 14.01.2011 at 2.00pm with further direction to the trial
Court to conclude the fresh trial by 31.12.2011.
17. On 14.01.2011, none had appeared before the Court on behalf of any of
the parties, when the matter was received back from the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, the then
ADJ-II, North, Delhi had combined all the issues, framed on 22.05.2007, as
well as on 30.11.2010, as under :-
1. What are the rights, title or interest in the petitioners in respect of the land
bearing khasra numbers as per the statement U/s 19 of the LA Act which is
in question ? Onus on parties.
2. What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance
of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act ? Onus on parties.
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement in compensation, if
any, to what amount ? OPP.
4. Whether the documents allegedly executed by late Lakhpat and legal heirs
of Dalpat, namely, Prasadi, Udai Singh and Jai Singh relinquishing their
share in the disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup Kataria are forged ? If
so, to what extent.
LAC No.32/16 Page No.12 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
5. If the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of Chaman Singh, whether he is
still not entitled to any compensation for the reason that those documents did
not in law convey any right or title in respect of the disputed land in favour
of Ram Swarup Kataria?
6. Whether appellant Prasadi had executed any assignment deed in respect of
his 1/6th share in favour of late Sh. Lakhpat, as is being claimed by his legal
heirs?
7. Relief; And adjourned the matter for appearance of the parties on
19.02.2011, on which date none had appeared and the court notices were
ordered to be issued to the parties/respective Counsels, for 23.04.2011. On
23.04.2011, Ld. Counsel Sh. Inder Singh for petitioner Sh. Chaman Singh,
also Ms. Neelam Shoker, Ld. Counsel for petitioners, namely, Sh. Jai Singh
and Sh. Udai Singh, had appeared and submitted before the Court that the
matter pertains to East District and they intended for moving joint
application for transfer of the matter to East District and accordingly, the
matter was listed for 28.05.2011 for further proceedings, on which date, no
such application was found to have had been moved and the matter was
again listed for 06.08.2011. On 06.08.2011, Sh. M.P.S.Kasana, Ld. Counsel
for the petitioner and Sh. Anil Kumar, grand son of the respondent had
appeared before the Court and had submitted that other two connected
matters were/are pending before the Ld. Court of Sh. P.K.Mattoo, the then
ADJ, Kakardooma Courts, Delhi and all three matters shall be decided by
the common order and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had also remanded
back three cases with common judgment and therefore, it was sought that the
present matter may also be transferred to the said Ld. Court of Sh.
P.K.Mattoo, and accordingly, the then Ld. Court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav
ordered the placing of the file before the then Ld. District Judge, thereafter,
vide Order, dated 18.08.2011, passed by the then Ld. District Judge, North,
LAC No.32/16 Page No.13 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
Delhi, the present matter was transferred before the Court of Ld. District
Judge, East for appropriate orders, and accordingly, the present matter was
marked before the Ld. Court of Sh. Pawan Kumar Mattoo, the then
Additional District Judge-03, East, KKD Courts, Delhi and the said Court
listed the matter for evidence of the parties, in accordance with the Orders of
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
18. On 09.11.2011, Sh. Khajan Singh, S/o Late Sh. Lakhpat, again,
examined, himself, as P1W1, who had tendered his evidentiary affidavit, as
Ex.P1W1/A, also identifying his signatures thereupon at points B&C. He has
further relied upon the documents, i.e., photocopy of the judgment, dated
30.11.1993, passed by Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.511 of 1993, titled as
Rattan Lal & Ors. v. UOI, as Ex.P1W1/1; Copy of the cheque No.430950,
dated 13.01.1995, as Mark-PX; Original certificate issued by the Bank
Manager, SBI, Kondli, Delhi, as Ex.P1W1/2; Original Assignment Deed,
executed on 17.01.1995, as Ex.P1W1/3; Original Will, as Ex.PW1/4;
Original death certificate of Sh. Lakhpat Singh, as Ex.P1W1/5; and
Photocopy of the payment report issued by the LAC, as Ex.P1W1/6. He was,
duly, cross-examined at length on behalf of the petitioner No.2, i.e., Prashadi,
also petitioner No.5, i.e., Chaman Singh, on 19.11.2011, 24.11.2011,
03.12.2011 & 17.02.2012.
19. On 24.03.2012, Sh. Jai Singh, S/o Late Sh. Dalpat, again, examined,
himself, as P4W1, who had tendered his evidentiary affidavit, as
Ex.P4W1/A, also identifying his signatures thereupon at points A to D. He
has relied upon the judgment, Ex.PW1/1. He has been, partly, cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel Sh. Inder Singh and till date, his remaining cross-
examination has not been done/completed, therefore, this testimony cannot
be considered in evidence and without the completion of cross-examination,
is not readable, as such.
LAC No.32/16 Page No.14 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
20. On 02.09.2013, Sh. Prasadi, S/o Late Sh. Dalpat, i.e., petitioner No.2,
again, examined, himself, as P2W1, who had tendered his evidentiary
affidavit, as Ex.P2W1/A, also identifying his signatures thereupon, at points
A&B. He has relied upon the judgment, already, Ex.PW1/A. He has been,
duly, cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner No.1 and opportunity to
cross-examine this witness was done ‘Nil’, as Sh. D.K.Sharma, Ld. Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the petitioners No.3&4 stated that he did not want to
cross-examine this witness, however, further cross-examination of this
witness was deferred on the request of the Proxy Counsel for the petitioner
No.5 and till date, the said witness could not be further cross-examined,
therefore, this testimony cannot be considered in evidence and without the
completion of cross-examination, is not readable, as such.
21. On 09.01.2015, Sh. Udai Singh and Sh. Jai Singh, had made a statement
before the Court that they have settled their disputes in respect of Khasra
Nos. 475/393 (6-0), & 476/393(5-17), of Village Dallupura with the
petitioner No.5, namely, Sh. Chaman Singh and as per settlement arrived
between them, they had relinquished their rights in the above Khasras in
favour of the petitioner No.5, and as such, they have no right, title or interests
in the amount of compensation in the said land and petitioner No.5 would be
entitled to get compensation in the said land of their shares. Similarly, on the
said date, petitioner No.5 Sh. Chaman Singh had made a statement before the
Court to the effect that he has settled the disputes in respect of Khasra
No.475/393(6-0), 476/393(5-17), of Village Dallupura with the petitioners
No.3&4, namely Sh. Uday Singh and Sh. Jai Singh and as per settlement,
petitioners No.3&4 had relinquished their rights in the above Khasras in his
favour.
22. Vide Order, dated 27.11.2015, an application U/o 22, rule 3, CPC, to bring
on record the LRs of late Sh. Udai Singh was allowed and the LRs were
LAC No.32/16 Page No.15 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
brought on record.
23. On 27.05.2017, no objection certificates were also filed on behalf of the
legal heirs/all three daughters of late Sh. Hukam Singh, namely, Smt. Rajwati
@ Rajesh, Smt. Munesh, Smt. Giyanwati, and his wife, namely, Smt.
Baleshwari, to the effect that late Sh. Hukam Singh had executed a Will,
dated 22.03.2013, in favour of his three sons, namely, Sh. Raj Kumar, Sh.
Raj Pal and Sh. Satish, thereby bequeathing all his movable/immovable
properties, also right to claim compensation in respect of the land acquired by
the DDA.
24. On 15.12.2023, Sh. Chaman Singh, S/o Late Sh. Jai Chand, i.e. petitioner
No.5, examined, himself, as P5W1, who had tendered his evidentiary
affidavit, as Ex.P5W1/A, also identifying his signatures thereupon, at points
A&B. He has relied upon the documents, i.e., Certified copy of the
Assignment Deed, dated 19.10.1993, as Ex.P5/1; Certified copy of the
Declaration, dated 18.09.1995, as Ex.P5/2; Certified copy of the payment
certificate, issued by the LAC, dated 15.03.1995, as Ex.P5/3; Certified copy
of the complete payment record in respect of the land in dispute, as Ex.P5/4;
Certified copy of the complete documents relating to payment of Khasra
No.475/393,(6-0), & 476/393,(5-17), as Ex.P5/5; Certified copy of Order,
dated 03.05.2007, as Ex.P5/6; Certified copy/(s) of affidavit/(s) of Sh.
Lakhpat, Sh. Prashadi, Sh. Udai Singh & Sh. Jai Singh, as Ex.P5/7 to
Ex.P5/10, respectively; And Certified copy of judgment, reported as 2004
VIII AD (SC) 81, dated 03.08.2004, as Ex.P5/11 and his cross-examination
was deferred at the request of the Ld. Counsels for the respondents, however,
same could not be completed, till date, therefore, this testimony cannot be
considered in evidence and without the completion of cross-examination, is
not readable, as such.
25. Vide Order, dated 10.05.2024, the evidence of petitioner No.1 was closed
LAC No.32/16 Page No.16 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
on the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the LRs of the petitioner
No.1.
26. Vide Order, dated 28.02.2025, the application U/o 22, rule 3, CPC, filed by
the LRs of deceased Sh. Khazan Singh, namely, Smt. Saroj, Sh. Pawan, Sh.
Pradeep and Smt. Beauty Baisoya was allowed and they were substituted in
place of deceased Sh. Khazan Singh.
