Delhi District Court
Nitin Juneja vs Union Of India on 9 June, 2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
DLST010003562010
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh.
LAC NO. 110/16
FILING No. 28263/2010
CNR No. DLST01-000356-2010
In the matter of :-
Nitin Juneja
S/o Sh. Hariom Juneja
R/o Z-61, Okhla Industrial
Area Phase-II, Delhi-110020.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector (South),
M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi.
2. Chairman
DMRC Ltd.,
Metro Bhawan, 13, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
3. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice-Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. ......Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.08.2010
Reference received on : 26.08.2010
Date on which order was reserved : 29.04.2025
Date of Award : 09.06.2025
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 110/16 17:12:48 +0530
Page 1 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
AWARD BY THE COURT
1. The present reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was received from the office of Land
Acquisition Collector (South) on an application moved by the
petitioner, who has sought enhancement of the monetary award
given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that the
assessment of the market value of the acquired land is wholly
inadequate and was done on the lower side without considering
the relevant factors for correctly assessing the market value of the
land in question. The reference was received in this court from
the office of LAC (South) on 26.08.2010.
2. For answering the present reference petition, the relevant
dates, features and facts are given below:
(i) Date of notification U/s 4 of the Act: 07.11.2007
(iia) Date of notification U/s 6 of the Act: 17.12.2007
(iib) Date of notification U/s 17 of the Act: 17.12.2007
(iii) For Project: Construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat-
Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II.
(iv) Date of possession taken: 29.05.2009
(v) Location/Name of Village: Harkesh Nagar
(vi) Award Number U/s 11 of Act by LAC: 08/2009-10
& date of Award: 11.12.2009
(vii) Area under this reference petition: 43.811 sq. mtrs.
(viii) Market value of land held by LAC: Rs.24978/- per sq.
mtrs. for free hold land and Rs.18733/- per sq. mtrs. for lease
hold land.
(ix) Date of reference petition to LAC: 13.05.2010
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 110/16
17:12:53 +0530
Page 2 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
(x) Petition referred to this Court on: 26.08.2010
3. The present reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act
pertains to the award announced by LAC for acquisition of land
situated in Village Harkesh Nagar which was acquired for the
public purpose of ‘Construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat-
Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project, Phase-II’. The land in
question was acquired by the LAC vide award No. 08/2009-10
dated 11.12.2009 pursuant to preliminary notification under
Section 4 of the Act dated 07.11.2007 which was followed up by
notification under Section 6 of the Act on 17.12.2007.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (in brief LAC) after
considering the relevant factors gave its Award No.08-2009-10
by determining the compensation awarded under Section 11 for
the market value of the free hold land @ Rs.24978/- per sq. mtr.
and market value of the lease hold land @ Rs.18733/- per sq. mtr.
5. Since the petitioner did not accept the award, he
preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act,
1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The reference
filed by the petitioner along with statement under Section 19 of
the Act, 1894 has been sent to the Court by the Land Acquisition
Collector for answering the same.
6. Reference was forwarded by the LAC with the claim of
the petitioner. As per the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner is
the sole owner of the property bearing No. Z-61, Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II, New Delhi total admeasuring 672.24 sq. mtrs.
situated in the revenue estate of village Harkesh Nagar, New
Delhi and the petitioner is the only interested person as per
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 110/16 17:12:57 +0530
Page 3 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
Section 3 of Land Acquisition Act. The said plot was allotted by
Delhi Development Authority for industrial purposes and on
05.12.1983, the Delhi Development Authority on behalf of
President of India executed a perpetual lease deed in favour of
the petitioner, which was duly registered. The petitioner had also
raised the construction in accordance with the sanction building
plan and the same was being used for the purpose of industrial
uses. On 07.11.2007 notification U/s 4 (l) of Land Acquisition
Act, in respect of land measuring 43.811 Sq. mtrs. out of the
above said plot was issued vide notification No. F.9
(82)/07/L&B/LA/MRTS(S)/11269 dated 07.11.2007. Thereafter
a declaration U/s 6 of Land Acquisition Act, vide notification No.
F.9(82)/07/L&B/LA/MRTS(S)/13268 dated 17.12.2007 was
issued by the Addl. Secretary (L&B) Department, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi for construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat-
Badarpur Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II. The
petitioner in pursuance to the notices under Section 9 & 10 of
Land Acquisition Act issued by the Land Acquisition Collector
(South) regarding the acquisition of land measuring 43.811 Sq
mtrs. out of plot No. Z-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi
filed his claim/objections wherein the petitioner claimed the
market rate of land for his property @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per Sq mtr.
alongwith damages against structure, damages for severance and
damages for loss of revenue suffered by the petitioner due to non
use of premises after acquisition. The petitioner also filed various
evidences in support of his claim. Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:13:00 +0530LAC 110/16
Page 4 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
6.1. The petitioner after filing the claim did not receive
any notice from the officer of Land Acquisition Collector (South)
intimating or communicating the date of pronouncement of the
award, thus the petitioner could not be present before the Land
Acquisition Collector at the time of making and passing the
award. The petitioner was also not represented by any person
before the collector when the award was made. The petitioner on
16.12.2009 personally approached to the officials of Land
Acquisition Collector (South) and was handed over a copy of
notice U/s 12 (2) of Land Acquisition Act by the said officials
wherein it was mentioned that the award was made on
11.12.2009. Thus the limitation of making reference in the
present case is governed by the provisions of Section 18 (2) (b)
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, the present reference
petition is within the period of limitation.
