Delhi District Court
Ms Fountain Head Motels Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 29 March, 2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
DLST010005622012
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh.
LAC No. 138/2016
FILING No. 14112/2012
CNR No. DLST01-000562-2012
In the matter of :-
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd.
The Claremont 559,
M.G. Road, New Delhi-30.
Through
Its Managing Director
Sh. Krishan Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector (South)
M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001. ......Respondents
Reference received on : 05.06.2012
Date of Institution : 02.07.2012
Date on which order was reserved : 05.03.2025
Date of Award : 29.03.2025
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:35:14 +0530
Page 1 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
AWARD BY THE COURT
1. The present reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was received from the office of Land
Acquisition Collector (South) on an application moved by the
petitioner, who has sought enhancement of the monetary award
given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the
assessment of the market value of the acquired land was done on
the lower side without considering the relevant factors for
correctly assessing the market value of the land in question. The
reference was received from the office of LAC (South) on
05.06.2012.
2. For answering the present reference petition, the relevant
dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act: 25.07.2007
(iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act: 08.10.2007
(iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act: 08.10.2007
(iii) For Project: Construction of Arjan Garh Station Qutub
Minar-Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II
(iv) Date of possession taken: 29.01.2008
(v) Location/Name of Village: Aya Nagar
(vi) Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC: 04/2009-10
& date of Award: 06.10.2009
(vii) Market value of land held by LAC: 17,58,400/- per acre
(viii) Date of reference petition to LAC: 10.05.2011
(ix) Petition referred to Court on: 05.06.2012
3. The present reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act
pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:35:24 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 2 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
situated in Village Aya Nagar which was acquired for the public
purpose of ‘Construction of Arjan Garh Station Qutub Minar-
Gurgaon Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II’. The land in
question was acquired by the LAC vide award No. 04/2009-10
dated 06.10.2009 pursuant to preliminary notification under
Section 4 of the Act dated 25.07.2007 which was followed up by
notification under Section 6 of the Act on 08.10.2007.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after
considering the relevant factors gave its Award No.04/2009-10
by determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition
@ 17,58,400/- per acre.
5. Since the petitioners did not accept the award, they
preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act,
1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference
filed by the petitioner along with statement under Section 19 of
the Act, 1894 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition
Collector for answering the same.
6. Reference was forwarded by the LAC with the claim of the
petitioner. As per their claim the petitioner, the claimant is a
company running a Motel by name of Hotel Claremont, which is
a unit of Fountain Head Claremont Pvt. Ltd. The claimant is the
Managing Director of the said Hotel. The claimant approached
Court against the acquisition proceedings with regard to the
abovesaid notification in respect of its land situated in Khasra
No.558/1 measuring 830 Sq. Meter and Khasra No.576
measuring 1105 Sq Meter. It is stated that the Hon’ble High Court
was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 266/2010 of
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:35:29 +0530Page 3 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiathe claimant vide its order dated 12.11.2010 against which the
claimant filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6935/2011
before Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further stated that Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide its order dated 01.04.2011 was pleased to
permit the claimant to file reference before this Hon’ble
Authority.
6.1. The grievance of the claimant is that Ld. Land
Acquisition authority while passing the award in respect of the
said acquisitioned land of claimant against the claimed amount of
Rs.39 Crore, have calculated the claim of claimant and made the
award of Rs.12,49,02,319.57/- at the first instance vide award
no.4/2009 and thereafter a award No.4/2009/10 dated 06.10.2009
was passed against the said land of the claimant to the extent of
Rs.17,59,824.37/- only and both the awards were communicated
to the claimant. The claimant is dissatisfied with the criteria
undertaken by the authority for calculating the compensation
amount with regards to the said land of the claimant, the claimant
is filing the present application under the provisions of the
section 18 of Land Acquisition Act for making the reference to
the Hon’ble Court.
6.2. The claimant purchased the land bearing Khasra
No.558/1 measuring 830 Sq. Mt. and Khasra no.576 measuring
1105 Sq. Mt. situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Aaya
Nagar, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The claimant has obtained
prior permission of MCD to run a Motels from the said land and
consequently the petitioner’s predecessor deposited capital
conversation charges of Rs.31,47,000/- vide receipt dated
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
LAC No. 138/16 2025.03.29
17:35:33 +0530
Page 4 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
24.04.2003. Thereafter the claimant had obtained necessary
permission from the MCD for construction of a Motel building
which was also sanctioned vide letter of sanction dated
25.04.2003. The claimant also deposited compounding fee of
Rs.1,97,000/- vide receipt dated 22.09.2005. The claimant
constructed the motel in the said land and during the
construction, the inspection was carried out by the Assistant
Engineering (Building) of MCD, who in his inspection report
dated 27.07.2004 stated that he has not found any non
compoundable deviation upto plinth level. The MCD also issued
completion certificate in respect of said Motel vide its Certificate
dated 26.9.2005. The claimant was also granted approval by
Ministry of Tourism, Govt. of India for setting up Motel vide its
approval dated 15.2.2006. The Govt. of NCT has given no
objection to run a Motel from the said land vide its letter dated
22.05.2006.
6.3 It is stated that in view of the above permissions and
no objections granted by the authorities for construction and
smooth running of the Motel, the subject land is no more and
agricultural land and especially on accepting the hues amount
towards the free and conversion charges. It is submitted that in
view of the same the said land is only used for the purpose of
running the commercial activities and cannot be used for
agriculture or any related purpose. It is further submitted that the
land of the claimant cannot be treated as an agriculture land and
its user has changed from agriculture to commercial and authority
has charge the claimant for its change of user in the form of hues
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:35:56 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 5 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiaamount of fee. The claimant filed the present reference on the
following other grounds:
(A) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector while passing
the award has not considered that the subject land is a
commercial land and user of the same has been changed by
charging the requisite free by the authority for construction the
Four Star Hotel in the said land.
(B) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector while passing
the award has proceeded entirely on wrong footing that the
subject land is an agriculture land. It is submitted that the basis
which has been taken by the Ld. Collector is also not reasonable
and cannot be accepted in the case of the claimant.
(C) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector while passing
the award has not considered the situation and use of the land and
also the factor that a Four Star Hotel is running in the said land. It
is submitted that the notice u/s 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition
which is said to have be issued to the claimant, has not been
received to the claimant till date.
(D) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector for
determining the compensation has taken the basis of the
notification No.F-9(20)/80/ L&B/LA/6720 dated 30.08.2005 and
assess the said land as an agriculture land whereas the
predecessor of the claimant has already paid the conversion
charge of the said land on 24.04.2003 and thereafter the claimant
has deposited Rs1,97,000/- on 22.09.2005 as a compounding fee
with regards to the said land and presently a four star Hotel is
running in the said land. Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:36:00 +0530LAC No. 138/16
Page 6 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India(E) That he Ld. Land Acquisition Collector for determining
the compensation has to appreciate the fact that required fee has
been paid for commercial use and land is used for the commercial
purpose only and is not being used for the agriculture purpose.
(F) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector has wrong
taken the recourse of the notification for determining the
compensation of the claimant as the same cannot be applied in
the case of the claimant and in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
(G) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector has not
considered that the irreparable loss has been caused to the
claimant as well as to the property as the face of he Whole
property has been changed and he claimant has suffered a huge
financial loss and is still suffering and also will suffer in future.
(H) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector has passed the
meager award with out appreciating the true value of the land and
loss cause to the claimant. The claimant has claimed the
reasonable amount of Rs.39 Crore but the Ld. Land Acquisition
Collector with applying the mind, has passed the award dated
06.10.2009.
(I) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector has passed the
award with out considering the fact that the similarly place
property which have been acquired by the authorities for the
purpose of METRO Rail only, the authority have awarded the
compensation after considering its situation where the said
properties are placed and also its use.
(J) That the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector has passed the
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:36:07 +0530Page 7 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiaaward without considering the fact that the property of the
claimant is being used for commercial purpose and the claimant
is paying the commercial tax in the property. It is submitted that
due to the said acquisition the value of the property of the
claimant have been reduced many times as the parking area have
been reduced and the entrance have been affected.
7. In its written statement, UOI/respondent No.1 opposed the
claim for enhancement in compensation and stated that all the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are wrong and
denied. It is stated that the petitioner has not brought any specific
and cogent evidence on record to claim a higher compensation. It
is also stated that the present reference is barred by limitation;
and that the Land Acquisition Collector had correctly assessed
the market value of the acquired land as on the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Respondent No.l, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present
reference petition.
8. On behalf of the DDA/respondent No.2 in its Written
Statement it is stated that the present reference petition is not
maintainable. It is further stated that LAC had correctly and
adequately assessed the market value of the land in question. It is
further stated that the reference petition is barred by limitation.
Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed.
9. Separate replications have been filed to the written
statements of the respondents, wherein petitioner denied the
allegations made by the respondents and reiterated the facts
stated in the petition. Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:36:12 +0530LAC No. 138/16
Page 8 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
10. Vide order dated 17.05.2016, following issues were framed
by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court:
1) Whether petitioner’s Reference Petition dated
10.05.2011 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act is within prescribed period of limitation? Onus on
parties
2) What was the market value of land acquired, on that
date of preliminary notification dated 25.07.2007 under
Section 4 of the Act 1894 in respect of Award No.