27. Vide Order, dated 28.03.2025, an application U/o 22, rule 10, CPC, filed by
the applicant, namely Mr. Aman @ Aman Choudhary, S/o Sh. Chaman
Choudhary & Mr. Sahil, S/o Sh. Mahipal, seeking their substitution in place
of petitioner No.4, Sh. Jai Singh, was also allowed and they were allowed to
be substituted in place of the original petitioner No.4 Sh. Jai Singh and
thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing final arguments, as all the three
Ld. Counsels, present, were ad-idem that the matter be fixed for hearing final
arguments, as only legal issues were, now, to be decided. Even, in the related
matter, i.e., LAC No.48/16, titled as Ram Swaroop Kataria v. Union of India,
the same course of action was suggested, as the present Reference Petition is
the main Petition.
28. On 25.04.2025, Sh. Inder Singh, Ld. Counsel had submitted that even after
remand of the matter by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, no material
evidence has been led on record by the contesting parties and thus, the Court
has to pronounce the judgment keeping in view the legal position only, in this
regard, therefore, there is no other course available, except to fall back and
rely upon the readable evidence of the parties, recorded earlier and even Sh.
M.P.S.Kasana, also agreed that the matter can be decided, as only legal issues
remained to be adjudicated upon. However, Sh. Satish Sharma, made a
submission that the Union of India should not be encumbered with the
untenable claim of interest on account of inter-se dispute between the IPs
concerned, i.e., the LRs of the deceased IP No.1, namely, Sh. Lakhpat and
LAC No.32/16 Page No.17 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
also, IP No.6 Sh. Chaman Singh.
29. Further, this Court drew the attention of the Ld. Counsels for the parties,
present, to the additional issues framed by the Ld. Appellate Court, vide its
Order, dated 30.11.2010, reading as under :-
“A. Whether the documents allegedly executed by late Lakhpat and legal
heirs of Dalpat, namely, Prasadi, Udai Singh and Jai Singh relinquishing
their share in the disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup Kataria are
forged ? If so, to what extent.”
“B. If the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of ‘ Chaman Singh’, whether he
is still not entitled to any compensation for the reason that those
documents did not in law convey any right or title in respect of the
disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup Kataria? “; to which, Ld. Counsel
for the parties, present, submitted on that day, that the issue No. B. need
re-framing, meaningfully, when it reads the name of ‘ Chaman Singh’, so as to
be capable of being decided, and they further submitted that in keeping
with the powers given and available to this Court, these issue, now,
exclusively, fall within the domain / authority of this Court, which may
amend and strike out issues, anytime before passing a decree on such
terms, as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues, as
may be necessary, for determining the matters in controversy between the
parties shall be so made, or framed. They also submit that this Court may
also, at anytime before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear
to it to be wrongly framed or introduced, under the provisions of Order
14, Rule 5, CPC.
30. I have, carefully, considered the submissions, made, as above, and pre-
emptively, note that there is a vast difference between the issues, framed
by the Court, trying the matter, itself, and the issues framed by the Ld.
LAC No.32/16 Page No.18 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
Appellate Court. However, if the word ‘ Chaman Singh’ is still to be read as
such, then, the issue would become, somewhat, incoherent and may not be
capable of being decided, reading it as such, literally, and as such, it, now,
falls within the domain of this Court to read it, meaningfully, while not
changing its contour and colour even, slightly, and taking cue from the
issue No. A., framed by the Ld. Appellate Court, which mandates to probe
as to, “whether the documents allegedly executed by late Lakhpat and
legal heirs of Dalpat, namely, Prasadi, Udai Singh and Jai Singh
relinquishing their share in the disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup
Kataria are forged ? If so, to what extent. “; And in this scenario, the issue
No. B. should clearly, read, interchangeably, Ram Swaroop Kataria, in the
place of ‘Chaman Singh’ and as such, the issue No. B. had, now, been, re-
framed and the Court will read the same as under :-
B. If the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of Sh. Chaman Singh ( sic :
Sh. Ram Swaroop Kataria), even then, whether the petitioner Sh. Chaman
Singh is still not entitled to any compensation for the reason that those
documents did not in law convey any right or title in respect of the
disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup Kataria? Onus on the parties.;
However, the Court has, still, to see, if it is bestowed with the authority to
re-frame and dwell upon an issue re-framed by the Court, while acting as
Reference Court and different from that, as framed by the Ld. Appellate
Court, as all these three issues were framed by the Ld. Appellate Court,
and it is clear to me that though, this Court, while acting as Reference
Court has no authority to re-frame or strike out any of the issues framed
by the L.A.Court, yet, reading them, meaningfully for making them
capable for rendering a decision thereupon is still in the domain and
authority of this Court, therefore, I, hereby, proceed to further delve uponLAC No.32/16 Page No.19 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
in the matter.
31. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record,
carefully, also authorities, relied on, by the Ld. Counsels for the LRs of the
IP No.1, Sh. M.P.S.Kasana, who has relied on, the decisions in, 1) Abhinav
Singh Ravish & Anr., plaintiffs, v. Shri Ramanand & Ors., in CS (OS)
No.223/2023, DOD : 30.12.2024; 2) Ganesh Chand & Ors., petitioner, v.
Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Land & Development
& Anr., Respondent, in W.P.(C) No.81-83/2004, DOD : 26.05.2005, decided
by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi; 3) Murli Prasad Vs Parash Nath Prasad &
Ors AIR 1967 Patna 191 (V 54 C 54); 4) Hans Raj & Anr. Vs The State AIR
1966 Himachal Pradesh 52 (V 53 C 16); 5) Imtiaz Ali Vs Nasim Ahmed AIR
1987 Delhi 36; And 6) Sh.Rajender kakkar & Ors. Vs Delhi Development
Authority 1994 I AD (Delhi) 432, and mounting his challenge on the strength
of these authorities, he has further drawn my attention to the provisos (a) &
(b) of the Section 18, Sub-Section 2 of the LA Act, 1894, for making
submissions, that the Award in the question, bearing No.79/82-83 was passed
on 09.03.1983. However, the alleged predecessor-in-interest of Sh. Chaman
Singh, namely, Sh. R.S.Kataria, in cahoots with Sh. Chaman Singh, and in
pursuance to a deep rooted conspiracy, to grab the valuable land of the
petitioner No.1, got another Reference Petition, bearing LAC No.518/1993,
forwarded in respect of fictitious and non-existent Khasra Nos.475/373, (6-0)
and 476/396,(5-17), which was sent to the then Ld. Court of Sh.
H.R.Malhotra, ADJ, Delhi, on 13.01.1994, which proceedings culminated in
the Decree/Award, passed, therein, dated 28.02.1994, however, when the
decree was to be executed, then, these two unscrupulous persons realized that
their conspiracy was bound to be unearthed and they, perhaps, would not get
any compensation or enhanced compensation from the Office of the Ld.
Land Acquisition Collector, as those fictitious Khasra Numbers had found no
LAC No.32/16 Page No.20 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
mention in the Award No.79/1982-83, passed on 09.03.1983 and therefore,
they stage managed another act of their conspiracy of making a Deed of
Rectification/Declaration before the Office of Sub-Registrar concerned and
then, to incorporate genuine Khasra Nos. 475/393,(6-0) and 476/393,(5-17),
totalling to 11 Biswa, 17 Biswas, and in utter violation of statutory
provisions, the Reference was got forwarded, as late as, in the year 1993,
when, legally, it could have been sent to the Ld. Reference Court, either
within six weeks from the date of passing of the Award, as per time provided
in the proviso (a), or in any case, within six months, as in case of proviso (b)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and for this, he has pressed into service,
the decision mentioned at S. No.2, whereas, first decision at Sr. No.1 has
been pressed into service to contend that no right for seeking enhanced
compensation, or otherwise, transferring, the interest in the immovable
property/land, could have been transferred on the basis of unregistered and
unstamped documents, such as, GPA etc., i.e., the usual documents, being
executed, as per practice. The other four decisions are being relied on, to
contend that the whole proceedings held, earlier before this Court, in respect
of the claim of Sh. R.S.Kataria, through Sh. Chaman Singh, got vitiated, due
to these legal infirmities. On the other hand, the judgment reported in the
case of Ram Kumar & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors., JT 1991 (1) SC 582, has been
relied on, on behalf of the petitioner Sh. Chaman Singh, wherein, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India laid down that the reference had to be sought for the
whole of the land and in that case, in the schedule to the application, some
khasra numbers were/are mentioned specifically and at the end, words used
were etc. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that only those khasra
numbers, which were, specifically, mentioned in the schedule could only be
considered for enhancement of compensation, but, it has been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that once an application is moved for
LAC No.32/16 Page No.21 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
reference, it becomes the duty of the Collector to send full information of the
entire acquired land and thereafter, it is the duty of the Court to decide the
matter in accordance with law. Decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Ld. LAC had
admitted the fact that the khasra numbers have, mistakenly, been, mentioned
in the statement, U/s 19 of the Act and had forwarded the reference U/s 18 of
the Act in the LAC No.518/1993, however, despite the fact that the petitioner
in the LAC No.518/1993, being a Villager, could not verify the exact khasra
numbers at the time of filing of the Reference Petition U/s 18 of the Act, and
as per the provisions of the LA Act, it was/is the duty of the LAC to send the
correct khasra numbers along with other relevant details and documents to
the reference court for its adjudication. Hence, in view of the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court deems it fit that
the right of the petitioner, Sh. R.S.Kataria, through Sh.Chaman Singh, in
LAC No.518/1993, titled R.S.Kataria v. UOI, should not be discarded for
deciding his right in respect of the claim filed, for enhanced compensation,
only on the error/mistake, committed by the Ld. LAC, while forwarding the
wrong khasra numbers to the Reference Court and the Reference Court is
duty bound to decide/answer the Reference, with regard to the correct khasra
numbers, only, in accordance with law and the decisions, relied on, on behalf
of the petitioner No.1, therefore, would not be an impediment to consider the
claim of Sh.R.S.Kataria, through Sh. Chaman Singh and after going through
all the issues, as discussed in paragraph No.17, of this judgment, I am of the
considered view that it would be appropriate & in the fitness of the things to
give findings on the issues framed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, vide
its Order, dated 30.11.2010, as they relate to the execution of the documents,
which have great repercussion for culmination of the findings on the other
three issues, as framed by Order, dated 22.05.2007 and relate to respective
LAC No.32/16 Page No.22 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
rights, title and interest of the petitioners in respect of the land in question,
also market value of the land and enhancement of compensation and it would
be only logical to discuss the findings on the other issues only after giving
findings on the issues, as framed on 30.11.2010, hence, first of all, I would
like to discuss those said three issues, as above and give findings on them.