6.2. The petitioner after having gone through the award
was shocked to know that the Land Acquisition Collector did not
take into consideration any of the evidence filed by the petitioner
proving the market rate of the acquired property at the time of
issuance of notification U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
while making and passing the award and has assessed the market
value of the land at a very low price. The Land Acquisition
Collector further did not pass any compensation with regards to
the damages for severance, damages for loss of revenue due to
non use of the premises after acquisition etc. and other claimed
by the petitioner in the claim filed by the petitioner U/s 9 & 10 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner is not accepting the
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:13:10 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 5 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
award No. 08/2009-10 pronounced on 11.12.09 and being
aggrieved by the same requesting to refer the matter to the Distt.
Judge, Distt. South Delhi, New Delhi U/s 18 of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 for the purpose of determination of the proper and fair
market value of the above said property inter alia on the
following amongst other grounds:
A. That the acquired land and building is situated on the
main road in developed and well known industrial area
known as Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi and
due to location, situation and potentiality of the same is
more advantageous for production and better condition
comparing to the other industrial plot in the area. There are
many commercial shop dealing in industrial and commercial
goods near to the acquired property. The electricity, water,
other amenities including man power is easily available in
the area and due to said reason the acquired property is
capable to fetch higher market value than the awarded
amount as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector
(South). The market value of the land was not less than
Rs.2,00,000/- per Sq. mtr. and costs of the construction
raised by the petitioner was not less than Rs.1,23,000/- on
the date of notification issued U/s 4 of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 in the present case.
B. That the property in question has been acquired for the
purpose of MRTS Project and the same had commercial use
and value in view of the fact that the DMRC has constructed
the Metro Station at walkable distance and the acquired
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:13:14 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 6 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
property is right opposite to the metro line and the property
in question is wide enough and has very high potential
market value.
C. That the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to
get the compensation at the commercial rate in view of the
location potentiality and high quality of the said property. It
is pertinent to submit that the acquired land is in the vicinity
of the commercial center Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-l
wherein DDA has sold the plot @ Rs.3,21,528/- per sq. mtr.
in the open auction held by the DDA on 27.07.2007 prior to
the notification U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
Government Authorities itself fixes 3:2 ratio while
calculating the circle rate of commercial and industrial area.
If the said ratio is taken into account then also the fair
market rate of the acquired property would be nearly
2,14,352/- per Sq mtr. The market value of the plot
auctioned by the DDA is even higher than the amount
claimed by the petitioner and much higher than the rate
offered by the Land Acquisition Collector. But the petitioner
has restricted his claim for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per Sq.
mtr as fair market value of land of his property.
D. That the Land Acquisition Collector (South) has also
wrongly determined the cost of structure and the same has
been assessed as per the valuation assessed by the DMRC
through the Executive Engineer, Public Work Department,
M-112 Delhi whereas the fact is that the cost of construction
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:13:17 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 7 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiaof the building existing on the date of notification U/s 4 of
LA Act was more than Rs.1,25,00,000/-.
E. That the increasing trend in market rate of the industrial
plot was also not considered by the Land Acquisition
Collector while passing the award and the award has been
passed by considering the sale deeds which were registered
at a very low value despite the well known fact that while
getting the documents of sale deed registered the people in
Delhi do not show the true market rate of their property to
avoid the incidence of stamp duty and capital gains tax. It is
pertinent to mention here that three out of the five sale deeds
considered by LAC have been registered below the Circle
Rates. The acquired property is having more potentiality to
fetch higher market rate due to its situation and location than
the properties considered by the Land Acquisition Collector
in order to determine the true market value of the acquired
land.
F. That the acquisition rendered the remaining land in
irregular and rectangular shape and disproportionate
frontage to depth and has further rendered the use of
remaining plot inconvenient and inefficient in its
architecture design and utilization of workable space
resulting in reduction of the price of remaining land. The
petitioner is also entitled for damages and claimed Rs.
1,67,37000/- in his claim filed U/s 9 & 10 of Land
Acquisition Collector, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector
has not determined the said damages in the award for which
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:13:21 +0530LAC 110/16
Page 8 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiathe petitioner is liable to be paid damages in the award for
which the petition is liable to be paid by the respondents.
G. That the acquired land is being developed by the DMRC
for construction of Railway Station, Mall, Marketing
Complexes, Cineplex, Video Parlors, Restaurants,
Commercial shops to attract customers and tourist meaning
thereby the DMRC would be using the land for commercial
purposes. The Delhi Development Authority itself has sold
the commercial land @ Rs. 3,25,528/- per Sq. mtr. This fact
has been intentionally, deliberately ignored by the Land
Acquisition Collector (South) while determining the fair
market value of the land and passing the award. Thus the
petitioner is entitled @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per Sq. mtr. of the
acquired land.