04/2009-10 (dated 06.10.2009) Village Aya Nagar?
Onus on Parties
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced
compensation, if so at what rate and of statutory
benefits? OPP
4) Relief.
11. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. In petitioner’s
evidence, petitioner examined total 10 witnesses. Sh. Krishan
Kumar examined himself as PW1. PW-1 tendered his evidence
by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following
documents:
1. Copy of receipt dated 24.04.2003 issued by the MCD for
conversion charges as Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of sanction letter dated 25.04.2003 issued by the
MCD for construction of Motels as Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of electricity bill dated 05.012007 and property tax
receipt dated 31.03.2006 showing payment made as per
commercial tariff as Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of receipt dated 22.09.2005 issued by MCD for
compounding fees of Rs. 1,97,000/- as Ex.PW1/4.
5. Copy of completion certificate dated 26.09.2005 issued by
the MCD as Ex.PW1/5. Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:36:19
+0530LAC No. 138/16
Page 9 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
6. Copy of letter of approval from Tourism Department
dated 25.02.2006 for setting up a four star category hotel as
Ex.PW1/6.
7. Copy of NOC from Delhi Fire Services (DFS) granted on
22.05.2006 to run a motel as Ex.PW1/7.
8. Copy of certificate/licence from various department with
the permission obtained for running the Motel i.e. Health
Trade Licence, Sale Tax, Central Sales Tax, Luxury Taxes
and Delhi Police as Ex.PW1/8 (colly).
9. Copy of objection filed by the petitioner dated 17.08.2007
before the LAC as Ex.PW1/9 (colly).
10. Copy of first award of LAC dated 09.06.2009, for
Rs.12,49,02,319.57 and second award dated 06.10.2009 for
Rs. 17,59,824.38 as Ex.PW1/10.
11. Copy of valuation report by accurate surveyor obtained
from LAC on 08.03.2016 as Ex.PW1/11.
12. Copy of noting sheet of first award of LAC prepared by
LAC and Chief Data of the Award as Ex. PW1/12 (Colly.).
13. Copy of notification dated 18.07.2007 from revenue
department for circle rate of Delhi as Ex.PW1/13.
14. Copy of Naksha Mutzamin and statement of
compensation as Ex.PW1/14.
15. Copy of gazetted notification dated 26.10.2012 as
Ex.PW1/15.
16. Copy of affidavit in perusal of order dated 14.2.2007 in
respect of Motels filed by Sh. Parimal Rai and Additional
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:36:23 +0530LAC No. 138/16
Page 10 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of IndiaCommissioner, MCD before the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi as Ex.PW1/16.
17. Copy of letter dated 24.11.2006 written by
Superintending Engineer (B) HQ, MCD-II, Sh. R.S. Gupta,
Member Monitoring Committee as Ex.PW1/17.
18. Copy of letter dated 20.11.2006 written by Chief Town
Planner, MCD to Sh. R.S. Gupta, Member Monitoring
Committee as Ex.PW1/18.
19. Copy of letter dated 04.03.2002 written by Ministry of
Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation to Vice
Chairman DDA and Commissioner MCD with the
guidelines of Motels by Govt. of India as Ex.PW1/19.
20. Copy of TOD (Transit Oriented Development) Policy as
Ex.PW1/20.
21. Copy of memorandum of settlement and agreement to
sell purchase between Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd and
Mr. Pradeep Rana for Rs.110 crores as Ex.PW1/21.
22. Copy of form 23 AC obtained from ROC regarding the
accumulated year wise loss since 2008-09 to 2011-12 as
Ex.PW1/22.
23. Copy of assessment order passed by IT officers dated
31.03.2014 as Ex.PW1/23.
24. Copy of sale deed dated 12.08.2008 of village
Shahoorpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, same Motel property for a sale
consideration of Rs.130 crores as Ex.PW1/24.
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:36:29 +0530LAC No. 138/16
Page 11 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
25. Copy of sale deed dated 30.09.2013 for agricultural land
of village Sultanpur, Tehsil Mehrauli for a sale consideration
of Rs.67 crores as Ex.PW1/25.
26. Copy of judgment passed in LAC no.247/2011 titled as
Rajeev Sharma Vs UOI dated 31.03.2014, pertaining to
village Yusaf Sarai as Ex.PW1/26.
11.1 PW-1 was duly cross examined at length by Ld.
counsel for the Union of India and by Law Officer, DMRC.
12. PW-2 is Sh. Nand Kishore, Record Clerk (Building
Department) from the office of SDMC, South Zone, Green Park,
New Delhi. He deposed in his examination-in-chief that
document Ex.PW1/5 is the completion certificate is correct as per
the record available with the department. He stated that
conversion charges amounting to Rs.31,47,000/- dated
24.04.2003 has been paid for land conversion for commercial
use. He also stated that document Ex.PW1/2 is the sanctioned
building plan of the said property is correct as per their record.
He stated that documents Ex.PW1/4 is correct as per their record.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI. Ld.
Senior Legal Assistant of DMRC adopted the cross-examination
done by respondent no.1/UOI.
13. PW-3 is WSI Khiloni from Licencing Unit, PS: Defence
Colony, New Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e.
certificate of Registration of an eating house issued by DCP,
Licencing Defence Colon, New Delhi and exhibited the same as
Ex.PW3/1 (OSR). She was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:36:35 +0530LAC No. 138/16
Page 12 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiafor the UOI. Ld. Senior Legal Assistant of DMRC adopted the
cross-examination done by respondent no.1/UOI.
14. PW-4 is Sh. Rohit Sharma, DGM, KCC of BRPL. In his
examination-in-chief, PW4 admitted that the document
Ex.PW1/3 is correct as per their record. He deposed that as per
document Ex.PW1/3, the tariff of the document is commercial in
nature. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI.
15. PW-5 is Sh. Ram Niwas, Assistant Divisional Officer from
Delhi Fire Services, who brought the summoned record i.e. NOC
dated 22.05.2006 for setting up motels issued by Delhi Fire
Services in favour of the petitioner. He was cross-examined by
Ld. counsel for the UOI. Ld. Senior Legal Assistant of DMRC
adopted the cross-examination done by respondent no.1/UOI.
16. PW-6 is Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Assistant Zonal Inspector
from Property Tax, Head Quarter, SDMC, Civic Centre, Minto
Road, New Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. carbon
copy of Property Tax Receipt No.382028 dated 31.03.2008 in
respect of the property in question and exhibited the same as
Ex.PW6/A (OSR). He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the
UOI. Ld. Senior Legal Assistant of DMRC adopted the cross-
examination done by respondent no.1/UOI.
17. PW-7 is Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, LDC/Record Clerk from the
office of Sub-Registrar-V, Mehrauli, Delhi, who brought the
summoned record i.e. Sale Deed dated 30.09.2008 executed by
Anant Raj Industries Ltd. in favour of International Institute of
Planning and Management Pvt. He deposed that he had compared
the certified copy of the summoned record already Ex.PW1/24
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:36:41 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 13 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiawith the original brought by him. He was cross-examined by Ld.
counsel for the UOI. Ld. Senior Legal Assistant of DMRC
adopted the cross-examination done by respondent no.1/UOI.
18. PW-8 is Sh. G. S. Meena who is Record Keeper, LAC
(South), office at M.B. road, Saket, D. M. Office, South District,
New Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. Award of
Village Aya Nagar and exhibited the certified copy of the same
as Ex.PW8/1. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI
as well as by Ld. Law Officer of DMRC.
19. No other witness was examined by the petitioner in PE and
PE was closed vide order dated 01.11.2017.
20. In RE on behalf UOI/respondent No.1, statement of Sh.
S.K. Puri, Ld. counsel for the Union of India was recorded
whereby he exhibited the Award No.04/2009-10 of Village Aya
Nagar Ex.R/1.
21. DMRC examined Sh. Shekhar Sharma as RW2. RW 2
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.RW2/A and
relied upon copy of the notification dated 30.08.2005 of GNCTD
is Mark A (running into 2 pages); copy of joint survey report
dated 28.11.2006 of Arjangarh as Mark B; valuation report of
immovable structures dated 03.01.2008 as Mark C (running into
4 pages); copy of judgment dated 26.04.2014 in LAC No.
45/2011 as Mark D (running into 8 pages); copy of judgment
dated 26.04.2014 in LAC No. 195/2011 as Mark E (running into
8 pages); copy of judgment dated 26.04.2014 in LAC No.
77/2011 as Mark F (running into 10 pages); copy of judgment
dated 26.04.2014 in LAC No. 76/2011 as Mark G (running into 9
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16
17:36:46 +0530Page 14 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiapages); copy of judgment dated 03.10.2016 in LAC No. 14/2016
as Mark H (running into 35 pages); copy of judgment dated
24.01.2019 in LAC No. 96/2016 as Mark I (running into 15
pages); certified copy of sale deed dated 01.06.2009 having
registration no. 6571 in additional book number 1 Volume No.
9282 on page no. 39 to 47 is Ex. RW2/1 (running into 9 pages);
certified copy of the sale deed dated 21.10.2004 having
registration no. 3671 in book number 1 Volume No. 4403 on
page no. 50 to 57 as Ex. RW2/3 (running into 16 pages); copy of
the sale deed dated 21.10.2004 having registration no. 13669 in
book number 1 Volume No. 4403 on page no. 34 to 40 as Ex.