Accordingly, my issue- wise findings are as under :-
Findings on issues No.4,5&6.
4). Whether the documents allegedly executed by late Lakhpat and legal
heirs of Dalpat, namely, Prasadi, Udai Singh and Jai Singh relinquishing
their share in the disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup Kataria are
forged ? If so, to what extent.
5). If the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of Sh. Chaman Singh/( Sh. Ram
Swaroop Kataria : sic ), even then, whether the petitioner Sh. Chaman Singh
is still not entitled to any compensation for the reason that those documents
did not in law convey any right or title in respect of the disputed land in
favour of Ram Swarup Kataria? Onus on the parties.
6). Whether appellant Prasadi had executed any assignment deed in respect
of his 1/6th share in favour of late Sh. Lakhpat, as is being claimed by his
legal heirs?
32. Since all, three, above mentioned issues are related to execution of
documents by the respective parties/petitioners in favour of each other,
accordingly, they are taken up together for giving findings on them. To prove
these issues, one of the LRs of the deceased petitioner No.1, namely, Sh.
Khazan Singh, also the contesting petitioners No.2,3&4, have examined
themselves, as P1W1, P2W1, P3W1 and P4W1, respectively.
33. It, appears, from the Award in question that the names of the present
LAC No.32/16 Page No.23 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
petitioners No.1 to 4, namely, Sh. Lakhpat, Sh. Parshadi, Sh. Udey Singh and
Sh. Jai Singh, all sons of late Sh. Dalpat, are appearing therein, at S. No.44,
in respect of their land,/(s), bearing Khasras Nos. 164, 165, 178, 188, 307,
308, 329, 330, 337, 425/393, 426/393, 442 & 446, as they had filed their
claims and evidences before the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector, (DS), Delhi,
namely, Sh. Shiv Raj Tyagi, wherein, they had claimed amount of their land
@ Rs.500/- per sq. yards, also damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and after
considering the entire material available with the Ld. LAC, he has passed the
award in question, which is under challenge in the present reference petition.
34. It, further appears, from the Assignment Deed, dated 17.01.1995,
Ex.P1W1/1, that the petitioner No.2, namely, Sh. Prasadi had executed the
said Deed in favour of the petitioner No.1, namely, Sh. Lakhpat, in respect of
his acquired land, having 1/6th share therein in the total area, in the Khasra
Nos. 164(4-19), 165(1-13), 178(4-13), 329min(0-18), 330(2-05), 337(4-01),
475/393(6-00), 476/393(5-17), 446(0-06), 442min(7-02), i.e., total area
measuring, 37 bighas, 14 biswas, and the petitioner No.1 stated, himself, in
the said award, to be the owner of such acquired land, acquired under the
present award in question, bearing No.79/82-83, of village Dallupura and
thus, a reference petition U/s 18 of the Act was stated to be filed for
enhancement of the compensation before the then Ld. Court of Sh.
O.P.Gogne, then ADJ, Delhi, bearing, No. LAC 388/84 (old), M-6/94(New).
As per the said Deed, the petitioner No.2 had sold / transferred all his rights
to recover the compensation amount in the said acquired land for a sum of
Rs.1,10,000/- to the petitioner No.1, who had issued a cheque of
Rs.1,10,000/- bearing No.430950, dated 13.01.1995, of State Bank of India,
B/O : Kondli, Delhi and the petitioner No.2 had admitted the receiving of the
said cheque before the concerned Sub-Registrar-IV Delhi, at the time of the
registration of the said Deed and thus, petitioner No.2 had authorized
LAC No.32/16 Page No.24 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
petitioner No.1 to collect the payment under the award/supplementary award
and also for the enhanced amount of compensation, if granted, by the Courts
concerned, further to apply for an alternative plot/shops in lieu of the
acquired land. The said Deed was, duly, registered before the concerned Sub-
Registrar-IV, Delhi, vide document No.230, in Book No. I, Vol. No.2653, on
pages 100 to 105, on dated 17.01.1995.
35. A Will, dated 15.01.1996, Ex.P1W1/2 was also executed by the petitioner
No.1, namely, Sh. Lakhpat, in favour of his sons/LRs, namely, Sh. Hukam
Singh, Sh. Khazan Singh, Sh. Charan Singh and Sh. Parmal Singh, thereby
bequeathing his all movables and immovable properties including his rights
in the land situated in the Village Dallupura, Shahdara, Delhi, which was
acquired vide Award Nos.79/82-83, 56/81-82 and 2052 of Village Dallupura,
Shahdara, Delhi, by the Government and Sh. Lakhpat had stated that he has
already received part compensation of the said land from the office of Ld.
LAC, Delhi. He further stated that he had filed a reference petition U/s 18 of
the Act and the same is pending disposal before the Ld. Court of ADJ, Delhi,
for determination of real compensation of the said land. He further stated that
he had purchased the said land from the petitioner No.2 Sh. Parshadi, through
a registered Assignment Deed, dated 17.01.1995, as above. It is, further,
stated that these four sons shall be substituted in place of Sh. Lakhpat in any
judicial proceedings. This Will was witnessed by two attesting witnesses Sh.
Inderpal and Sh. Rajkumar.
36. Another certified copy of the Assignment Deed, dated 19.10.1993, is
placed on record, which was executed by Sh. Ram Swaroop Kataria, in
favour of Sh. Chaman Singh, i.e. now, the present petitioner No.6, in the
petition, as it is stated, in the said Deed, that Sh. Kataria was the owner of the
acquired land, area measuring 6 bighas, in Khasra No.475/373 and 5 bighas,
17 biswas, in Khasra No.476/393, situated in the Village Dallupura, Illaqa
LAC No.32/16 Page No.25 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
Shahdara, Delhi and the said land was stated to have been acquired, Vide
Award No.79/82-83 and a petition for enhancement of the compensation was
stated to be filed U/s 18 of the Act vide LAC No.F-13(47)/93/LIT I /DS, and
thus, by executing the said Deed, said Sh. Kataria, had sold/transferred all his
rights in favour of Sh. Chaman Singh/petitioner No.6, for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- through a pay order No.106176, dated 18.10.1993, issued by
Vijaya Bank, B/O : Noida Sector-19, U.P, to recover compensation uptil
higher courts. This Deed was, duly, registered with the office of Sub-
Registrar-IV, Delhi, vide document No.3580, in Book No. I, Vol. No.2535,
on pages 152 to 155, on dated 26.11.1993. A ‘Declaration’, i.e., Ex.P5/2 was
also executed and made by the petitioner No.6 Sh. Chaman Singh, in respect
of correction in Khasras Nos.475/393(6-0), and 476/393(5-17), instead of
475/373(6-0) and 476/396(5-17), which was, duly, registered in the office of
Sub-Registrar, Delhi on 18.09.1995, Vide document No.16010, in Book
No.4, Vol No.3442. Ex.P5/3 i.e. Land Acquisition and Payment Certificate,
dated 15.03.1995 was also placed on record, showing that a compensation to
the tune of Rs.1,63,000/- qua Khasra Nos. 475/393(6-0) and 476/393(5-17),
with regard to acquisition of land under Award No.79/82-83, was also
disbursed by the LAC and the said amount was received by Sh. Ram
Swaroop Kataria. Ex.P5/4, is the details, furnished by the Ld. LAC, East,
Delhi before the then Ld. Court of Sh. Yashwant Kumar, Tis Hazari, Delhi,
with regard to furnishing the correct details of Khasra No.475/373 and
475/396, to which, Ld. LAC submitted in his detailed/reply that these two
Khasras do not exist in the award in question and he has mentioned, at Item
No.266 the correct details of Khasra Nos. as 475/393,min (6-0) and
476/393(5-17), which stand in the name of recorded owner namely, Sh.