H. That the petitioner is also entitled to the damages suffered
by him on account of damages for severance and damages
for loss of revenue due to non use of premises after
acquisition notice. The petitioner is entitled to the
compensation against the damages to the tune of
Rs.60,06,000/- which was even claimed by the petitioner in
the claims filed U/s 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
but the Land Acquisition Collector did not even consider the
same while passing the award.
I. That the petitioner is also entitled to all the statutory
benefits including the Additional amount, interest, solatium
etc. in accordance with law. Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:13:27
+0530LAC 110/16
Page 9 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
7. That there is no delay in filing the present petition and
the same is within the period of limitation.
8. The petitioner sought following reliefs:
a. Fix the market value of the land @ Rs. 2,00,000/-
per sq. mtr. as on the date of notification U/s 4 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
b. Pass an award towards the damages suffered by the
petitioner on account of loss of severance and
damages for loss of revenue due to non use of
premises after acquisition and regular disruption of
the manufacturing activity at the unit for a sum of
Rs.60,06,000/-.
c. Award interest and solatium etc. in accordance with
law.
d. Any other relief under law for which the petitioner
is entitled to.
9. Written Statement has not been filed on behalf of
UOI/respondent No.1.
10. Respondent No.2/DMRC filed its written statement. It
was stated in the written statement that there was no cause of
action arose to file the present reference petition and petition
needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The
present reference petition is time barred and not maintainable
under the ambit of law. It is further stated that present petition
was filed after the lapse of five months from the date of passing
of award by LAC.
11. No replication has been filed by the petitioner to the
written statement of the respondent no.2.
12. Vide order dated 14.10.2015, following issues were
framed by the Learned Predecessor of this Court:
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:13:31 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 10 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
1. Whether the present reference has been filed
within the period of limitation?
2. Whether the petitioner has got any right, title
or interest in the acquired disputed land and is
entitled to compensation. If so, to what
extent/share and from which respondents?
3. What was the market value of the acquired
disputed land on the date of notification under
section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and what
enhancement in market value, if any, the
petitioner is entitled thereto.
4. Relief.
13. Order dated 18.09.2012 of Ld. Predecessor Court
reflects that that day Ld. Predecessor Court allowed the adoption
of evidence led in connected case bearing LAC 33/11 titled
‘Arun Kumar Vs. UOI & Anr. in the present case also at request
of Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
14. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. Petitioner
examined himself as PW1. During his examination-in-chief he
deposed that he is not leading any separate evidence and relying
on the evidence led in the LAC No. 33/2011 titled as Arun
Kumar Vs. UOI & Anr. He was duly cross-examined by Ld.
counsel for UOI and Law Officer for the DMRC. Thereafter,
petitioner closed his evidence on 31.05.2017.
15. On 09.01.2018, Sh. S.K. Puri, Ld. counsel for UOI was
examined as RW1. He tendered the photocopy of sale deed dated
19.04.2007 entered between Kesho Nath Vs Rinku Sobti for
Rs.1,65,00,000/- pertaining to Village Okhla. The same was
exhibited as Ex.RW1/A.
16. Respondent no.2/DMRC examined Sh. A.S. Rao, Law
Officer, DMRC as RW2 in RE. He relied upon photocopy of sale
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
LAC 110/16
17:13:35 +0530
Page 11 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
deed dated 10.5.2007 entered between M/s Navjeevan Associate
Pvt. Ltd and M/s Unique Technobuild Pvt. Ltd for
Rs.9,81,00,000/- pertaining to Mohan Cooperative Industrial
Area and exhibited the same as Ex.RW2/A. He also relied upon
copy of the judgment dated 21.4.2017 in LAC no.101/16, titled
as Mate Ram Vs UOI & Ors decided by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, ADJ-
02 West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and exhibited the same as
Ex.RW2/B.
17. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of respondents no.2/UOI
was closed on 09.01.2018 vide separate statement of Law
Officer.
18. During the proceedings, one application on behalf of
DMRC under Section 151 CPC for reopening the respondent
evidence was filed which was allowed vide order dated
09.07.2024 and opportunity was given to DMRC to lead
additional evidence.
19. Thereafter, DMRC examined Sh. Sushant Tripathi, Law
Officer, DMRC, Metro Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi
as RW-3. He relied upon the following documents:
i) Certified copy of sale deed dated 14.06.2007 registered
with Sub-Registrar with registration no. 7416 in Book no. 1,
volume no. 7397 from pages 99-110 and exhibited the same as
Ex.RW-3/A (objected to as mode of proof).
ii) Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.10.2007 registered
with Sub-Registrar with registration no. 12863 in Additional
Book no. 1, volume no. 7728 from pages 88-139 and exhibited
the same as Ex. RW-3/B (objected to as mode of proof).
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:13:40 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 12 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the
petitioner. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of respondent
no.2/DMRC was closed on 09.07.2024 vide separate statement of
Law Officer, DMRC.
20. On 03.09.2024, one application on behalf of the UOI
under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of DDA being
proper and necessary party was filed, which was allowed vide
order dated 05.11.2024 and DDA was impleaded as respondent
no.3 in the present case.
21. Written statement on behalf of DDA alongwith
documents was filed on 04.12.2024.
22. Replication on behalf of petitioner to the written
statement of respondent no.3/DDA was filed on 22.01.2025.