RW2/4 (running into 11 pages); recommendations of the Central
Empowered Committee dated 02.03.2007 along with the map of
the Southern Ridge Boundary is Mark L (running into 36 pages);
certified copies have been received by the DMRC along with
Letter No. SR-V/Misc/2021/1013 dated 30.12.2022 received
from Sub Registrar V, Kalkaji, New Delhi as Ex. RW2/2.
22. RW3 is Sh. Ajeet Singh, MTS, Sub-Registrar-V, Mehrauli,
New Delhi. He had brought the original sale deed dated
26.08.2004 having registration No. 11301 in Book No.1, Vol.
No. 4284 on page 37 to 49 executed by S. Joginder Singh Sethi
and S. Sandeep Singh in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar and
exhibited the copy of same as Ex.RW3/A (OSR). He was cross-
examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
23. RW-4 is Sh. Bakshinder Pal Singh, Range Officer, South
Forest Division, New Delhi. He had brought two maps of Village
Aya Nagar Notified Reserve Forest and exhibited the same as
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:36:51 +0530
Page 15 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
RW4/1. He had also brought map of Morphological Ridge of
Delhi including forest area and exhibited the same as RW4/2.
24. R1W1 is Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Patwari, Land Acquisition
Collector, South. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as
Ex.R1W1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(1) Photocopy of notice u/s 12(2) of the LA Act, 1894 dated
06.10.2009 as Ex. R1W1/1 (OSR) (2 pages).
(2) Copy of map of zonal development plan for the zone J
approved by central government on 08.03.2010, downloaded
from the official website of DDA i.e. www.ddd.gov.in as Mark
R1W1/2.
(3) A copy of the writ petition as Mark R1W1/3 (page no. 9 to
21).
(4) Photocopy of original forwarding letter dated 03.09.2007 as
Ex. R1W1/4 (OSR).
(5) Photocopy of internet generated order dated 10.10.2007 as
Mark R1W1/5.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the
petitioner.
25. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. counsel for UOI,
RE on behalf of Union of India was closed on 08.10.2024.
26. During the proceedings, one application under Section 151
CPC for summoning the witness was filed on behalf of the
petitioner, which was allowed vide order dated 07.06.2023 and
petitioner was given opportunity to examine the witnesses.
27. PW-9 is Sh. Ajay Kumar, SSA, Commercial Land, DDA,
INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, who brought the summoned
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:36:58 +0530Page 16 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiarecord i.e. original allotment letter dated 04.01.2008 in respect
of plot no.4, area measuring 15,367 sq. meter situated at Dwarka,
Sector 13, City Centre and exhibited the copy of the same as
Ex.PW9/1 (OSR); possession letter and exhibited the same as
Ex.PW9/2; conveyance deed dated 10.08.2009 alongwith map of
the property and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW9/3;
original allotment letter dated 17.10.2017 and exhibited the copy
of the same as Ex.PW9/4 (OSR); possession letter dated
22.10.2008 and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW9/5
(OSR) and conveyance deed dated 24.10.2008 and exhibited the
copy of the same as Ex.PW9/6. He was cross-examined by Ld.
counsel for the UOI.
28. PW-10 is Sh. Naresh, JSA, Commercial Land, DDA, INA,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e.
original allotment letter dated 04.01.2008 in respect of plot No.
3B1, area measuring 11,130.40 sq. meter situated at Rohini Twin
District Center and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW10/1
(OSR); corrigendum dated 26.05.2008 of the same property and
exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW10/2 (OSR); possession
letter and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW10/3 (OSR);
conveyance deed dated 01.09.2008 alongwith map of the same
property and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW10/4
(OSR). He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the UOI.
29. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
30. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. counsels for the
parties and perused the material on record. My issue-wise
findings are as under : Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:37:03 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 17 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of IndiaIssue No.1: Whether petitioner’s Reference Petition dated
10.05.2011 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is
within prescribed period of limitation? Onus on parties
31. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present
reference petition has been filed within the limitation period after
Hon’ble Apex Court granted the permission for filing the
reference.
32. Proviso of Section 18 of the Act prescribes period of
limitation for filing reference petition. The reference petition was
filed on 10.05.2011 before LAC. The copy of award Ex.R-1 was
tendered by Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1. The date of
award is 06.10.2009. The requirement of Act is that reference
application can be made within prescribed period from the date
of award/contents of award are made known to interested
persons. On behalf of respondent no.1/UOI, witness R1W1 was
examined. R1W1 is Patwari from the Office of LAC, South, New
Delhi. He tendered his evidence through affidavit Ex.R1W1/A
and in order to lead evidence on this issue, he relied upon notice
under Section 12(2) of LA Act, 1894 dated 06.10.2009 and the
photocopy of the same was exhibited as Ex.R1W1/1 (OSR) (2
pages). During his cross-examination, he answered that it was
correct that there was no receiving date mentioned on the notice.
He also answered that he had no personal knowledge of the said
notice and neither he was present at the time of issuance of
notice. He also answered that he did not know who had signed on
the notice. Perusal of this document shows that the notice is dated
06.10.2009 and it bears signatures of receiver. On comparison,
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:37:09 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 18 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
the signatures of the receiver appears to be similar to the
signatures of original claimant Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra as
done on reference application under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894
and on the affidavit annexed alongwith the application. It is not a
case of petitioner that this document was false or claimant Sh.
Harbhajan Singh Chopra did not receive the notice. Moreover,
the date as mentioned on the notice was also not disputed during
the cross-examination of R1W1. No other evidence was led on
behalf of the petitioner in rebuttal of this document regarding the
date of the notice. When there is no dispute regarding the
receiving of this notice by claimant Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra
and notice bears only one date i.e. 06.10.2009, then in these
circumstances, the onus shifts on the petitioner to rebut the
receiving of notice on 06.10.2009. However, no such evidence
was ever led on behalf of the petitioner. Not even this but any
evidence was never led on behalf of the petitioner on the issue of
limitation period. Accordingly, there is no valid ground to ignore
this notice to decide the present issue. As per respondents
evidence notice was received by claimant on 06.10.2009.
Admittedly, the date of filing of application under Section 18 of
LA Act, 1894 before LAC is 10.05.2011 i.e. much beyond the
prescribed period provided under Section 18 of the LA Act,
1894.
33. During final arguments, Ld. counsel for the petitioner
argued that the present reference under Section 18 of LA Act,
1894 was filed with the permission of Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide its order dated 01.04.2011. He submits that thereafter the
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:37:14 +0530Page 19 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiapresent reference was filed within six weeks of passing the order
and accordingly the present reference is within limitation period.
A copy of this order of Hon’ble Supreme Court is found to
be annexed as Annexure-A alongwith petitioner’s reference
application under Section 18 of LA Act as filed before LAC. This
order was passed in SLP (C) No. 6935/2011 from the judgment
and order dated 12.11.2010 in WP No. 266/10 of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi. Before discussing this order of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is important to discuss the abovesaid order of
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
Vide order dated 12.11.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 266/10,
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition filed on
behalf of the petitioner company with exemplary cost of
Rs.1,00,000/-. In WP (C) No. 266/10 before the Hon’ble High
Court, legality of the award made by the LAC as published on
06.10.2009 while fixing the compensation of the entire acquired
land @ Rs.17,59,824.38/- while treating the land of the petitioner
as agricultural, was challenged on the ground that first draft
award was illegally ignored while passing this second award.
Hon’ble High Court observed in para 4 of this order that the
petitioner stated that he received the certified copy of both the
Awards on 30.11.2009. The writ petition was filed before the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the year 2010 while challenging
the present Award. Aggrieved by this order of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, the abovesaid SLP was filed before Hon’ble
Apex Court on behalf of the petitioner company and as per order
dated 01.04.2011, Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed this SLP as
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:37:27 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 20 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
withdrawn. It was prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner might be permitted to withdraw the SLP with liberty to
make an application under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 and to
raise all legally permissible ground before the reference court.
This order of Hon’ble Apex Court does not mention that any
delay in filing the reference before the LAC under Section 18 of
LA Act, was condoned. The SLP was disposed off simply with
liberty in terms of prayer made and as per the prayer on behalf of
the petitioner the prayer was made for withdrawal of SLP with
liberty to make an application under Section 18 of LA Act and to
raise all legally permissible ground before the reference court.
Accordingly, the petitioner was supposed to have the liberty to
raise all legally permissible grounds before the reference court
and as per this order it cannot be said that the reference court was
restricted by Hon’ble Supreme Court to decide the present issue
in terms of settled law on the point of limitation period.
34. There was no bar on the petitioner to file a reference under
Section 18 of LA Act before LAC and also to challenge the
second Award simultaneously before Hon’ble High Court. As per
Section 9 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963, once time has begun to
run, no specific disability or inability to institute a suit to make an
application stops it. Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for
exclusion of time for proceeding bonafide in court without
jurisdiction. It is not a case of the petitioner that petitioner was
suffering with any disability or inability during the prescribed
limitation period for filing the reference petition before LAC. On
18.11.2024, Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued before this
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:37:50 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 21 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court that notification under Section 4 of LA Act was challenged
before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the year 2007 and on
dismissal of the writ petition before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
the order was further challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India and finally the challenge of the Section 4 notification
was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court also in the year 2011
and accordingly the present petition was not barred by law of
limitation as petitioner was pursuing bonafide litigation before
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Apex Court while
challenging the notification under Section 4 of LA Act. At first,
these submissions are factually incorrect as the challenge by
petitioner company before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the form of
SLP (C) from the judgment and order dated 12.11.2010 in W.P.