Lakhpat, S/o Sh. Tota and further a payment of Rs.78,000/- & Rs.85171.18
was paid to Sh. R.S.Kataria on 27.05.1983, besides, another payment of
LAC No.32/16 Page No.26 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
Rs.7171.87, which was paid to Sh. Lakhpat on 31.05.1983.
37. It, further appears, that Sh. Lakhpat, Sh. Prashadi, Sh. Uday Singh, and
Sh. Jai Singh, i.e., petitioners No.1 to 4 had executed separate affidavit/(s),
i.e., Ex.P5/7 to Ex.P5/10, stating therein that they were owners of their
respective share,/(s), in the land, acquired vide award No.79/82-83. Sh.
Lakhpat had stated that he had executed an agreement with Sh. R.S.Kataria
for sale of the said land and received various sums from Sh. R.S.Kataria and
after deducting Rs.78,000/-, remaining amount of compensation be paid to
him. Sh. Prashadi, Sh. Uday Singh, and Sh. Jai Singh, have stated that they
have no connection with the compensation and Sh. R.S.Kataria is fully
entitled to receive the compensation of the acquired land.
38. Further, copy of the Assignment Deed, for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, dated
25.07.2019, was also executed by the petitioner No.4, namely, Sh. Jai Singh,
in favour of Sh. Aman @ Aman Choudhary and Sh. Sahil, thereby Sh. Jai
Singh had stated that he was the Bhumidar and in possession of the land
bearing Khasra No. 164(4-12), 165(1-3), 178(4-13), 305min(0-18),
329min(0-18), 330(2-5), 337(4-1), total area measuring 19 bighas, 17 biswas
and 16 biswansi, situated at Village Dallupura, Delhi-110096, and the said
land was acquired, vide Award No.79/82-83, by the LAC, (DS), and amount
of compensation was received by Sh. Jai Singh, who had filed a reference
petition U/s 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, which is
pending before this Court for adjudication. Further, Sh. Jai Singh had sold his
1/6th share in the land 3 bigha 3 biswa, 16 Biswansi for a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- to the above said two persons through a cheque, drawn on
Allahabad Bank, B/O : Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, dated 25.07.2019.
Again, Sh. Jai Singh, had relinquished all his rights in favour of the above
two persons qua the above said land to receive enhanced compensation and
for substitution of those two persons in the present reference petition, in his
LAC No.32/16 Page No.27 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
place. This Assignment Deed was also, duly, registered with the office of
Sub-Registrar-VIII, Delhi, vide document No.5094, in Book No.1, Vol.
No.9313, on pages 94 to 98 on dated 27.07.2019.
39. It is, to be noted, here that if a non-testamentary instrument, which
acknowledges the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the
creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right,
title or interest, the same can be done only as per clear and categorical
mandate of the provisions of Section 17 of The Registration Act, 1908, which
reads as under :-
17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.–(1) The following
documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a
district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which,
Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian
Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came
or comes into force, namely:–
(a) XXXXXX;
(b) XXXXXX;
(c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or
payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration,
assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest.
40. Thus, in the light of the above said provisions, i.e., Section 17(1)(c), as
discussed and quoted herein-above, it is clear that the said Assignment
Deed/(s), as discussed above, were registered, as per law, and there is no
infirmity, at all, as the Vendees, therein, were having legal right in their
acquired land, which they had sold/transferred, in favour of the respective
Vendors, through the registered document/(s), which they were vesting with
them at the relevant time and ultimately, the disputed Khasra/land in question
was transferred to Sh. Chaman Singh, i.e. the petitioner No.6, herein.
LAC No.32/16 Page No.28 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
41. It, clearly, emerges from the documents i.e. affidavit/(s), Ex.P-5/7 to
Ex.P-5/10 that the petitioner nos.1 to 4 had transferred their respective rights
of their shares in compensation, pertaining to the land, bearing khasra
nos.476/393 (6-00) & 475/393 min (5-17), situated in the village Dallu Pura,
Delhi to Sh.R.S.Kataria, S/o Sh.Telu Ram Kataria, on the basis of the
aforesaid affidavits, filed before the Ld. LAC, declaring therein that
Sh.R.S.Kataria, shall be solely entitled to receive the shares in compensation
on their behalf in respect of the aforesaid khasra numbers. However, till date,
the petitioner nos.1 to 4, have neither taken any action, nor proved on record
by filing or producing any documentary evidence, except making bald
allegations that Sh.R.S.Kataria had filed a false and fictitious reference U/s
18 of the LA Act, on the one hand. The LRs of late Sh. Lakhpat/petitioner no.
1 are claiming the compensation of 1/6th share of Sh. Parshadi/petitioner no.
2 in respect of the land in question, on the basis of the Assignment deed,
executed by Sh. Parshadi, in favour of Sh. Lakhpat/petitioner no.1, on the
other hand. Furthermore, the LRs of Sh. Lakhpat are claiming that Sh.
Lakhpat had not executed any document, in favour of Sh. R.S. Kataria, in
respect of the land in question. Therefore, the LRs of late Sh. Lakhpat cannot
sail into two boats and further, they cannot take the same plea in
contradictory manner to suit their interest under the present claim/reference.
However, Sh. R.S.Kataria, through Sh. Chaman Singh, has, proved on record
the documents, executed by Sh. Lakhpat and other petitioners in favour of
Sh. R.S.Kataria and as such, the contention made by Sh. Kasana, has, no legs
to stand upon and therefore, cannot be countenanced, at all. Moreover, the
parties have also failed to bring on record any new evidence, in the matter, to
show that the the documents allegedly executed by late Lakhpat and legal
heirs of Dalpat, namely, Prasadi, Udai Singh and Jai Singh relinquishing their
share in the disputed land in favour of Ram Swarup Kataria are forged, in any
LAC No.32/16 Page No.29 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
manner, or came into existence in culmination of any deceit practiced by Sh.
R.S.Kataria, or Sh. Chaman Singh. Thus, from the above, it, clearly, appears
that the petitioners No.1/LRs, petitioners No.2 to 4 had relinquished their
shares in favour of Sh. Ram Swaroop Kataria for a valid consideration and in
this regard, they had placed on record their aforesaid affidavits, i.e., Ex.P5/7
to Ex.P5/10, which have not been discarded, at all, in the evidence, led on
record. Further, the preceding documents were, legally, executed in favour of
Sh. Chaman Singh, by Sh. R.S.Kataria, thereby relinquishing his rights in the
acquired land and as per the said Assignment Deed, dated 19.10.1993, it,
therefore, appears that Sh. Chaman Singh, is, legally, entitled to receive
compensation in respect of the acquired disputed land. Again, petitioner
No.2, Sh. Prasadi, had executed a relinquishment deed, Ex.P1W1/1, in favour
of petitioner No.1, late Sh. Lakhpat, thereby relinquishing his 1/6th share in
the acquired land and in all these no forged document has been utilized by
Sh.R.S.Kataria. Accordingly, issues No.4 to 6 are answered accordingly.
42. Sh. Inder Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners no.4,5&6, namely, Sh.
Aman Chaudhary, Sh. Sahil and Sh. Chaman Singh, respectively, submits
that the IPs No.4&5 are also entitled to their share 1/6th share in the land 3
bighas and 3 biswas, 16 Biswansni in the land bearing Khasra No. 164(4-12),
165(1-3), 178(4-13), 305min(0-18), 329min(0-18), 330(2-5), 337(4-1), total
area measuring 19 bighas and 17 biswas 16 biswansi, situated at Village
Dallupura, Delhi-110096, which was acquired, vide Award No.79/82-83, by
the LAC, (DS), in favour of the above named two persons as the said
payment for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was made by the the above said two
persons to Sh. Jai Singh, besides, Sh. Chaman Singh, who is entitled for his
share in full in the land i.e., Khasra Nos. 475/393 (6-0), & 476/393(5-17), of
Village Dallupura, Delhi and for this, he draws my attention to the Order,
dated 05.11.2007, passed by the Ld. Predecessor Sh. Yashwant Kumar and
LAC No.32/16 Page No.30 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
his further submission is that their claims have been established writ large on
the face of the record, inasmuch as, no new evidence has been led on record
to controvert these claims, which have, already, crystalized in favour of these
IPs on the strength of the evidence, led earlier, in the first round of the
litigation before the remand Order, dated 30.11.2010 and accordingly, now, I,
therefore, have to revert to impart my findings on the other issues and take up
the issue No.1, first, naturally, and logically, in this regard.
Findings on Issue No.1.
1. What are the rights, title or interest in the petitioners in respect of the land
bearing khasra numbers as per the statement U/s 19 of the LA Act which is
in question ? Onus on parties.
43. It, appears, that onus to prove this issue was on the respective petitioners.
LAC, in the statement U/s 19 of the Act has mentioned that the land bearing
khasra Nos. 164(4-19), 165(1-3), 178(4-13), 188(1-7), 307(0-18), 329(0-18),
330(2-5), 337(4-1), 475/393(6-0), 476/393(5-17), 446(0-6), and 442min(7-2),
total measuring 39 bighas, 10 biswas is the extent of the shares of the
petitioners No.1 to 4, situated at Village Dallupura, Delhi. However, there is
a noting on page No.2 of the statement U/s 19 of the Act that there is a stay
Order, dated 23.03.1983 from the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in Civil Writ
Petition No.537/83, titled Smt. Bhag Devi & Ors. v. UOI, against Khasra
Nos. 446(0-6) and 442min(0-10), in respect of the land, situated at Village
Dallupura, Delhi. The LAC has also made another noting on the page no.2 of
the said statement that possession, in respect of khasra nos.188 (1-7) and
307min (0-9) has not been taken over. A further noting was also made on the
said statement that the compensation of khasra no.164 (4-19), 165 (1-13) and
442min, was sent to the Court of Ld. ADJ, Delhi U/Sec. 30-31 of the LA Act.