23. During the proceedings, an application on behalf of
DMRC under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC
alongwith certain documents was again filed on 01.10.2024,
which was allowed vide order dated 28.01.2025 and documents
filed alongwith the application were taken on record.
24. On 28.01.2025, an application on behalf of DMRC under
Section 151 CPC for reopening RE alongwith annexures was
filed, which was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2025.
25. Thereafter, RW2 Sh. A.S. Rao, DGM, Legal, DMRC
tendered additional evidence. He relied upon the following
documents:
i) Certified copy of the agreement to sell dated 09.08.2006
entered into between Sh. Arun Bhatia and Sh. Nitin Juneja as
Ex.RW2/C (Objected to as mode of proof). Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 110/16 17:13:44
+0530
Page 13 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
ii) Copy of notice under Section 12(2) & 32(1) of L.A. Act
as Ex.RW2/D (OSR).
iii) Copy of requisition dated 15.06.2007 submitted by
DMRC to Secretary, Land and Building Department for
acquisition as Ex.RW2/E (OSR).
iv) Copy of representation dated 10.06.2008 submitted by
Sh. Nitin Juneja as Ex.RW2/F (OSR).
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the
petitioner. Thereafter, RE on behalf of DMRC was closed on
04.03.2025.
26. Vide order dated 04.03.2025, Ld. counsel for the
petitioner submitted that RW2 has led evidence regarding
limitation period and sought further opportunity for PE on the
ground that earlier no evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner
on this issue. Accordingly, further opportunity to lead PE on the
issue of limitation was granted to the petitioner.
27. Thereafter, on 01.04.2025, petitioner/PW1 tendered his
additional affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/2. He was duly cross-
examined by Sh. A.S. Rao, DGM, DMRC and Ld. counsel for the
UOI. Thereafter, vide separate statement of the petitioner, his
evidence was closed on 01.04.2025.
28. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. counsels for the
parties and perused the material on record. My issue-wise
findings are as under :
Issue No.1: Whether the present reference has been filed within
the period of limitation?
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:13:47
+0530
LAC 110/16
Page 14 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
29. Vide order dated 11.02.2025, respondent no.2/DMRC
was allowed to lead additional evidence and thereafter during
additional evidence on 04.03.2025 RW2 tendered the documents
Ex.RW2/C to Ex.RW2/F.
Ex.RW2/D (OSR) is copy of notice under Section 12(2) &
32(1) of L.A. Act. This document was filed on behalf of DMRC
in order to prove that the petitioner was served with the notice on
11.12.2009. Perusal of this document shows that it bears the
signatures of the receiver on its backside.
Thereafter, petitioner was also given opportunity for
further PE pertaining to the issue of limitation period as RW2 led
evidence on this issue through additional evidence dated
04.03.2025. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 on
01.04.2025 through additional evidence and tendered the
additional affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/2. In the additional
affidavit, the fact of receiving of the abovesaid notice Ex.RW2/D
was not denied, however, it has been averred by the petitioner in
the additional affidavit that the said notice did not communicate
any of the material and essential contents of the award and
petitioner came to know about the market value assessed by the
LAC only on 20.04.2010 through other persons whose land had
been acquired in the same award and after consulting the lawyer
filed petition under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 on 13.05.2010. It
has been averred that reference petition is within the period of
limitation.
During his cross-examination on 01.04.2025,
petitioner/PW1 answered that on 16.12.2009, he visited the LAC
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:13:53 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 15 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
office and there he came to know about the passing of the award
and the same day the notice under Section 12(2) was supplied to
him. He further answered that except notice under Section 12(2)
LA Act he did not receive any information from the office of
LAC. He admitted that he had not applied for the certified copy
of the award.
30. Section 18(2) of The Land Acquisition Act provides that
the application shall state the grounds on which objection to the
award is taken.
Provided that every such application shall be made,
(a) if the person making it was present or represented
before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within
six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the
notice from the Collector under section 12 (2) or within six
months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period
shall first expire.
So, it is clear that the person interested, who has received
the compensation from protest, is required to state in his
application for reference the grounds on which he objects the
compensation awarded by the Collector within six weeks of the
date of award when either he was present or represented by a
counsel or agent, or within six weeks from the the date of receipt
of the notice from the Collector sent under Section 12(2) or
within six months from the date of the award made by the
Collector, which ever period shall first expire.
Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:00 +0530 LAC 110/16 Page 16 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025 Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
31. In the backdrop of the abovesaid provisions of the land
and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the question of bar
of limitation, as prescribed in clauses (a) & (b) of the proviso
below sub section 2 of Section 18 of The Land Acquisition Act
will have to be considered.
32. In the case of State of Punjab v. Mst Qaisar Jehan
Begum and another, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1604, where the
Collector made an award on 25-10-1953, the amount of
compensation was paid on 22-7-1955, and on 30-9-1955, the
respondents made an application to the Collector for reference
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, alleging that they
knew about the award on 22-7-1955 when they received the
compensation amount. Ld. Reference Court came to the
conclusion that the reference was barred by time by expressing a
doubt as to whether the respondents were entitled to count the
period of limitation from the date of knowledge, but even if it is
assumed to be so, the date of knowledge must be taken to be 24-
12-1954, when the respondents made an application for interim
payment and, therefore, the reference sought was barred by time.