(C) No. 266/10 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, was on the
validity of passing of second Award by LAC while rejecting the
first draft Award. Notification under Section 4 of LA Act,
regarding subject land of this case was never challenged before
Hon’ble Supreme Court by the petitioner company. Secondly, no
proof of such bonafides was ever led on behalf of petitioner. To
challenge the validity of Award before Hon’ble High Court and
Hon’ble Apex Court cannot be said to be in court without
jurisdiction. Moreover, reference application under Section 18 of
LA Act, 1894 for enhanced compensation and writ petition to
challenge the validity of the Award itself are two separate
proceedings and there is no legal bar on filing of one of the
proceedings in case of pendency of the other. Accordingly, these
submissions on behalf of petitioner are not tenable.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:37:58 +0530 Page 22 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Moreover, filing of the abovesaid writ petition before
Hon’ble High Court cannot be considered a ground for
condonation of delay in filing the reference as there was no bar in
filing the reference application for enchanced compensation
simultaneously with the writ petition. Rather it was the petitioner
himself who chose not to file reference petition within the
limitation period after receiving the notice under Section 12(2)
dated 06.10.2009 of LA, Act. Even if the notice under Section
12(2) of LA Act, 1894 is not taken into consideration to calculate
the prescribed period then also as abovestated it is an admitted
position of the petitioner itself in writ petition filed before
Hon’ble HC that the certified copy of the Award was received on
30.11.2009. Accordingly, if as per the petitioner itself, the case is
considered to be covered under second part of Clause B of the
Proviso below Sub Section 2 of Section 18 of LA Act, 1894, then
also the reference petition was necessarily to be filed within the
statutory period of six months time from the date of knowledge
of the Award i.e. 30.11.2009. After receiving the certified copy
of the award, six months’ time period expired on 30.05.2010.
Accordingly, the present reference petition cannot be said to be
filed within the statutory period of six months.
35. The argument of Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the
reference was filed after liberty was granted by Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 01.04.2011 does not held ground to
consider the reference within presecribed time. In view of the
abovesaid discussion, there is nothing in this order in favour of
the petitioner regarding condonation of delay in filing the
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:38:18 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 23 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiareference petition. As per the order, the liberty was granted only
to make an application under Section 18 of LA, Act and to raise
all the legally permissible grounds before the reference court.
Accordingly, Hon’ble Apex Court left it open to the reference
court to decide all the issues raised in the reference petition.
36. As abovestated, neither the present reference under Section
18 of LA, Act was field within six weeks of receipt of notice
from the Collector under Section 12(2) of LA Act on 06.10.2009
nor it was filed within next six months at the maximum of
receiving the certified copies of the Award on 30.11.2011. Rather
it was filed much beyond the statutory period as prescribed in
Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 and it was the petitioner himself who
chose not to file the reference petition well within statutory time
and instead of filing the reference petition well within time to
claim enhanced compensation, he willfully chose to challenge the
validity of Award itself before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
and thereafter before the Hon’ble Apex Court. This situation as
arises from the inaction of the petitioner can be equated with an
another situation, where in a civil suit, the defendant is not
permitted to claim the relief of condonation of delay in filing the
written statement on the plea that the written statement was not
filed within statutory period because an application for rejection
of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908 was pending for
decision. Here also the validity of the Award itself was
challenged but the reference application under Section 18 of the
LA Act for enhanced compensation was not filed within statutory
period. It is settled position of law that once the limitation period
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:38:24 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 24 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
starts to run nothing can stop it except the particular permitted
instances as per law, which is not a situation in the present case.
Accordingly, in view of abovesaid discussion and settled legal
position, it cannot be said that the present reference petition dated
10.05.2011 under Section 18 of LA Act is within the prescribed
period of limitation.
37. Ld. counsel for petitioner also argued that if present
petition is beyond limitation period and delay is not condoned
then it shall cause hardship to the petitioner.
Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Rohitash Kumar & Ors
vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 6157 decided on
06.11.2012 observed as under:
“18. There may be a statutory provision, which causes
great hardship or inconvenience to either the party
concerned, or to an individual, but the Court has no
choice but to enforce it in full rigor.
It is a well settled principle of interpretation that
hardship or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a
basis to alter the meaning of the language employed
by the legislature, if such meaning is clear upon a bare
perusal of the Statute. If the language is plain and
hence allows only one meaning, the same has to be
given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible
injustice. (Vide: Commissioner of Agricultural
Income Tax, West Bengal v. Keshab Chandra
Mandal, AIR 1950 SC 265; and D. D. Joshi & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 420).
19. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar &
Ors., AIR 1955 SC 661 it was observed by a
Constitution Bench of this Court that, if there is any
hardship, it is for the legislature to amend the law, and
that the Court cannot be called upon, to discard the
cardinal rule of interpretation for the purpose of
mitigating such hardship. If the language of an Act is
sufficiently clear, the Court has to give effect to it,
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:38:37 +0530Page 25 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiahowever, inequitable or unjust the result may be. The
words, ‘dura lex sed lex’ which mean “the law is hard
but it is the law.” may be used to sum up the situation.
Therefore, even if a statutory provision causes
hardship to some people, it is not for the Court to
amend the law. A legal enactment must be interpreted
in its plain and literal sense, as that is the first
principle of interpretation.
20. In Mysore State Electricity Board v. Bangalore
Woolen, Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1963
SC 1128 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that,
“inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be
considered while interpreting a statute.
21. In Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of
Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529, this Court, while dealing
with the same issue observed as under:- “A result
flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A
Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve
what it considers a distress resulting from its
operation. A statute must of course be given effect to
whether a Court likes the result or not.” (See also: The
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal I,
Calcutta v. M/s Vegetables Products Ltd., AIR 1973
SC 927; and Tata Power Company Ltd. v. Reliance
Energy Limited & Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 659).
Therefore, it is evident that the hardship caused to an
individual, cannot be a ground for not giving effective
and grammatical meaning to every word of the
provision, if the language used therein, is
unequivocal.”
The same view was followed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case titled Popat Bahiru Govardhane Etc vs
Special Land Acquisition Officer And Anr, 2014 (1) ABR 235
decided on 22.08.2023 while deciding the appeals against the
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay vide which
judgment of LAC on the ground of limitation was upheld.
Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:38:42 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 26 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
38. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that
none of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is
tenable. The plea of inconvenience is also squarely covered by
the abovesaid referred judgments. Accordingly, issue no.1 is
decided against the petitioner.
Issue No. 2: What was the market value of land acquired, on that
date of preliminary notification dated 25.07.2007 under Section 4
of the Act 1894 in respect of Award No. 04/2009-10 (dated
06.10.2009) Village Aya Nagar? Onus on Parties
39. In order to prove the market value of the acquired land on
the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act, PW1 (present
petitioner) and 9 summoned witnesses i.e. witness PW2 to PW10
were examined on behalf of the petitioner company. PW1 Sh.
Krishan Kumar tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A and he relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to
Ex.Pw1/26.
Ex.PW1/1 is copy of receipt dated 24.03.2003 issued by
MCD for conversion charges. This document was not proved
independently by calling the concerned official from the MCD.
The certified copy of the same has also not been placed on
record. This document is merely a photocopy and not properly
legible. Moreover, this document is a simple receipt for payment
of an amount of Rs.31,47,000/- through cheque and it has
nowhere been mentioned in the document that the same was for
conversion charges and was paid by the claimant or on behalf of
the petitioner company. The summoned witness PW2 from
SDMC during his cross-examination dated 25.04.2017 answered
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:38:48 +0530
Page 27 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
that he has not brought the conversion charges receipt in original
but the same can be produced on the next date of hearing. On the
next date of hearing i.e. on 09.08.2017 also neither any such
document was produced nor any further efforts were made by the
petitioner for production of this document by PW2 or by any
other concerned official. Accordingly, this document is of no
help to consider the petitioner’s claim for enhanced
compensation.
Document Ex. PW1/2 is a sanctioned letter dated
25.04.2003 issued by MCD for construction of Motels. The
summoned witness PW2 from the office of SDMC deposed
during his examination that the document Ex.PW1/2 was correct
as per their record. This document is found to be in the name of
one Smt. Krishna Kumari Bhanot and not in the name of Sh.
Harbhajan Singh Chopra (original claimant) or the present
petitioner. The completion certificate Ex.PW1/5 which was also
proved by PW2 is also found to be issued in the name of one Sh.
Jitender Singh Chopra and not in favour of the original claimant
or in favour of the present petitioner. Moreover, the name of the
petitioner company is also not found to be mentioned in this
document. Document Ex.PW1/3 is electricity bill and it was
proved by concerned witness PW4 from the office of BSES
Bhawan in order to show that the tariff was commercial in nature
and accordingly the acquired land must be treated as commercial
land and not agricultural land. However, this document is also
found to be in the name of one Sh. Jitender Singh Chopra.