The Ld. LAC has further mentioned on page no.3 in the statement, U/s 19 of
LAC No.32/16 Page No.31 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
the Act that petitioner nos. 1 to 4 had received the compensation amount, as
mentioned therein. However, there is further noting on page no.3 of the
statement, U/s 19 that an amount of Rs.1,34,781.24p was received by
Sh.R.S.Katari, (sic : Kataria), against item no.266 to 269. Further, an amount
of Rs.4,666.67p was received by Sh.Mehtab Singh against item no.266 to
269 and again, an amount of Rs.14,375/- was received by Sh. Gopal Lal
Mimani against item no.266 to 269.
44. Certain questions with regard to enhanced compensation, as mentioned
in the present reference petition, forwarded by the Ld. LAC, needs to be
adjudicated upon, by putting diligent efforts and in this regard, the Court
needs to examine whether Sh.R.S.Kataria and Sh.Chaman Singh have
succeeded in obtaining the judgment, dated 28.02.1994, passed in LAC
No.518/1993, on the basis of alleged false and fictitious reference U/s 18 of
the Act and further, whether the LRs of Sh.Lakhpat, or Sh.Chaman Singh, are
entitled to receive the enhanced compensation, under the disputed khasra
numbers, as mentioned in the statement U/s 19 of the Act and before dealing
with the aforesaid said aspects, the reference U/s 18 of the Act, which was
forwarded by the Ld. LAC in LAC No.518/1993, titled Sh.Ram Swarup
Kataria, through Sh.Chaman Singh v. UOI, has, been, referred to, by this
Court and in the said matter, Ld. LAC had forwarded the reference of
Sh.R.S.Kataria in respect of khasra nos.475/373 (6-00) & 476/396 (5-17),
total measuring 11 bighas, 17 biswas and during the pendency of the said
reference, an application U/o 22, Rule 10, CPC, was filed, seeking
substitution of Sh.Chaman Singh, in place of Sh.Ram Sarup Kataria, as
Sh.R.S.Kataria had transferred all his rights, in the said land, which is
involved in the aforesaid reference, in favour of Sh.Chaman Singh and the
said reference was allowed by the Ld. Reference Court, of Sh.H.R.Malhotra,
the then Ld.ADJ, Delhi, vide its Order, dated 28.02.1994, passed the
LAC No.32/16 Page No.32 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
judgment in favour of Sh.Chaman Singh in the aforesaid reference bearing
LAC No.518/1993 and thereafter, Sh.Chaman Singh had filed an execution
petition, but Sh.Lakhpat had filed the objections with regard to the payment
and the execution of the said judgment, dated 28.02.1994, which is still
pending. Thereafter, Sh.Chaman Singh had filed an application U/s 151 &
152, CPC in the said LAC No.518/1993 in order to seek correction in the
judgment, dated 28.02.1994 with regard to the correct khasra numbers and to
call a revised statement, U/s 19 of the Act from the Ld. LAC, being a
clerical/bonafide mistake. However, before deciding the applications of
Sh.Lakhpat for stopping of the payment in execution petition and also the
application U/s 151 & 152 CPC, in LAC no.518/1993, the Ld. Court of Sh.
Yashwant Kumar, then ADJ, Delhi, felt it necessary for proper adjudication
of the matter that the original records of Ld. LAC should be produced in the
Court in order to examine as to under what circumstances, the amount of
compensation was received by Sh.Ram Sarup Kataria, pertaining to khasra
no.475/393 min, (6-00) & 476/393 (5-17) and thereupon the Ld. LAC had
filed a report regarding the correct khasra numbers and the name of owner of
the khasra no.475/373 & 476/396 to show that these khasra numbers do not
exist in the Award in question and Ld. LAC vide his separate letter, dated
06.03.2007, forwarded a report with regard to the correct khasra numbers and
the name of the recorded owner and as per the record/Naqsha Muntzamin,
i.e., Lakhpat, S/o Sh.Tota, has, been, shown, as recorded owner against item
no.266, pertaining to land bearing khasra no.475/393 min(6-00) and 476/393
(5-17). It is, further, revealed from the said letter, dated 06.03.2007 that
Rs.78,000/- and Rs.85,171.18 p. was paid to Sh.R.S.Kataria on 27.05.1983
and Rs.7,171.87 p. was paid to Lakhpat on 31.05.1983.
45. It, appears, that vide Order, dated 03.05.2007, passed in LAC No.
M-143/06, pertaining to the aforesaid LAC No.518/1993, wherein the
LAC No.32/16 Page No.33 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
judgment, dated 28.02.1994 was passed, Sh.Chaman Singh and LRs of
Sh.Lakhpat, were given opportunities to lead their evidence, in the present
reference petition, i.e. LAC No. 32/16, (Old No. 26/1/07), in respect of their
respectives claims with regard to the disputed khasra numbers, with further
directions that the application/objection filed by Sh.Lakhpat, for stopping of
the payment and another application filed by Sh.Chaman Singh U/s 151 &
152 CPC, in the connected reference, bearing LAC No. M-143/06
(518/1993), shall be kept in abeyance, till the decision, is made, in the present
reference petition. Accordingly, in the present reference petition, the
application, filed on dated 09.03.2001, by Sh.Chaman Singh, U/o 1, Rule 10,
r/w/Section 151 CPC, was allowed and Sh.Chaman Singh was ordered to be
impleaded, as party, in the present reference petition vide the order of even
date, i.e., 03.05.2007.
46. It, further appears, that in order to prove their claims, all the petitioners,
including Sh.Chaman Singh have filed and led their respective evidence/(s)
in the present reference petition. IP1W1, in his evidentiary affidavit
Ex.IP1W1/P, had deposed that his father Sh.Lakhpat was the
co-owner/Bhumidhar of the land in question and that he had received the
compensation in respect of his half share from Ld. LAC, under protest. It,
appears, that the other petitioners, i.e., petitioners nos.2 to 4, were having
1/6th each share, in the disputed/acquired land, which has been,
categorically, mentioned in the statement U/s 19 of Act. IP1W1 has further
deposed in Ex.IP1W1/P that Sh.Parsadi/ petitioner no.2 had executed an
Assignment Deed, i.e., Ex.IP1W1/1, in favour of his father Sh.Lakhpat, on
17.01.1995, in respect of his entire share, i.e., 1/6th share. Further,
Sh.Lakhpat/petitioner no.1, expired, on 22.08.1996, leaving behind his legal
heirs, i.e., three more brothers and three sisters of P1W1/Sh.Khazan Singh.
The father of P1W1 left a ‘Will’, dated 15.01.1996, thereby, bequeathing his
LAC No.32/16 Page No.34 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
share in favour of his all four sons namely, Sh. Hukam Singh, Sh. Charan
Singh, Sh. Khazan Singh and Sh. Parmal. The daughters of Sh.Lakhpat have,
already, made a statement before the Court admitting the contents of the said
‘Will’ to be correct, and therefore, as per P1W1, all the four sons of
Sh.Lakhpat, are entitled to 1/4th each share, in place of ½ share of
Sh.Lakhpat and 1/6th share in place of Sh.Parsadi on the basis of the
aforesaid ‘Will’, executed by late Sh.Lakhpat and furhter, an Assignment
Deed, executed by Sh.Parsadi. The original ‘Will’ executed by late
Sh.Lakhpat has been exhibited as Ex.P1W1/2 and death certificate of late
Sh.Lakhpat has been exhibited as Ex.P1W1/3.
47. It is, further, deposed by P1W1 in his evidentiary affidavit that late
Sh.Lakhpat and Sh.Parsadi during their life time had borrowed an amount of
Rs.78,000/- and Rs.85,171/- from Sh.R.S.Kataria, in order to meet their
agricultural requirements and the said amount had been returned to
Sh.R.S.Kataria, by Sh.Lakhpat and Sh.Parsadi, from the amount of their
compensation and as per P1W1, the payments/returns were made to
Sh.R.S.Kataria and is mentioned, at Sr.No.266/269, of the payment report,
filed by Ld. LAC and further, the payment of loan amount was only released
to Sh.R.S.Kataria by the Ld. LAC on the instructions/directions, made by
Sh.Lakhpat, also by Sh.Parsadi, and even otherwise, compensation was to be
assessed by the Ld. LAC in the name of Sh.Lakhpat and other co-owners, but
not in the name of any other person/(s), or in the name of Sh.R.S.Kataria. A
copy of the payment report has also been exhibited, as Ex.P1W1/4, in
Ex.P1W1/P.