Hon’ble High Court allowed the revision application and set
aside the order of the Ld. Reference Court and directed dealing of
the reference on its own merits. This was the subject-matter of
challenge before the Apex Court.
33. A three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid judgment considered the provisions of Section 12 of the
Land Acquisition Act and the decision in Raja Harish Chandra
Raj Singh’s Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.,
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:14:04 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 17 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500, earlier decided by it. On
interpretation of clause (a) in the proviso under Section 18, it is
held that when a party is present in a Court either personally or
through his representative when the award is made by the
Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the
award. Hon’ble Apex Court recorded the finding in respect of
clause (b) of the proviso that admittedly the award was never
communicated to the respondents. While dealing with the
contention that the date of knowledge must be taken to be
24.12.1954, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the knowledge of
the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an
award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential
contents of the award which must be made known either actually
or constructively. If the award is communicated to a party under
Section 12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with
knowledge of the contents of award whether it reads it or not. It
was held that the date of knowledge in the said case should be
taken as 22-7-1955 when the amount of compensation was paid
and, therefore, the application for reference made on 30-9-1955
was clearly within a period of six months from the date of that
award and it was not barred by time within the meaning of the
second part of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 18 of the said
Act.
34. Coming back to the present case, the award was passed
on 11.12.2009. The date of reference petition to the LAC is
13.05.2010. The petitioner admitted the receiving of notice under
Section 12(2) of LA Act on 16.12.2009. However, petitioner Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 110/16 17:14:08
+0530
Page 18 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiacontended that except the notice under Section 12(2) LA Act he
did not receive any information from the office of LAC and the
said notice Ex.RW2/D did not mention any of the material and
essential contents of the award and thereafter the petitioner came
to know about the market value assessed by the LAC only on
20.04.2010 through other persons whose land had been acquired
in the same award. However, petitioner’s contention that he came
to know about the market value assessed by the LAC only on
20.04.2010 is factually incorrect because as per statement under
Section 19 of the LA Act, 1894, the awarded compensation was
received by the petitioner on 25.03.2010 and as per the abovesaid
judgment of State of Punjab v. Mst Qaisar Jehan Begum and
another (supra), the date of knowledge should atleast be taken as
the date when the amount of compensation was paid. However,
even if the date of receiving compensation is taken as the date of
knowledge then also the reference filed before LAC is found to
be filed within the statutory period of six months. But the bone of
contention here is that whether the petitioner’s case shall fall
under the first part or second part of Clause (b) of the Proviso
below sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the Act, 1894. It is an
admitted position of the petitioner that he received the notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act on 16.12.2009 and if the date of
receiving of the notice is considered to be the date of knowledge
of the Award to count the statutory period then the petitioner’s
case must fall under the first part of Clause (b) of the Proviso
below sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and in that
case the reference was required to be filed before LAC within 6
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:14:11 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 19 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiaweeks of receipt of the notice. However, the petitioner claims
that copy of award and information of material and essential
contents of the award was not provided to him at the time of
receiving of the notice and accordingly, he claims his case under
later part of Clause (b) under which the statutory period of 6
months is provided for filing of reference and for that purpose he
claims the date of knowledge regarding the essential contents of
the award as 20.04.2010 when he allegedly came to know about
the market value assessed by LAC from other persons whose
land had been acquired under the same award. However, to the
surprise of this court despite the fact that claimants of the other
lands acquired under the same award, who also challenged the
market value assessed by LAC in this award through their
separate reference petitions and are represented by the same
counsel as of the present case then also neither the name of these
persons has been mentioned in the affidavit as well as in the
reference nor any of these persons were examined by the
petitioner in support of his contentions regarding the knowledge
about the contents of the award from them on 20.04.2010. It
makes the contentions of the petitioner highly doubtful that he
remained unaware about the material and essential contents of the
award at the time of receiving of the notice. Except bald
statement no cogent evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner
to prove his contention. The notice Ex.RW2/D is not disputed by
the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner’s case for the purpose
of limitation period must fall within first part of Clause (b) of the
Proviso below sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the Act, 1894.
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:14:15 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 20 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
Accordingly, the petitioner was bound to file the reference
petition within six weeks of the receipt of the notice under
Section 12(2) of LA Act from the date of Collector’s Award. The
date of notice on the document Ex.RW2/D is 11.12.2009.
However, as per the petitioner’s own admission he received
notice on 16.12.2009. Even if the relevant date is considered to
be 16.12.2009 then also the reference before LAC (as filed on
13.05.2010) is found to be filed much beyond the expiration of 6
weeks’ time period.