Ex.PW1/4 as proved by summoned witness PW2 is copy of
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:38:55 +0530LAC No. 138/16
Page 28 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiareceipt dated 22.09.2005 issued by MCD for compounding fees
of Rs. 1,97,000/-. This document is also found to be in the name
of Sh. Jitender Singh Chopra. Document Ex.PW6/A is photocopy
of property tax receipt dated 31.03.2008 in respect of subject
land. However, again this document is also found to be made in
the name of Sh. Jitender Singh Chopra. Any of the abovesaid
documents do not find any mentioning of the name of original
claimant Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra or the present petitioner
Sh. Krishan Kumar or the petitioner company M/s Fountain Head
Motels Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, any evidence showing the ownership
of original claimant or present petitioner during this time period
were also not produced on behalf of the petitioner due to the
reasons best known to him. No document showing the change of
land use approved by the concerned authority like DDA or Ld.
LG was also not produced to show that the subject land was
converted from agricultural to commercial use by the competent
authority. Moreover, as per the petitioner’s own document
Ex.PW1/21 itself the property was sealed due to unauthorized
use. The unauthorized use of the subject land as per their own
document was never explained by the petitioner due to the
reasons best know to him. Accordingly, these documents are of
no help in order to prove the nature of land use being commercial
instead of agricultural.
Document Ex.PW1/6 is letter of approval from Tourism
Department for setting up a four star category hotel. This
document is a photocopy and allegedly addressed by the
Department of Tourism to the Director of Claremount Hotel,
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:39:00 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 29 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of IndiaKhasra No. 559/1, Aya Nagar. As per this letter, approval of
Department of Tourism, Government of India was granted for
setting up a hotel project on khasra No. 559/1, Aya Nagar, M.G.
Road, New Delhi. However, as per statement under Section 19 of
LA Act in the present case and the Award No. 04/2009-10 dated
06.10.2009 as sent to this court by LAC, the subject land of this
reference is Khasra No. 558/1 and 576. The award also shows
acquisition of land out of one another Khasra No. 557. However,
none of the khasra number is 559/1. As per petitioner’s own
document Ex.PW1/6 it appears that either a fraud was committed
on behalf of the petitioner on the concerned government
authorities for issuance of abovesaid sanctions, approvals and
letters while setting up a hotel on different khasra number instead
of only on the sanctioned khasra number or fraud was committed
on the court for claiming enhanced compensation for Khasra No.
558/1 and 576 by claiming the nature of land use as commercial
instead of agricultural while misleading the court on the basis of
abovesaid documents as issued by various govt. authorities in
respect of khasra No. 559/1 or fraud was committed on the
concerned government authorities as well as on the court by the
petitioner. When the approval of Department of Tourism was
regarding setting up a hotel project at Khasra No. 559/1 then
there arises no occasion for the petitioner to claim enhanced
compensation for the land of Khasra No. 558/1 and 576 while
relying upon this document. Ex.PW1/21 is copy of Memorandum
of Understanding and Agreement to Sell dated 28.03.2011 for
sale of petitioner company to one Sh. Pradeep Rana. As per this
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:39:05 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 30 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiadocument also the address of petitioner company is Khasra No.
559/1, Aya Nagar. It confirms that there was no approval for
setting up of hotel project at Khasra No. 558/1 and 576.
Accordingly, this document is also of no help for the petitioner to
claim that the approved use of subject land i.e. Khasra No. 558/1
and 576 is commercial in nature for setting up of hotel.
Document Ex.PW1/7 is NOC from Delhi Fire Services
granted on 22.05.2006 to run a motel. Summoned witness PW5
from Delhi Fire Services has proved this document. This
document is also regarding Khasra No. 559/1 and not regarding
the subject land. This document also cannot be considered in
favour of the petitioner to decide the nature of subject land use
due to the abovesaid reasons as discussed for Document
Ex.PW1/6.
Document Ex.PW3/1 is certified copy of certificate of
Registration of an eating house issued by DCP, Licencing
Defence Colony, New Delhi and it was proved by summoned
witness PW3 from Licencing Unit, PS: Defence Colony. Perusal
of this document also shows that this document is regarding the
Khasra No. 559/1 and not regarding the acquired land in the
present case. Accordingly, this document is also of no help for
the petitioner due to the abovesaid reasons discussed for
document Ex.PW1/6.
Document Ex.PW1/8 (Colly.) (7 pages) are copies of
certificates issued from various departments. These documents
were not independently proved. Otherwise also, only some of the
documents mentions Khasra number of the property for which
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:39:14 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 31 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
necessary certification has been issued and the khasra number
mentioned in these documents is 559/1 and not the khasra
numbers as of the subject land of the present case. Accordingly,
these documents are also of no help in view of the abovesaid
reasons discussed for document Ex.PW1/6.
Document Ex.PW1/9 is copy of objection dated
17.08.2007 filed on behalf of the petitioner before LAC. Some of
the annexed documents alongwith the objections were not
independently proved while the remaining documents are the
same, which were filed by PW1 during his examination before
this court. These documents have already been discussed in detail
and need not to be discussed again. Accordingly, this document
is of no help for the petitioner to assess the actual market value of
the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/10 is copy of first draft Award dated
09.06.2009 of LAC on acquisition of the subject land while
assessing compensation for Rs.12,49,02,319.57/- and second
Award dated 06.10.2009 for Rs. 17,59,824.38/-. Ld. counsel for
the petitioner argued that the second Award is a nullity because
the first draft Award was signed by the LAC while considering
the subject land as commercial but it was not approved by the
Secretary Revenue. It was further argued that it was illegal for
Divisional Commissioner/Secretary Revenue for not approving
the first draft Award prepared by LAC. It was argued on behalf
of the respondents that a writ petition WP (C) No. 266/2010 on
the similar issue was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi by the petitioner and same was dismissed with exemplary
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:39:20 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 32 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
cost of Rs.1,00,000/- vide its order dated 12.11.2010. The
decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was challenged
before the Hon’ble Apex Court through SLP (C) No. 6935/2011
and same was withdrawn by the petitioner. However, it was
clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the observation
made in the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
shall not prejudice the rights of either party in reference made
under Section 18 of the Act.
Respondents also relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Apex
Court in State Of Bihar And Ors. vs Prem Kumar Singh And
Ors., a judgment rendered in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C)
No. 7837/1993, deciding on 30.11.1993 reported in
MANU/SC/0963/1998; (1998) 2 SCC573 and in the case of The
State Of Bihar & Ors vs D. N. Singh (Dead) By L.Rs & Ors.,
MANU/SC/0961/1998, (1998) 2 SCC 572 in civil appeal no.
7695/1997 decided on 13.011.1997, where it was observed that
competent authorities by the State government by notification
under Section 11 (1) of LA Act for approval of the Award could
reduce the compensation fixed by the Collector. They argued that
this was exactly what had happened in the present case where the
competent authority called upon the LAC to reduce the
compensation as prescribed use of the land was agriculture and
the LAC followed suit.
Perusal of the order dated 12.11.2010 of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 266/10 in case titled ‘Fountain
Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.’ shows that the same issue
was also raised subsequently in Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:39:25 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 33 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
& Anr vs Land Acquisition Officer & Anr and a larger bench of
three judges was constituted and the Hon’ble Larger Bench chose
to dispose of the appeal in terms of order dated 12.02.2004,
where Hon’ble larger bench decided not to interfere the matter
due to the reason that the appellants had already challenged the
Award by sending reference to the civil court and matter was
pending adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal in that case was
dismissed without going into its merit and the views expressed by
earlier two benches of two Hon’ble Judges each in the abovesaid
cases of State of Bihar (supra) were not overruled.
In view of the settled legal position on this issue, I am of
the considered opinion that the second Award was validly
executed while not approving the first draft Award and in these
circumstances, the first draft Award dated 09.06.2009 cannot be
taken into consideration to assess the actual market value of the
subject land on the date of Section 4 notification of LA Act,
1894.
Document Ex.PW1/11 is copy of valuation report prepared
by Surveyor namely Accurate Surveyors in respect of Khasra No.
558/1, 576 , Aya Nagar for the purpose of fair market value for
compensation. However, valuation report was not independently
proved by examining the Surveyor. Moreover, neither the
original nor any certified copy of the record was produced.
Accordingly, this document also cannot be relied upon to assess
the actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/12 is noting sheet of the first draft
Award prepared by LAC and chief data of the first draft Award.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:39:31 +0530 Page 34 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
These documents were not independently proved by examining
the concerned officials. The original or certified copy of these
documents were also not produced. Moreover, these documents
are base of the first draft Award dated 09.06.2009, which has
already been not relied upon in view of the settled legal position
during the discussion of abovesaid documents Ex.pw1/10.
Accordingly, Ex.PW1/12 also cannot be relied upon to assess the
actual market value of the subject land.
Documents Ex.PW1/13 is copy of notification dated
18.07.2007 regarding circle rates for properties under residential
use, commercial and industrial uses. This document cannot be
relied upon in absence of any proof of the approved use of
subject land as commercial. No document regarding change of
subject land use from the concerned authority was ever produced
by the petitioner in support of his claim of subject land use being
commercial in nature. This document was also not independently
proved and accordingly cannot be relied upon to assess the actual
market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/14 is Naksha Muntazim and statement
of compensation. Neither this document was independently
proved by the concerned official nor this document was
explained on behalf of the petitioner in support of its claim for
enhanced compensation. Perusal of this document shows that this
document pertains to the first draft Award, which has already
been neglected while discussing the document Ex.PW1/10.