48. It is, further, deposed by P1W1 that one Sh. Chaman Singh had got
executed a forged and fabricated Assignment Deed from Sh.R.S.Kataria, in
respect of fictitious khasra numbers, which were not found in the revenue
record, or in the record of the acquired land under the Award in question. It is
LAC No.32/16 Page No.35 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
further deposed that similarly, Sh.R.S.Kataria, had also filed a false and
frivolous reference petition U/s 18 of the Act, on the basis of same fictitious
khasra numbers, for which Assignment Deed, was executed, and thus,
Sh.R.S.Kataria was not having any right, title or interest in the acquired land,
nor Sh.Chaman Singh, has any right, or authority, to file any reference
petition and moreover, the said land was a joint khata and no sale proceed
can take place without the consent of all the co-owner. It is, also, deposed
that on the basis of the above false and fictitious reference & Assignment
Deed, by Sh.R.S.Kataria and Sh.Chaman Singh, they had succeeded in
getting the judgment, dated 28.02.1994, in the Reference Petition, bearing
LAC No.518/1993.
49. Sh. Udai Singh, i.e., the original petitioner no.3, in his evidentiary affidavit,
had deposed that he had not sold any land, as claimed in the reference
petition to any person, or to Sh.R.S.Kataria, and the documents Ex.P5/9, i.e.,
affidavit, dated 13.04.1983, is forged and fabricated document.
50. Sh. Jai Singh, i.e., the original petitioner no.4, had examined, himself, as
Ex.P4W1 and had deposed on the same lines, as that of the original petitioner
no.3/P3W1, as above, in his evidentiary affidavit.
51. Sh.Chaman Singh, i.e., the petitioner no.6, in support of his claim, has relied
upon the documents, i.e., Ex.P-5/1 to Ex.P-5/11, as discussed above.
52. It, also appears, that the petitioner no.6/Sh.Chaman Singh, has, been,
claiming compensation for the land bearing khasra nos.475/393 (6-00) &
476/393 (5-17) and was impleaded as a party in the present reference, has
also relied upon the certified copy of the affidavit of Sh.Lakhpat, dated
07.05.1983, filed by the Ld. LAC, in the award file of Award no.79/1982-83,
which is Ex.P-5/7. Perusal of the Affidavit, i.e., Ex.P-5/7 shows that
Sh.Lakhpat was the owner of the ½ share of the land, comprising in khasra
no.476/393 & 475/393 min, total measuring 11 bighas, 17 biswas, situated in
LAC No.32/16 Page No.36 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
village Dallu Pura, Delhi which has been acquired vide Award no.79/1982-
83, dated 09.03.1983. Sh.Lakhpat, has, specifically, mentioned in the said
Affidavit, i.e., Ex.P-5/7 that he had entered into an Agreement with
Sh.R.S.Kataria, S/o Sh.Telu Ram Kataria, for sale of his above stated land
and at the time of the acquisition of the land, Sh.Lakhpat had received a sum
of Rs.7,000/- and then on 05.02.1982, he received another sum of
Rs.45,000/- through a cheque, he also received sum of Rs.26,000/- at a later
stage after deducting the aforementioned amount of Rs.78,000/-, which may
be paid to Sh.R.S.Kataria and the remaining amount of compensation be paid
to him. Ex.P-5/8, is also an Affidavit, filed by Sh.Parsadi/petitioner no.2 and
son of Sh.Lakhpat before Ld. LAC, who had stated in the Ex.P-5/8 that he
was one of the owners/co-bhumidars of 1/6th land in khasra no. 475/393 min
(6-00) and 476/393 (5-17), situated in the Village Dallu Pura, Delhi.
Sh.Parshadi, in his Affidavit, has, further stated that he had sold his 1/6th
share in the said land in full to Sh.R.S.Kataria, S/o Sh.Telu Ram, R/o B-61,
Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi and had received the sale consideration
in full and final settlement according to the Agreement to Sell. Sh.Parshadi
had also stated in Ex.P-5/8 that he had no connection in any case with any of
the award of his land acquired in the Award in question and, now,
Sh.R.S.Kataria, is fully entitled to receive the amount of compensation in
respect of the acquired land and the same be paid to Sh.R.S.Kataria. Sh.Udai
Singh/petitioner no.3 and Sh.Jai Singh/ petitioner no.4 have also deposed on
the similar lines in their respective Affidavits, i.e., Ex.P-5/9 and Ex.P-5/10,
as that of Sh.Parshadi in Ex.P-5/8. Therefore, it, clearly, emerges from the
aforesaid documents i.e. Ex.P-5/7 to Ex.P-5/10 that the petitioner nos.1 to 4
had transferred their respective rights of their shares in the disputed land in
question, i.e., khasra nos.476/393 (6-00) & 475/393 min (5-17), situated in
Village Dallu Pura, Delhi to Sh.R.S.Kataria S/o Sh.Telu Ram Kataria, with
LAC No.32/16 Page No.37 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
regard to compensation. on the basis of their affidavits, filed before the Ld.
LAC, declaring therein that Sh.R.S.Kataria shall be entitled to receive the
shares, in compensation, on their behalf, in respect of the aforesaid land,
falling in the above mentioned khasra numbers. However, till date, the
petitioner nos.1 to 4, have neither taken any action by filing any complaint or
ottherwise against Sh.R.S.Kataria, nor, proved on record anything contrary
by showing / filing / submitting any documentary evidence, in this regard,
except leveling/making allegations that Sh.R.S.Kataria, had filed a false and
fictitious Reference U/s 18 of the Act. On the one hand, the LRs of late Sh.
Lakhpat/petitioner no. 1, are, claiming compensation in respect of the 1/6th
share of Sh. Parshadi/petitioner no. 2, qua the land in question, on the basis
of the Assignment Deed, executed by Sh. Parshadi in favour of Sh.
Lakhpat/petitioner no. 1. On the other hand, the LRs of late Sh. Lakhpat are
claiming that Sh. Lakhpat had not executed any document in favour of Sh.
R.S. Kataria in respect of the land in question and no explanation is
forthcoming, in this regard, from the side of LRs of late Sh. Lakhpat and
thus, it appears, that the LRs of late Sh. Lakhpat cannot sail in two boats at
the same time and blow hot and cold in the same breath and further cannot
take the same plea/(s) in diametrically opposite manner for furthering their
interest in the claim. However, Sh. R.S.Kataria, through Sh. Chaman Singh
had proved on record the documents executed by Sh. Lakhpat and other
petitioners in favour of Sh. R.S.Kataria.
53. From the perusal of Ex.P-5/1, i.e., the certified copy of the Assignment
Deed, dated 19.10.1993, executed by Sh.Ram Sarup Kataria, it appears, that
Sh.R.S.Kataria had transferred his rights in respect of khasra nos.475/373 (6-
00) and 476/396 (5-17), situated in the Village Dallu Pura, Delhi, in favour of
Sh.Chaman Singh and when the petitioner no.6/Sh. Chaman Singh came to
know that wrong khasra numbers have been forwarded by the LAC in LAC
LAC No.32/16 Page No.38 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
No.518/1993, titled R.S.Kataria through Sh.Chaman Singh Vs UOI, a
registered declaration was made by the petitioner no.6/Sh. Chaman Singh, on
18.09.1995 that the actual and correct khasra numbers are 475/393 (6-00) &
476/393 (5-17), instead of 475/373 (6-00) & 476/396 (5-17), the certified
copy of the said Declaration is placed on record, as Ex.P-5/2. The petitioner
no.6/Sh. Chaman Singh, in support of his claim, had also filed the certified
copy of Payment Certificate, dated 15.03.1995, issued by the Ld. LAC,
which is Ex.P-5/3. The perusal of Ex.P-5/3 reveals that Sh.Ram Sarup
Kataria, S/o Sh.Telu Ram, R/o village Dallu Pura, Delhi was paid
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,63,000/-, vide Award No.79/1982-83, on
25.05.1983, qua his land bearing khasra nos.475/393 (6-00) full share and
476/393 (5-17) full share, meaning thereby, the petitioner no.6/Sh.Chaman
Singh, became entitled, to receive compensation, in respect of the land
bearing khasra nos.475/393 (6-00) & 476/393 min (5-17), situated at Village
Dallu Pura, New Delhi and accordingly, the judgments, relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioners, except petitioner no.6/Sh. Chaman Singh, in
Abhinav Singh Ravish & Anr., plaintiffs, v. Shri Ramanand & Ors., in CS
(OS) No.223/2023, DOD : 30.12.2024; Ganesh Chand & Ors., petitioner, v.
Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Land & Development
& Anr., Respondent, in W.P.C(C) No.81-83/2004, DOD : 26.05.2005,
decided by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi; Murli Prasad Vs Parash Nath
Prasad & Ors AIR 1967 Patna 191 (V 54 C 54); Hans Raj & Anr. Vs The
State AIR 1966 Himachal Pradesh 52 (V 53 C 16); Imtiaz Ali Vs Nasim
Ahmed AIR 1987 Delhi 36; And Sh.Rajender kakkar & Ors. Vs Delhi
Development Authority 1994 I AD (Delhi) 432, are not, therefore, applicable
to the facts & circumstances of the present reference.