It is highly improbable that a person who went to the LAC
office and received the notice under Section 12 (2) of LA Act
shall not inquire about the market value assessed by the LAC in
the award for his acquired land. It is petitioner’s case that he
received the notice under Section 12(2) of LA Act when he
visited the LAC office on 16.12.2009. During his cross-
examination dated 01.04.2025 as PW1, the petitioner also
answered that he visited the office of LAC many times to know
the contents of the award, however, he had not applied for the
certified copy of the award. These answers of the petitioner
makes his stand highly doubtful in respect of his knowledge
about the essential terms of the award/market value assessed by
the LAC. It also appears to be highly improbable that he did not
discuss this issue with other claimants after receiving the notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act 194 well within time as they have
been neighbours not for years but for many decades. It is more
doubtful in the circumstances where petitioner is not an illiterate
person rather allegedly a business man. Once the receiving of
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 110/16 17:14:18 +0530Page 21 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indianotice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act, 1894 has been
admitted by the petitioner then the onus shifts on the petitioner to
prove his unawareness about the award to which he miserably
failed due to non production of any admissible evidence on this
issue.
35. Now the question arises, whether the Court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to
determine the market value of the land, has power to condone the
delay caused in filing reference beyond the period stipulated in
clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso below sub-section (2) therein.
In fact, the point is no longer res integra in view of the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das & Ors.
vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 1532,
Division Bench Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it has been held
that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for
extension of the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso
to Section 18(2) of the said Act. While considering the bar of
limitation under Section 18 of the said Act, it is not the question
of condonation of delay, which is required to be considered, but it
is the question of starting point of limitation, which is required to
be considered.
36. It is also settled law that reference court cannot exend
the limitation period beyond the period prescribed in Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act itself.
37. In view of the abovesaid discussion, I am of the
considered opinion that the reference petition is found to be filed
beyond the prescribed period of limitation period as permissible
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:14:25 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 22 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, issue no.1 is
decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner has got any right, title or
interest in the acquired disputed land and is entitled to
compensation. If so, to what extent/share and from which
respondents?
38. Statement u/s 19 of the Act, 1894 as sent to this court by
LAC alongwith reference application u/s 18 of the Act mentions
the name of petitioner to whom compensation was awarded by
LAC. The Award no. 08/2009-10 also mentions name of
petitioner as name of claimant. No objection by any of the party
regarding the right, title or interest of the petitioner in the
acquired land was ever raised. Accordingly, issue no.2 stands
established in favour of petitioner.
Issue No.3: What was the market value of the acquired disputed
land on the date of notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act and what enhancement in market value, if any,
the petitioner is entitled thereto.
Petitioner’s Evidence:-
39. The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner and in
order to prove the issue the petitioner led evidence by examining
himself as PW1. He also relied upon evidences of certain
officials from the government offices as PW2 to PW8 tendered in
case LAC No. 22/16 titled Arun Kumar Vs. UOI.
40. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/1. He also relied upon documents Ex.PW1/2 to PW1/13
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:14:29 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 23 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiaand Mark-A to Mark-H tendered in case LAC No. 22/16 titled
Arun Kumar Vs. UOI.
41. Ex.PW1/2 is perpetual lease deed dated 19.01.1982 of
the subject land in petitioner’s favour. This document was not
relied upon by the petitioner to prove the actual market value of
the subject land but only to show his entitlement for the
compensation. Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9 are certified copies of
Sale Deeds dated 09.06.2008, 27.05.2008, 18.12.2007,
14.12.2007, 19.09.2007, 10.04.2007 and 15.01.2007 respectively.
During the final arguments, Ld. counsel for the petitioner fairly
admitted that the Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 were
executed after the present case Section 4 notification LA Act,
1894.
42. The judgment dated 26.07.1995 passed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 704-706/19860 in case titled
State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra & Ors. was relied upon by the
respondent no.2 to oppose the consideration of these sale deeds to
determine the market value of the subject land. In this case, the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para 3 which is reproduced as
under:
“….. as on the date of the determination of the
compensation. Its consideration should alone be
confined to the market value prevailing as on the date
of the notification under Section 4(1).”
43. The locality of exemplar Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to
Ex.PW1/6 are different to the present case subject land. The
subject land is situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Z
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:14:34 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 24 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
Block having plot No. 67. However, the subject land of Sale
Deed Ex.PW1/3 is situated at B-18/1, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi. The exemplar Ex.PW1/4 is situated at D-
177, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. The exemplar
Ex.PW1/5 is Sale Deed of plot No. E-49/11, Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II and the exemplar Ex.PW1/6 is the Sale Deed of
Plot No. D-10/8, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. Documents
Mark-D, Mark-E and Mark-F which are the maps of layout plans
of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and Phase-II show considerable
distance between exemplar lands and subject land of the present
case. Moreover, there is no deliberations with respect to the
actual distance of the acquired land with the exemplars or any
locational advantages and disadvantages factor with regard to the
specifications of location of acquired land vis-a-vis the exemplars
and also considering that any party to the sale deed was not
examined to prove the bonafideness of the transaction. The Sale
Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 cannot be relied upon to assess
the actual market value of the subject land. In view of the
abovesaid settled legal position also the Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3
and Ex.PW1/6 fall within the ambit of subsequent development
after the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
44. Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/9 are the three other exemplar sale
deeds. The locality of Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/9 are
different to the present case subject land. The present case subject
land is situated at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Z Block
having plot No. 67. The subject land of exemplar Ex.PW1/7 is
situated at Okhla Industiral Area, Phase-II, Block-A and bearing
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 110/16 17:14:38 +0530Page 25 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of IndiaPlot No. 86. The exemplar Ex.PW1/8 is situated at Okhla
Industiral Area, Phase-I, Block-F and bearing plot No. 90/25 and
the exemplar Ex.PW1/9 is Sale Deed of Plot No. 63, F-Block,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. However, document
Mark-D i.e. copy of layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-
I, document Mark-E i.e. copy of layout plan of Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II and document Mark-F i.e. copy of layout plan
showing locations of industrial plot in Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I and II on single map show a considerable distance
between the exemplar lands and the subject land of the present
case. The subject land of exemplars Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 are
situated in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, however,
the subject land of the present case is situated in Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II. The abovesaid layout plans show that these
properties are situated at the opposite ends of Phase-I and Phase-
II and accordingly a considerable distance lies between these
exemplars and subject land. The subject land exemplar Ex.PW1/7
and the subject land of the present case both are situated in Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-II. However, Ex.PW1/7 is in A-Block
having plot No. 86 and the subject land of the present case is
situated in Z-Block having plot No. 67 and as per the abovesaid
layout plans, both these lands are situated at extreme ends of
North-East and South-West directions of Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II.