Accordingly, this document also cannot be relied upon for
assessing the actual market rate of the subject land.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 LAC No. 138/16 17:39:36 +0530 Page 35 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
40. Document Ex.PW1/15 is gazette notification dated
26.10.2012, whereby the modification in the Master Plan for
Delhi 2021 was effected from the date of publication of this
gazette notification. Apparently, this notification was issued
much after the date of Section 4 notification of LA Act.
Section 24 of the LA Act 1894 provides that certain
matters to be neglected while determining compensation. Section
24 of LA Act provides that any increase of value of the land
acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put
when acquired is required to be neglected while determining
compensation.
Honbl’e Apex Court in case titled Special Land
Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda & Ors. Decided on
26.04.2010 has observed as under:
“33. A Bench of this Court in the case of Nelson
Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, South Goa & Ors. [(2007) 9 SCC 447], while
discussing on this aspect of the Act and its relevancy
to the market value of the land, held as under :-
22. In determining the amount of compensation to be
awarded, the LAO shall be guided by the provisions
of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. As per Section
22 of the Act, the market value of the land has to be
determined at the date of publication of notice
under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 25-8-1994. As
per Section 24, the LAO shall also exclude any
increase in the value of land likely to accrue from use
to which it will be put once acquired. The market
value of the land means the price of the land which a
willing seller is reasonably expected to fetch in the
open market from a willing purchaser. In other
words, it is a price of the land in hypothetical market.
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:39:40 +0530
Page 36 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
During the site inspection, it has been observed that
the land under acquisition is situated in Sancoale and
Cortalim Village adjacent to the land already
acquired for the same purpose earlier.”
34.This was also reiterated by this Court in the case
of Mohammad Raofuddin v. The Land Acquisition
Officer, [ (2009) 5 SCR 864 ] stating that Section
23 contains a list of positive factors and Section
24 has a list of negative, vis-`-vis the land under
acquisition, to be taken into consideration while
determining the amount of compensation, the first
step being the determination of the market value of
the land from the date of publication of Notification
under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.”
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the
potentiality of the acquired land should not be limited to the near
future and even the post notification development in the vicinity
of the acquired land must also be considered for the purpose of
determination of the market value.
The judgment dated 26.07.1995 passed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 704-706/19860 in case titled
State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. was relied upon by the
respondent no.2 to oppose this contention made on behalf of the
petitioner. In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para
3 which is reproduced as under:
“….. as on the date of the determination of the
compensation. Its consideration should alone be
confined to the market value prevailing as on the date
of the notification under Section 4(1).”
As per Section 24 of LA Act, 1894 and the settled law in
case tiled Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda &
Ors. (Supra) and State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:39:47 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 37 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
(supra), the increase in the value of land acquired likely to accrue
from the use to which it will be put once acquired is required to
be neglected while determining the compensation and the
consideration should alone be confined to the market value
prevailing as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of
LA Act, 1894 except in prevailing circumstances, which are
missing in the present case. Moreover, it was also not explained
on behalf of the petitioner that how this notification is applicable
in respect of the subject land. Accordingly, this document cannot
be relied upon for assessment of actual market value of the
subject land.
41. Document Ex.PW1/16 is copy of affidavit allegedly filed
by one Sh. Parimal Rai, Additional Commissioner (Engg.), MCD
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.
4582/2003 in respect of motels.
At first, this affidavit was not proved by calling the
concerned deponent. No original or certified copy of this
affidavit was produced. It was also not explained that how this
affidavit is relevant in determining the actual market value of the
subject land. Perusal of copy of this affidavit shows that it
pertains to the monitoring committee constituted by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi vide order dated 18.05.2006 related to
unauthorized construction in the city of Delhi and to remedies to
curb the same. Accordingly, this document cannot be relied upon
for assessment of actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/17 is a photocopy of letter dated
24.11.2006 allegedly written by Superintending Engineer (M)
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:39:52 +0530
Page 38 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
HQ, MCD to Sh. R.S. Gupta, Member Monitoring Committee for
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. This document was also neither
proved independently by examining the concerned official nor
any original or certified copy of this document was ever
produced. It was also not explained on behalf of the petitioner
that how this document is relevant to determine the actual market
rate of the subject land. Accordingly, this document cannot be
relied upon for assessment of actual market value of the subject
land.
Document Ex.PW1/18 is photocopy of letter dated
20.11.2006 allegedly written by Chief Town Planner MCD to Sh.
R.S. Gupta, Member Monitoring Committee constituted by the
Hon’ble High Court. This document was neither proved
independently by calling the concerned official nor any original
or certified copy of the document was ever produced. It was also
not explained on behalf of the petitioner as how this document is
relevant to ascertain the actual market rate of the subject land. So,
this document also cannot be relied upon to assess the actual
market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/19 is copy of letter dated 04.03.2002
regarding revised guidelines for permissibility of motels in NCT
of Delhi. However, on the similar grounds as discussed in respect
of documents Ex.PW1/17 and Ex.PW1/18, this document
Ex.PW1/19 also cannot be relied upon to ascertain the actual
market rate of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/20 is copy of TOD (Transit Oriented
Development) Policy. On the similar grounds as of document
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:39:58 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 39 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Ex.PW1/17, Ex.PW1/18, Ex.PW1/19, this document is also of no
help to ascertain the actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/22 is copy of Form 23 Account
obtained from ROC in order to prove accumulation yearwise loss
to the petitioner company since 2008-09 to 2011-12. At first, this
document was prepared by one Nahata Jain and Associates and
the concerned Auditor was not examined to prove this document.
The original or certified copy of the same document was never
produced. Moreover, this document mentions losses incurred by
Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. since the year 2005-06 and not
only from the year 2008-09. As per this document in the year
2008-09 the company incurred losses for the amount of
Rs.41,70,508/-. However, as per this document itself, the
company incurred losses during the year 2006-07 of
Rs.34,49,326/- and during the year 2007-08 of Rs.33,53,457/-.
Accordingly, it cannot be said that the heavy losses to the
petitioner company started since 2008-09 only after acquisition.
Document Ex.PW1/23 is copy of assessment order passed
by IT Officer dated 31.03.2014 . Neither this document was
independently proved by examining the concerned officials nor
any original or certified copy of this document was ever
produced. Moreover, as per this document, the income of Rs.Nil
by M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. was filed on 20.08.2012
and the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Be
earlier document Ex.PW1/22 showing losses of income to the
petitioner company or the present document Ex.PW1/23, the
petitioner had hidden one fact very smartly that as per the
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:40:05 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 40 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
petitioner’s own document Ex.PW1/21 i.e. Clause (c) of the
agreement to sell dated 28.03.2011, the petitioner company was
sealed due to its unauthorized use. However, PW1 during his
cross-examination falsely answered that no civic agency had ever
sealed the premises at any time. It is pertinent to mention here
that PW1 was also a party to this agreement to sell. It appears
that these facts were not disclosed before this court in order to
mislead the court while deciding the present reference. The actual
date of sealing of the petitioner company was not revealed
willfully by the petitioner before this court. Accordingly, when
the petitioner company was sealed, it was very natural that it
suffered with losses. The unauthorized activities on the premises
by the petitioner company lead its sealing and for the
consequential losses, the acquisition of the subject land by the
government cannot be blamed.
Accordingly, document Ex.PW1/22 and Ex.PW1/23 also
cannot be relied upon to assess the actual market rate of the
subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/24 is a sale deed dated 12.08.2008 of
Village Shahoorpur for a sale consideration of Rs.130 Crore. On
09.08.2017, a summoned witness from the office of Sub-
Registrar-V alongwith the summoned record was examined as
PW7 to prove this sale deed. However, during his cross-
examination on behalf of the UOI, he answered that the said sale
deed had been cancelled in view of the order dated 30.08.2016
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and same was
endorsed vide order/approval of the Registrar /DM (South East)
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:40:09 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 41 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
dated 27.02.2017. In rebuttal, neither the said witness was re-
examined on behalf of the petitioner nor any other evidence was
led to prove that this sale deed was not cancelled. It was also not
pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was
unaware regarding cancellation of this sale deed. The filing of a
cancelled sale deed in evidence before the court appears to be
done only with one intention to mislead this court to get the
intended relief for enhanced compensation. Such act of the
petitioner amounts committing fraud on the court. Accordingly,
this document also cannot be taken into consideration to assess
the actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/25 is also a sale deed dated 30.09.2013
for agricultural land of Village Sultanpur Tehsil Mehrauli for sale
consideration of Rs.67 Crores. At first judicial notice of the fact
may be taken that there is a distance of more than 4 kms. between
Sultanpur Metro Station and Arjan Gargh Metro Station at Aya
Nagar. The subject land pertains to village Aya Nagar for the
purpose of Arjan Garh Metro Station and the exemplar sale deed
is of Village Sultanpur. Secondly, this sale deed pertains to the
year 2013 i.e. more than six years later from the date of
notification in the present case on 25.07.2007. In view of the
abovesaid provision of Section 24 of the Act, 1894 and Special
Land acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda & Ors. (supra) and State
of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. (supra) , the increase in the
value of land acquired likely to accrue post notification under
Section 4 of LA Act, 4894 cannot be taken into consideration.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:14 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 42 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Accordingly, this sale deed cannot be relied upon to assess the
actual market value of the subject land.