54. It, further appears, that Sh. Khazan Singh, S/o Sh.Lakhpat/petitioner no.1,
had examined himself, as P1W1, who claimed that he/P1W1 along with his
LAC No.32/16 Page No.39 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
three brothers, are entitled to 1/4th share each, in place of 1/2 share and 1/6th
share in place of petitioner no.2/Sh.Parsadi, on the basis of ‘Will’, executed
by his father; Also Assignment Deed, executed by late Sh.Parsadi in favour
of father of P1W1. The original ‘Will’, has been proved on record, as
Ex.P1W1/2. Smt.Parmali, Smt.Kiran, Smt.Veerbati, all daughters of late
Sh.Lakhpat, Smt.Phoolwati, widow of Sh.Lakhpat and Sh.Virendra, S/o
Sh.Rattan Singh, predeceased son of Smt.Jagmali, had deposed before the
Ld. Predecessor of this Court that Sh. Lakhpat had expired on 22.08.1996
and during his life time, Sh. Lakhpat had executed a ‘Will’, dated 15.01.1996
in favour of his all four sons, namely, Sh.Hukam Singh, Khazan Singh,
Charan Singh and Parmal Singh, and therefore, the aforementioned other
persons had relinquished their shares, in respect of compensation, in favour
of above said four sons, as per the said ‘Will’. The original Will’, dated
15.01.1996, has been proved on record by the P1W1, as Ex.P1W1/2. Original
Assignment Deed, dated 17.01.1995, has also been proved on record by
P1W1, as Ex. P1W1/1, which had been executed by Sh.Parsadi/petitioner
no.2, in favour of Sh.Lakhpat, whereby Sh.Parshadi had sold/transferred the
compensation-rights of his 1/6th share of the land in question in favour of
Sh.Lakhpat/petitioner no.1. Sh.Parshadi/petitioner no.2 had appeared and
deposed before the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on dated 29.11.1999 that his
brother alongwith his sons got his thumb impression, affixed on some papers,
on the plea that they would obtain compensation on his behalf and would
give it to him. The petitioner no. 2 further deposed that compensation be not
paid to them and it be paid to him because fraud had been played on him.
After the aforesaid statement of petitioner no. 2, recorded, on 29.11.1999, Sh.
Parshadi was summoned as a witness, but he had not appeared before the
Court, despite due service of summons. However, Sh. V.M. Sharma, Ld.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner no. 2 made a submission before the
LAC No.32/16 Page No.40 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
Court on 09.03.2001, that Sh. Parshadi/witness, being old could not come,
therefore, the said Counsel undertook that he would produce him on the next
date of hearing, but thereafter petitioner no. 2 has not appeared in the
proceedings of this reference.
55. Perusal of the record further reveals that photocopy of the cheque no.
430950, dated 13.01.1995, issued in favour of Sh. Parshadi/petitioner no. 2
for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- alongwith the Certificate, issued by Manager of
State Bank of India, Kondli, Delhi, certifying and confirming the aforesaid
payment in the name of Sh. Parshadi, had, also been, filed on record,
meaning thereby, the petitioner no. 2 had transferred his 1/6th share of his
land in question in favour of Sh.Lakhpat/ petitioner no.1. The petitioner no. 2
has neither led any evidence, nor rebutted the evidence of the petitioner no. 1
to prove on record that no such documents, i.e., Assignment Deed & Cheque,
were ever executed and issued, for transferring of his rights in 1/6th share of
Sh. Parshadi in favour of Sh. Lakhpat. Thus, it, appears that nothing has
come on record, on behalf of petitioner no. 2/Sh. Parshadi that thumb
impression of Sh. Parshadi was obtained on the said Assignment deed by
playing fraud upon him, on the other hand, the LRs of late Sh. Lakhpat have
proved on record that the said Assignment deed, was, duly, registered before
the Office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi on 17.01.1995, on the other. Meaning
thereby, Sh. Parshadi/petitioner no. 2 had transferred his 1/6th share in
respect of the land in question in favour of petitioner no.1/Sh. Lakhpat, after
receiving the consideration amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-, therefore, the LRs of
Sh. Parshadi are not entitled to receive the enhanced compensation, if any,
awarded by the Reference Court. Accordingly, this Court holds that the LRs,
namely, Sh.Khazan Singh, Sh. Hukam Singh, Sh. Charan Singh & Sh.
Parmal of late Sh. Lakhpat are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation
to the extent of 1/4th share each on behalf of the share of late Sh. Lakhpat
LAC No.32/16 Page No.41 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
and 1/6th share on behalf of Sh. Parshadi in respect of land in question except
khasra numbers 475/393 (6-00) & 476/393 (5-17). This Court further holds
that Sh.Chaman Singh/petitioner no.6 is also entitled to receive enhanced
compensation, if awarded by the Reference Court, for the land bearing khasra
nos.475/393 (6-00) & 476/393 (5-17), situated at Village Dallu Pura, New
Delhi. So far as the other khasra numbers i.e. 446 (0-6), 442 min (0-10), 164
(4-19), 165 (1-13) & 442 min are concerned, the petitioners shall not be
entitled to any enhancement in compensation, in view of the dispute pending
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the District Court.
56. It is, also, to be noted that no objection certificates were also filed on behalf
of the legal heirs/all three daughters of late Sh. Hukam Singh, namely, Smt.
Rajwati @ Rajesh, Smt. Munesh, Smt. Gyanwati, and his wife, namely, Smt.
Baleshwari, before the Court on 27.05.2017, to the effect that late Sh. Hukam
Singh, i.e., one of the legal heirs of last Sh. Lakhphat, had executed a Will,
dated 22.03.2013, in favour of his three sons, namely, Sh. Raj Kumar, Sh.
Raj Pal and Sh. Satish, thereby bequeathing all his movable/immovable
properties, also right to claim compensation in respect of the land acquired by
the DDA and thus, the LRs of late Sh. Hukam Singh of deceased petitioner
No.1, are also entitled to receive compensation, as per their shares.
57. Further, it is, again, to be noted that Sh. Udai Singh and Sh. Jai Singh, had
made a statement before the Court on 09.01.2015 that they had settled their
disputes in respect of Khasra No.s 475/393 (6-0), & 476/393(5-17), of
Village Dallupura with the petitioner No.6, namely, Sh. Chaman Singh and
as per settlement arrived between them, they had relinquished their rights in
the above Khasras in favour of the petitioner No.6, and as such, they have no
right, title or interests in the amount of compensation in the said land and
petitioner No.6 would be entitled to get compensation in the said land of their
shares. Similarly, on the said date, petitioner No.6 Sh. Chaman Singh had
LAC No.32/16 Page No.42 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
made a statement before the Court to the effect that he has settled the
disputes in respect of Khasra No.475/393(6-0), 476/393(5-17), of Village
Dallupura with the petitioners No.3&4, namely Sh. Uday Singh and Sh. Jai
Singh and as per settlement, petitioners No.3&4 had relinquished their rights
in the above Khasras in his favour. It is evident from the record that no new
material evidence has been led on record on behalf of the petitioners and the
evidence, as already led, is relied on by the petitioners. Thus, it is crystal,
clear that the petitioner No.6 Sh. Chaman Singh is entitled to get
compensation in respect of the Khasra Nos. 475/393(6-0), 476/393(5-17), of
Village Dallupura, as the original petitioners, namely, Sh. Uday Singh and
Sh. Jai Singh had left their rights qua the said land in question in favour of
Sh. Chaman Singh and the original petitioners, namely, Sh. Uday Singh and
Sh. Jai Singh have no right to receive compensation in the acquired land in
question.
58. It is, again, noted here that a registered Assignment Deed, for a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/-, dated 25.07.2019, was also executed by the petitioner No.4,
namely, Sh. Jai Singh, in favour of Sh. Aman @ Aman Choudhary and Sh.
Sahil, thereby, the original Petitioner No.4, i.e., Sh. Jai Singh had
relinquished his 1/6th share in the land 3 bighas and 3 biswas, 16 Biswansni
in the land bearing Khasra No. 164(4-12), 165(1-3), 178(4-13), 305min(0-
18), 329min(0-18), 330(2-5), 337(4-1), total area measuring 19 bighas and 17
biswas 16 biswansi, situated at Village Dallupura, Delhi-110096, which was
acquired, vide Award No.79/82-83, by the LAC, (DS), in favour of the above
named two persons and the said payment for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was
made by the the above said two persons to Sh. Jai Singh through a cheque,
drawn on Allahabad Bank, B/O : Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, dated
25.07.2019. Further, Sh. Jai Singh, had relinquished all his rights in favour of
the above two persons qua the above said land to receive enhanced
LAC No.32/16 Page No.43 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
compensation and these two above named persons were substituted, as
petitioners, in place of the original petitioner No.4, Sh. Jai Singh vide Order,
dated 28.03.2025, as they were found necessary and proper party, to the
reference petition. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner No.4 Sh. Aman @ Aman Chaudhary and petitioner No.5 Sh. Sahil
are entitled to receive compensation to the tune of 1/6th share in the land, i.e.,
3 bighas and 3 biswas, 16 Biswansni in the land, bearing Khasra No. 164(4-
12), 165(1-3), 178(4-13), 305min(0-18), 329min(0-18), 330(2-5), 337(4-1),
total area measuring 19 bighas and 17 biswas, situated at Village Dallupura,
Delhi-110096, which was acquired, vide Award No.79/82-83. Hence, the
issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Findings on Issues No.2&3
2. What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance
of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act ? Onus on parties.
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement in compensation, if
any, to what amount ? OPP.