45. During final arguments, certain photographs were put
before this court on behalf of the respondents, which were also
showed to Ld. counsel for the petitioner. These photographs were
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:14:41 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 26 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiaproduced in order to show the surrounding locations of the
subject land. It was argued by Ld. counsel for the respondents
that acquired land is surrounded by the jhuggis/encroachments
and in front of the acquired properties there is an open Nala and
there was no proper access to approach the subject properties. It
was further argued that the petitioner of a connected case in LAC
No. 22/16 titled Arun Kumar Vs. UOI filed a writ petition before
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide CWP No. 3624/2014 titled
Arun Kumar Vs. DMRC to remove the garbage and
encroachments in that area. They argued that the acquired
properties were only accessible through service road which is
totally encroached by the jhuggis. It was argued that just behind
the acquired properties there is an unauthorized residential
colony and there is no access to the subject land from that side.
These facts were not denied by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
These facts were argued on behalf of the respondents in order to
show that the subject land area lacks development till date and in
these circumstances, the market price of the highly developed
area of the Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I might not be
considered in order to determine the market value.
46. In a case Union of India Versus Pramod Gupta(Dead) by
LRs and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, Hon’ble
Supreme Court considered the two methods laying down the
principles for determining the market value. Firstly, what a
willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the
willing purchaser. Secondly, comparison of sale deeds. In the
absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:14:45 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 27 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
recourse to various other known methods. The area of land, the
nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein
amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the
actual market value of the land.
47. In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001)
7SCC 650, Hon’ble Supreme Court made pertinent observation
about comparable sales method of valuation and relevant factors
thereunder in the following words;
“3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt Comparable
Sales Method of valuation of land while fixing the
market value of the acquired land. While fixing the
market value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales
Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of
valuation of land such as Capitalisation of Net Income
Method or Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales
Method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the
evidence for determination of the market value of the
acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay
for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market
at the time of issue of notification under Section 4of the
Act. However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation
of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land
is not always conclusive. There are certain factors
which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of
those factors the compensation can be
awarded,according to the value the land reflected in the
sales. The factors laid down” inter alia are : (1) the sale
must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale deed
must have been executed at the time proximate to the
date of issue of notification under Section 4of the Act,
that (3) the land covered by the sales must be in the
vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered
by the sale must be similar to the acquired land and that
(5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be
comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are
satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of
the land covered by the sales be not given for the Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:14:50 +0530LAC 110/16
Page 28 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiaacquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in
regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between
land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to
Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for
acquired land than what is reflected in the sales
depending upon the disadvantages attached with the
acquired land.”
48. The scale is of a willing seller and a willing purchaser
and the domain is a fair and reasonable understanding of the
potentiality of land and a just decision based thereupon. The onus
is upon the claimants to show in quantitative terms, the existing
and prospective development of the acquired land so as to enable
the Court to fairly adjudge the market value of the said land.
49. 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.
50. It is settled law that each piece of land might suffer from
locational advantages or disadvantages and cannot simply be
equated to apply to any land, even in the same village. Nothing
has been placed on record to show as to how the sale
amount/consideration in the exemplars relied upon by petitioner,
can be applied to the acquired land. There is no deliberation with
respect to the actual distance of acquired land with the exemplars
relied upon or any locational advantageous or disadvantageous
factor with regard to specification of location of acquired land
vis-a-vis the exemplars. There is nothing to show that the
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
LAC 110/16 2025.06.09
17:14:59 +0530
Page 29 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
acquired land enjoys similar locational advantages and
disadvantages.
51. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kanwar Singh
& Ors. V. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 317 observed regarding
compensation awarded to the claimants of adjoining village, as
follows:
“9. The contention of appellants counsel that
appellants deserved to be awarded the same rate of
compensation as it was awarded to the claimants of
village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, in the present
facts and circumstances of the case. is not tenable. If
we go by the compensation awarded to claimants of
adjoining village it would not lead to the correct
assessment of market value of the land acquired in
the village Rangpuri. For example village ‘A’ adjoins
village ‘B’, village ‘B’ adjoins village ‘C’, village ‘C’
adjoins village ‘D’, so on and so forth and in that
process the entire Delhi would be covered. Generally
there would be different situation and potentiality of
the land situated in two different villages unless it is
proved that the situation and potentiality of the land
in two different villages are the same.”