Document Ex.PW1/26 is Award by the reference court in
LAC 247/2011 for the subject land of Village Yusuf Sarai for
which notification under Section 4 of LA Act was issued on
17.12.2007. At first judicial notice of the fact may be taken that
there is a distance of more than 13 kms. between Arjan Garh
Metro Station and Village Yusuf Sarai.
It is settled law that the exemplar to be considered has to
be that of a comparable land in respect of being contemporary in
time and also enjoying situational proximity so as to give a fair
idea of the market value of similarly placed lands in the
immediate vicinity or in the neighbouring areas at the relevant
time of issuance of notification.
It is also settled law that each piece of land might suffer
from locational advantages or disadvantages and cannot simply
be equated to apply to any land, even in the same village.
Nothing has been placed on record to show as to how the sale
amount/consideration in the exemplars relied upon by petitioner
can be applied to the acquired land. There is no deliberation with
respect to the distance of acquired land with the exemplars relied
upon or any locational advantageous or disadvantageous factor
with regard to specification of location of acquired land vis-a-vis
the exemplars.
Accordingly, these documents cannot be considered to
determine the actual market value of the subject land.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:18 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 43 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
42. The petitioner examined PW8, who appeared alongwith
the summoned record from the Office of LAC, South. During his
examination, certified copy of abovesaid first draft award was
exhibited as Ex.PW8/1. This document needs not to be discussed
again as the earlier first draft Award has already been discussed
above and in view fo the above discussion, settled legal position
and considering that this document has already been discarded,
the document Ex.PW8/1 cannot be taken into consideration to
ascertain the actual market rate of the subject land.
43. Summoned witnesses PW-9 and PW-10 from DDA, INA,
Vikas Sadan were also examined by the petitioner in order to
bring on record the documents related to allotment in respect of
certain properties located in Dwarka and Rohini. PW9 produced
documents Ex.PW9/1 (OSR) to Ex.PW9/6 and PW10 filed
documents Ex.PW10/1 (OSR) to Ex.PW10/4 (OSR).
Document Ex.PW9/1 (OSR) is allotment letter dated
01.01.2008 in respect of Plot No.4 at Dwarka, Sector-13.
Document Ex.PW9/2 is possession letter dated 07.08.2009 of the
same property. Document Ex.PW9/3 is conveyance deed dated
10.08.2009 regarding the same property. Document Ex.PW9/4 is
allotment letter dated 17.10.2007 in respect to commercial Plot
No.3 at Sector-10 Dwarka. The possession letter dated
22.10.2008 and conveyance deed dated 24.10.2008 of this
property were exhibited as Ex.PW9/5 and Ex.PW9/6
respectively.
Document Ex.PW10/1 is copy of original allotment letter
dated 04.01.2008 in respect of Plot No.3 B1 at Rohini Twin
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:40:23 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 44 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of IndiaDistrict Centre. Document Ex.PW10/2 is a corrigendum dated
26.05.2008 regarding the same property. Documents Ex.PW10/3
and Ex.PW10/4 are possession letters dated 01.09.2008 and
conveyance deed dated 01.09.2008 respectively of the same
property. It is pertinent to mention here that these properties were
sold in auction and these documents were executed subsequent to
the issuance of Section 4 notification of LA Act for the subject
land in the present case.
Regarding the exemplars of auction sales, it is held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Executive Engineer, Karnataka
Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors.”
Appeal Nos. 51-52 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP © Nos.
27805/2009), Civil decided on 04.01.2011 that “Unless there are
indications to hold otherwise, all sale transactions under
registered sale deeds will be assumed to be normal sales by
willing sellers to willing purchasers. Where however there is
evidence or indications that the sale was not at prevailing fair
market value, it has to be ignored. But auction sales stand on a
different footing. When purchasers start bidding for a property in
an auction, an element of competition enters into the auction.
Human ego, and desire to do better and excel other competitors,
leads to competitive bidding, each trying to outbid the others.
Thus in a well advertised open auction sale, where a large
number of bidders participate, there is always a tendency for the
price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On the
other hand, where the auction sale is by banks or financial
institutions, courts, etc. to recover dues, there is an element of
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:40:28 +0530Page 45 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiadistress, a cloud regarding title, and a chance of litigation, which
have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders and
making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There is
therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or
lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of
sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction sale
transactions when other regular traditional sale transactions are
available while determining the market value of the acquired
land. This Court in Raj Kumar v. Haryana State
MANU/SC/7864/2007: 2007 (7) SCC 609, observed that the
element of competition in auction sales makes them unsafe
guides for determining the market value.”.
Section 24 of LA, Act provides that any increase of value
of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use of which it will
be put when acquired is required to be neglected while
determining compensation. Hon’ble Apex Court in State of
Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. (supra) observed that in order
to determine market value of the acquired land its consideration
should be confined to the market value prevailing as on the date
of the notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894.
It is settled law that the exemplar to be considered has to
be that of a comparable land in respect of being contemporary in
time and also enjoying situational proximity so as to give a fair
idea of the market value of similarly placed lands in the
immediate vicinity or in the neighbouring areas at the relevant
time of issuance of notification.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:32 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 46 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
It is also settled law that each piece of land might suffer
from locational advantages or disadvantages and cannot simply
be equated to apply to any land, even in the same village.
Nothing has been placed on record to show as to how the sale
amount/consideration in the exemplars relied upon by petitioners,
can be applied to the acquired land. There is no deliberation with
respect to the distance of acquired land with the exemplars relied
upon or any locational advantageous or disadvantageous factor
with regard to specification of location of acquired land vis-a-vis
the exemplars.
When there is no evidence regarding comparability of the
exemplars with subject land then in view of the abovesaid settled
legal position regarding auction sale transactions and sale
transactions took place after issuance of Section 4 notification of
the LA Act, 1894, these documents cannot be relied upon to
assess the actual market value of the subject land.
44. The petitioner also claimed in its affidavit of evidence
Ex.PW1/A that the entire revenue estate of Village Aya Nagar had
been declared urbanized by the government vide notification
dated 03.06.1966. However, no evidence in support of this
contention was ever led on behalf of the petitioner. Per contra,
DMRC examined RW4 from Range Officer, South Forest
Division, New Delhi, who produced two maps of Village Aya
Nagar Notified Reserve Forest and exhibited the same as
Ex.RW4/1 and map of Morphological Ridge of Delhi including
forest area and exhibited the same as RW4/2 in order to show that
the subject land falls within the ridge area boundary. This
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:40:39 +0530Page 47 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiacontention that the subject land is an agricultural land and falls
within the ridge area boundary was made by DMRC witness
RW2 through his affidavit of evidence Ex.RW2/A. Accordingly,
this plea of petitioner regarding urbanization of the Village Aya
Nagar is not sustainable in absence of any supportive evidence.
Accordingly, no positive evidence was led on behalf of the
petitioner in order to show that the petitioner is entitled for
enhanced compensation for the subject land.
45. RW2 filed document Mark-I i.e. copy of Award dated
24.01.2019 of the reference court in LAC 96/2016 in case titled
Santosh Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. in which
Section 4 notification was issued on 09.05.2007 for acquisition of
land of Village Sultanpur. In this case, Ld. Reference Court
answered the reference under Section 18 of LA Act while
upholding the compensation award by LAC @ Rs.17,58,400/-.
It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the land
was acquired for the same purpose as of the present case and the
date of notification is around two months prior to the Section 4
notification in the present case. It was argued that Village
Sultanpur was more developed area than the Village Aya Nagar,
where subject land of this case locates, at that time also and even
for the land of Village Sultanpur the compensation @
Rs.17,58,400/- as awarded by the LAC was upheld in this case.
46. In view of the abovesaid discussion, evidences and settled
legal position, I am of the considered opinion that no cogent
evidence is found to be led to show that the market value of the
acquired land was Rs.39 Crores on the date of notification of
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:40:43 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 48 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Section 4 of LA Act. Exemplars of the comparable land and of
the relevant period were also not led in evidence by the
petitioner. Consequently, it has to be held that LAC has correctly
assessed the market value of the acquired land on the date of
notification of Section 4 of LA Act. Issue no.2 is answered
accordingly.
Issue No.3: Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhanced
compensation, if so at what rate and of statutory benefits? OPP
47. OWNERSHIP OF THE PETITIONER/CLAIMANT
Sh. Krishan Kumar examined himself as PW1 being
Director of the petitioner company. During his cross-examination
dated 25.04.2017 on behalf of UOI, he answered that he was
Director of the company and he and his wife purchased the said
Motel in the year 2010 and 2011 and in this way they had taken
the possession of M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. During his
cross-examination dated 01.11.2017 on behalf of DMRC, he
answered that he was working as Director of the petitioner
company since 2010. He further answered that he had submitted
Section 18 application in the year 2011 and he purchased the
share of company in two tranches i.e. 46% share was purchased
on 03.08.2010 and remaining 24% share was purchased on
15.09.2011.