59. Since these issues are inter-connected and I shall decide these issues
together, as they both involve similar discussions The onus to prove the issue
no.2 is on the parties, whereas, onus of proof of issue No.3 are upon the
petitioners. The petitioners have sought enhancement in compensation on the
aforesaid grounds, which need not be repeated, now, for the sake of brevity.
The Counsel for the petitioner no.6/Sh. Chaman Singh has relied upon the
reported judgment, dated 03.08.2004 reported as 2004 viii AD (SC) 81 in
Civil Appeal No.6767/2002 titled as Delhi Development Authority Vs
Baliram Sharma, pertaining to Village Dallupura, Delhi of notification, dated
17.11.1980, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court had fixed the market value @
Rs.76,550/- per bigha, which is Ex.P-5/11, in which the land, situated in
village Dallu Pura, Delhi, was also acquired vide notification, dated
LAC No.32/16 Page No.44 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
17.11.1980, U/s 4 of the LA Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had
determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha, as
on the date of the notification U/s 4 of the Act. The land in question, involved
in the present reference, was also acquired vide same notification, issued on
17.11.1980. Sh. Satish Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondent, i.e., Union of
India, has, submitted, three authorities, i.e., 1) State of Karnataka v.
Laxuman, in Civil Appeal Nos. 2024 and 4459 of 1999, 607-609 and
5547/2000 and 1566 and 1567/2001, DOD : 25.10.2005,
(MANU/SC/2506/2005); 2) Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and Ors.
v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), in SLP (C) No.31248 of 2019, DOD :
08.04.2024, (MANU/SC/0285/2024); And 3) Popat Bahiru Govardhane and
Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos.6976-
6980 of 2013, DOD : 22.08.2013, (MANU/SC/0851/2013). He also draws
my attention to the Order, dated 30.10.2010 of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi, giving the respondents liberty to urge before this Court that it is not
liable to pay any interest for the period during which the proceedings had
remained stayed sine-die. He also has submitted that the land, which is
subject matter of the Award No.79/1982-83, pronounced on 09.03.1983, does
not qualify for the enhanced compensation @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha, as per
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case of DDA v. Bali
Ram Sharma, for the reasons that the IPs, themselves, have claimed
compensation, at a rate, lower than, this rate. On the other hand, Sh. Kasana,
Ld. Counsel for LRs of the petitioner No.1 had submitted that there is no
dispute in respect of the liability of the DDA/UOI with regard to the payment
of interest for the period after the pronouncement of the decision of the Ld.
Reference Court, presided over by Sh. Yashwant Kumar, then, dated
05.11.2007, meaning thereby, that the petitioners, represented by him, would
not claim interest for the period after 05.11.2007. However, Sh. Inder Singh,
LAC No.32/16 Page No.45 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
Ld. Counsel, representing the petitioners No.4,5&6, has, forcefully,
submitted that in view of Section 28 of the Act, these petitioners are entitled
for interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, if granted, and this is a
statutory obligation / liability of the respondents.
60. I have, carefully, considered the submissions, made by the contesting
parties, on this aspect of the matter and the first decision, relied on, by Sh.
Sharma, talks about the limitation period, provided for claiming
compensation, on the strength of Section 12(2), also Section 18(3)(b) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the objections on the ground of
limitation, based on Section 18(3)(b), has, already, been, dealt with by me,
while dwelling on the issues No.4,5&6, ( supra). The second decision, is also,
similar, in lines, whereas, the third decision, is based on the strength of
Section 28-A of the Act. However, it is, to be noted that the petitioners had
claimed compensation @ Rs.500/- per sq. yards, before the Ld. LAC, as
mentioned against S.No.44 of the Award in question. Further, the Order,
passed on 30.10.2010, by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, was a consent
Order, and therein, this aspect of the matter, was neither touched, nor raised,
or dealt with and as such, the Objections, even on the basis of these three
authorities cannot be re-agitated today, when there was no challenge, made to
the rate of enhanced compensation, allowed by the Order, dated 05.11.2007
@ Rs.76,550/-, and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, had remanded the
matter back while framing additional issues, for imparting findings
thereupon, afresh, yet, in view of the nature of the Order, being based on the
consent of the parties, and rate of enhanced compensation, not finding
challenged in the whole body of the Order, dated 30.11.2010, therefore, in
view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as
Ex.P-5/11, I have no hesitation to hold that the market value of the acquired
land in question is also to be fixed @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha, as on the date of
LAC No.32/16 Page No.46 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
notification U/s 4 of the Act. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the
enhanced compensation of the land in question @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha as
on 17.11.1980. Both above issues are answered accordingly.
RELIEF:
61. An earnest plea has been made by Sh. Sharma for disallowing the interest
for the period after and w.e.f., 05.11.2007 and till a decision is rendered by
this Court under the present reference, which has occurred due to inter-se
dispute between the LRs of the petitioner No.1, on the one hand, and the
petitioner No.2, on the other hand, and further, between the LRs of the
petitioner No.1 and Sh. R.S.Kataria, through Sh. Chaman Singh, on the other.
I have, carefully, considered the submissions, made by Sh. Sharma, as well
as, Sh. Kasana, and Sh. Singh, Ld. Counsels for the different contesting
side/(s), and it is, clear, to me that the LRs of the petitioner No.1, i.e.,
deceased Sh. Lakhpat, are not entitled for claiming interest, on the enhanced
compensation after and w.e.f., 05.11.2007 and till the date of this Order, as it
is their legally untenable claim that has resulted in the lingering on the matter
unnecessarily. Even, Sh. Kasana, has, agreed to this proposition to say that
the LRs of the petitioner No.1 would not be aggrieved on this account and in
this view of the matter, the other petitioners are held entitled for the interest
on the amount of enhanced compensation even after and w.e.f., 05.11.2007
and till the date of this Order.
62. In view of my findings on the above issues, the market value of the land
bearing khasra nos.164 (4-19), 165 (1-13), 178 (4-13), 188 (1-07), 307 min
(0-9), 329 min (0-18), 330 (2-5), 337 (4-1), 475/393 (6-0), 476/393 (5-17),
446 (0-6) & 442 min (7-02), total measuring 39 bighas, 10 biswas, situated at
Village Dallu Pura, Delhi, is fixed @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha, as on
17.11.1980. The petitioner no.1/LRs of late Sh. Lakhpat, petitioners No.
4&5, namely, Sh. Aman @ Aman Chaudhary & Sh. Sahil, respectively, i.e.,
LAC No.32/16 Page No.47 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
the Assignees of Sh. Udai Singh, i.e., the original petitioner No.3, also the
petitioner No.6, namely, Sh. Chaman Singh, are entitled to receive enhanced
compensation, in the disputed/acquired land in question, as per their shares,
as mentioned in the statement, U/s 19 of the LA Act, which was forwarded
along with the present Reference, to this Court by the Ld. LAC. It is clarified
that the petitioners are not entitled to the enhanced compensation in respect
of the land bearing khasra numbers i.e. 446 (0-6), 442 min (0-10), 164 (4-19),
165 (1-13) & 442 min, as there is/was a dispute pending before the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi and the District Court, Delhi. Apart from the above, the
aforementioned petitioners No.1/LRs and 4 to 6, are also entitled to get
interest/solatium @ 30% on the enhanced market value and interest on the
enhanced compensation, awarded by this Court, U/s 28 of the Act, @ 9% per
annum, from the date of the Award in question, or dispossession from the
land in question, whichever is earlier, till the expiry of one year, and
thereafter, @ 15% per annum, till the date of payment. Since the Award,
passed by the Ld. LAC, has, been, announced, after 30.04.1982, therefore,
the petitioners No.1/LRs and 4 to 6 are further held to be entitled to get
additional amount of interest @ 12%, U/s 23(1-A), of the Act, as per the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of
K.S.Paripoornan Vs State of Kerela & Ors JT 1994 (6) Supreme Court, page
182. The petitioners are further held to be entitled to interest on solatium &
additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, titled as
Sunder Vs UOI reported in 93 DLT 2001 (SC) 569. The petitioners shall not
be entitled to the enhanced compensation for the disputed land, as mentioned
in the the statement, U/s 19 of the LA Act. It is clarified that the LRs of the
petitioner No.1, i.e., deceased Sh. Lakhpat, are not entitled for any interest,
on the enhanced compensation after and w.e.f., 05.11.2007 and till the date
of this Order. However, the other petitioners No.4 to 6, are entitled for
LAC No.32/16 Page No.48 of 49
Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
DOD : 24.05.2025
interest on the amount of enhanced compensation even after and w.e.f.,
05.11.2007 and till the date of actual payment. The present reference is
answered accordingly.
63. A copy of this Award be sent to the concerned Ld. LAC to make the
payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within
three months from today. It is directed that while making the calculations,
due regard shall be made to deduct the amount, initially, arrived at, by the
Ld. LAC, in order to avoid any double payment. There shall be no order as to
costs. A copy of this judgment be also placed on the record of another case
file, bearing LAC No.48/16, titled as Ram Swaroop Kataria v. Union of
India, for reference and record purposes. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SANATAN SANATAN PRASAD Date: PRASAD 2025.05.24 Announced in the open 15:20:54 +0530 Court on 24.05.2025 ( Sanatan Prasad ) District Judge-02 (East)/KKD/Delhi. LAC No.32/16 Page No.49 of 49 Sh. Lakhpat & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. DOD : 24.05.2025