On 18.11.2024, Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted
that PW1/Sh. Krishan Kumar alongwith his wife purchased 100%
share of the petitioner company from Sh. Harbhajan Singh
Chopra (original petitioner) and his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur in the
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:40:47
+0530LAC No. 138/16
Page 49 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiayear 2010. He submitted that no document showing this
transaction was produced by the petitioner Sh. Krishan Kumar.
Perusal of the record shows that application under Section
18 of LA Act, 1894 before LAC was filed by claimant Sh.
Harbhajan Singh Chopra on 10.05.2011. PW1/Sh. Krishan
Kumar filed the amended petition under Section 18 of LA Act,
1894 on 17.05.2016. As per this record, it is clear that he falsely
said on 01.11.2017 during his cross-examination due to the
reasons best known to him that he had submitted Section 18
application in the year 2011 as in the year 2011 the application
under Section 18 of LA Act was filed by Sh. Harbhajan Singh
Chopra and not by Sh. Krishan Kumar/PW1.
48. During his examination dated 25.04.2017, he relied upon
copy of Memorandum of Settlement and Agreement to Sell
between Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Pradeep Rana
for consideration amount of Rs.110 Crores and the same was
exhibited as Ex.PW1/21.
Perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
28.03.2011 shows that the same was executed between total
seven parties, out of which Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra (original
petitioner) and his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur were jointly referred as
second party and Sh. Krishan Kumar (present petitioner/PW1) is
fourth party. The Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. through Sh.
H.S. Chopra has been referred as third party. As per this
Memorandum of Settlement, it was resolved that the third party
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. would be sold to the seventh
party i.e. Sh. Pradeep Rana in terms of Agreement to Sell
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:40:57 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 50 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
annexed herewith. The Agreement to Sell dated 28.03.2011 is
annexed alongwith this document shows that it was agreed
between M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. as first party and
Sh. Pardeep Rana as second party and Sh. Devender Sharma
alongwith his wife Smt. Seema Sharma as third party that first
party had agreed to sale the property to second party and the
second party had agreed to purchase the said property for a total
sale consideration of Rs.110 Crores out of which Rs.70 Crores
shall be paid to the first party and balance amount shall be paid to
the third party for his efforts for the present sale. The receiving of
total amount of Rs. Seven Crores as part payment by the first
party has been mentioned in the agreement itself and the balance
amount to the first party was agreed to be paid within 90 days
from the date of permanent de-sealing of the Hotel. It was also
agreed that total sale consideration of Rs.40 Crores by the third
party shall be paid after paying the total payment to the first party
and third party would handover all papers related to the property
to the second party. It was also agreed upon that if second party
failed to make the balance amount within 90 days from the date
of this document then the advance money paid under this
agreement shall forfeit automatically. It was also mentioned in
Clause (c) of this agreement that the said property was sealed at
that time due to unauthorized use and it was agreed that the first
party should get the said property de-sealed from the MCD,
monitoring committee of the Supreme Court or any other
concerned authorities.
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:41:02
+0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 51 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
As per contents, terms and conditions of these documents,
it is nowhere found to be mentioned that PW1/Krishan Kumar
alongwith his wife was owner of 100% share or atleast 76% share
of the petitioner company at the time of alleged execution of
these documents in the year 2011. However, as already observed
during his cross-examination dated 01.11.2017, he answered that
he purchased 76% share of the company on 03.08.2010.
Moreover, Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted on 18.11.2024
that Sh. Krishan Kumar alongwith his wife purchased 100%
share of the property from Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra and his
wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur in the year 2010. These claims are
contrary to the contents of their own documents which nowhere
mentions about their said ownership. Moreover, neither original
of these documents were produced before the court nor any of
the witness of these documents was examined in order to prove
these documents. The alleged purchaser Sh. Pradeep Rama was
also not examined to prove these documents.
If these documents are considered to be admissible just for
the sake of arguments then also as per these documents, the
owner of the petitioner company was Sh. Pradeep Rana and not
Sh. Krishan Kumar/PW1 and his wife.
Moreover, it is settled legal preposition that any agreement
to sell does not confer title rather it is a registered sale deed
which confer title. However, any such sale deed executed in
pursuance of these documents was never produced before this
court by the petitioenr due to the reasons best known to him.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 17:41:07 +0530 LAC No. 138/16 Page 52 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
During his cross-examination dated 01.11.2017, PW1
answered that no civic agency has ever sealed the acquired
premises at any time. However, to the contrary, as per the
document of the petitioner himself, clause (c) of agreement to sell
dated 28.03.2011, the said property was sealed at that time due to
unauthorized use and the first party assured that it should get the
said property de-sealed from MCD monitoring committee of
Supreme Court or any other concerned authority. It was within
the best knowledge of the petitioner that why he deposed falsely
before the court on oath.
Different details of the Directors of the petitioner company
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. are found to be there in the
Memorandum of Settlement and Agreement to Sell and Purchase.
As per the Memorandum of Settlement, M/s Fountain Head
Motels Pvt. Ltd. was acting through Sh. H.S. Chopra. However,
to the contrary, as per Agreement to Sell and Purchase of the
same date, M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. was claimed to
be represented by its Directors namely Sh. H.S. Chopra, Smt.
Surjeet Kaur, Sh. Krishan Kumar, Smt. Meenakshi and Sh. Vinod
Kumar. The different details of the Directors in these documents
was never explained on behalf of the present petitioner/PW1 Sh.
Krishan Kumar.
No document showing share purchase agreement to prove
the alleged ownership in favour of present claimant Sh. Krishan
Kumar and his wife was ever produced by him due to the reasons
best know to him.
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:41:12
+0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 53 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
No board resolution authorizing him to pursue this case on
behalf of the petitioner company was also produced by the
present petitioner to show his locus standi in the present case.
The change in directorship – As and when needed the
provisions of Companies Act, 2013 read with Companies
(Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules 2014 sets
down the procedure for change in the Directors. As per the
present petitioner/PW1, he and his wife purchased M/s Fountain
Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2010 and 2011 and he was
working as Director of the petitioner company since 2010.
During his cross-examination, he also answered that he has
placed on record board of resolution. However, except the
abovesaid alleged Memorandum of Settlement and alleged
Agreement to Sell no such document showing resolution passed
by board is found to be placed on record. No appropriate
document showing change in Directors of the petitioner company
was also produced to show that the present claimant has been
director of the company.
No proof of payment for the alleged sale consideration of
Rs.110 Crores as per document Ex.PW1/21 was ever filed by the
present petitioner to prove the abovesaid sale.
Admittedly no document showing purchase of 100%
shares of the petitioner company from Sh. H.S. Chopra and his
wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur was ever filed by the present
petitioner/PW1 due to the reasons best known to him.
In absence of any sale deed regarding subject land or
specific agreement between Sh. Krishan Kumar, his wife on one
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.03.29
17:41:17 +0530
LAC No. 138/16
Page 54 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
hand and Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra and his wife on another
hand regarding transfer of their right of enhanced compensation
in respect of subject land in favour of present petitioner/Sh.
Krishan Kumar and his wife, the claim of the present
petitioner/Sh. Krishan Kumar regarding enhanced compensation
is not maintainable. In absence of any documentary proof, the
claim of ownership in favour of Sh. Krishan Kumar and his wife
remains only bald claim.
49. Document Ex.PW1/21 i.e. Memorandum of Settlement
dated 28.03.2011 mentions in Clause 8 that the second party i.e.
Harbhajan Singh and his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur had initiated
criminal action against first party i.e. Devender Sharma and his
wife Smt. Seema Sharma and sixth party i.e. Smt. Raj Sharma
and her husband Sh. Dharnvir Sharma and a FIR No. 12/2008
under Section 384/420/466/468/471/477/506/120B/34 of IPC
against Devender Sharma & Ors. was lodged with Crime Branch.
However, on inquiry on 05.03.2025 by this court, Ld. counsel for
the petitioner had shown his ignorance about the FIR
proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here that the present
petitioner is fourth party to the memorandum of settlement. The
submissions of Ld. counsel for the petitioner regarding his
ignorance about the abovesaid FIR is a surprise for this court
because this document was filed during the evidence of PW1/Sh.
Krishan Kumar on 25.04.2017 i.e. at the time when he was
representing the present petitioner in this matter.
In view of the abovesaid discussion regarding the
evidences led by the present petitioner/PW1 to show his
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
LAC No. 138/16 17:41:22 +0530Page 55 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025
M/s Fountain Head Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indiaownership and legality to get the enhanced compensation in
respect of acquired land in the present case and false deposition
of the petitioner on oath before this court and considering that
issues no.1 and 2 have already been decided against the
petitioner, the petitioner is held not entitled to any enhancement
for the compensation already awarded. Accordingly, issue no.3 is
decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.4: Relief.
50. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition is
dismissed. Both the sides will bear their own costs.
51. The reference petition under Section 18 of LA Act is
answered in terms of findings on issues no.1 to 3. Statement
under Section 19 of the L.A. Act be annexed to the award. Copy
be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for
information and necessary compliance. Thereafter, file be
consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court
on this 29th March, 2025.
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.29
17:41:30 +0530
(DR. YADVENDER SINGH)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
LAC No. 138/16
Page 56 of 56 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/29.03.2025