52. In the present case also the exemplar Ex.PW1/8 and
Ex.PW1/9 are situated in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and
subject land of the present case is situated at Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II. Phase-I and Phase-II are adjoining to each other
and accordingly, on the same analogy, the observation of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Kanwar Singh (supra) is fairly applicable in the
present case also. In view of the abovesaid discussion, settled
legal prepositions, these sale deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9 also
do not fairly indicate the prevailing market value of the acquired
land as on the date of notification. Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:15:05 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 30 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
53. Ex.PW1/10 is valuation report of the subject land of this
case alongwith a covering letter sent by Executive Engineer,
PWD to the petitioner herein. As per the valuation report, the
assessed value for the subject land is Rs.6705934/-. During his
cross-examination dated 17.04.2012, PW1 answered that he has
not challenged the compensation for construction upon the land
in question. Moreover, no separate issue regarding any enhanced
compensation for construction upon the subject land was also
framed or ever pressed for in the present case. Accordingly, the
compensation for construction upon the subject land is not in
issue. Perusal of the valuation report itself shows that while
preparing the valuation report the value of the land was not
considered. As per para 6 of the affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1
of petitioner/PW1, Ex.PW1/10 was filed to prove the value of the
structure and the method of valuation. Accordingly, this
document also cannot be considered to determine the actual
market value of the acquired land.
54. PW1 also filed on a document Mark-A, which is a
comparable calculation chart. PW1 explained this document in
para 7 of his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1. This calculation
chart prepared by the petitioner shows valuation of building
structure of the abovestated Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9.
It was claimed that the valuation of structure for these seven Sale
Deeds had been calculated on the same basis as has been done by
Executive Engineer, PWD for the subject land property. It has
further been averred that this document clearly proves market
value of the acquired land which was much lesser than the true
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:15:09 +0530LAC 110/16
Page 31 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiamarket rate on the date of notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
However, during the final arguments this document was not
explained on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, the document
was also not proved by calling any expert witness. Otherwise
also, as per the petitioner’s claim itself this document pertains to
the valuation of the building structure of the abovesaid sale
deeds. At the maximum, valuation of structure over the subject
land of these sale deeds may be somewhere similar to the
structure over the present case subject land but that scenario also
shall not be useful to assess the actual market value of the present
case subject land because the cost of structure does not depend
upon the market value of the land. Even otherwise, the total cost
of building structure as per this document Mark-A also is
different for all of the Sale Deeds. It is not a hidden fact that
factors governing the market value of the land are different to the
factors which affect the cost of the structure. Accordingly, this
document is of no help to assess the actual market value of the
subject land.
55. Ex.PW1/11 is an information under RTI Act as furnished
by DSIIDC to the petitioner through letter dated 14.07.2010.
Perusal of the RTI information shows that it was regarding
auction details of shed number 188-189 of DSIIDC, Okhla
Industrial Complex, Phase-I, New Delhi.
Document Mark-B as filed by PW1 during his evidence on
17.04.2012 is an auction brochure, wherein the auction details
regarding abovesaid property No. 188-189 of DSIIDC, Okhla
Industrial Complex, Phase-I have been mentioned. As per this
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:15:19 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 32 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
document, the date of auction is 30.03.2010 i.e. post notification
under Section 4 of LA Act, 1894 in the present case.
PW-7 was a summoned witness from DSIIDC, Udyog
Sadan, Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. conveyance
deed of these properties. The conveyance deed of property no.
188, Phase-I at Okhla Industrial Complex was exhibited as
Ex.PW7/1 and this conveyance deed is found to be registered on
21.06.2012. The conveyance deed of property no. 189, Phase-I at
Okhla Industrial Complex was exhibited as Ex.PW7/2 and this
conveyance deed is found to be registered on 10.09.2012.
56. Regarding the exemplars of auction sales, it is held by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag
and Ors.” Appeal Nos. 51-52 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C)
Nos. 27805/2009), Civil decided on 04.01.2011 that “Unless
there are indications to hold otherwise, all sale transactions under
registered sale deeds will be assumed to be normal sales by
willing sellers to willing purchasers. Where however there is
evidence or indications that the sale was not at prevailing fair
market value, it has to be ignored. But auction sales stand on a
different footing. When purchasers start bidding for a property in
an auction, an element of competition enters into the auction.
Human ego, and desire to do better and excel other competitors,
leads to competitive bidding, each trying to outbid the others.
Thus in a well advertised open auction sale, where a large
number of bidders participate, there is always a tendency for the
price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On the
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:15:22 +0530LAC 110/16
Page 33 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiaother hand, where the auction sale is by banks or financial
institutions, courts, etc. to recover dues, there is an element of
distress, a cloud regarding title, and a chance of litigation, which
have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders and
making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There is
therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or
lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of
sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction sale
transactions when other regular traditional sale transactions are
available while determining the market value of the acquired
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 theDigitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:15:26 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 34 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiaimmediate vicinity or in the neighbouring areas at the relevant
time of issuance of notification.
It is also settled law that each piece of land might suffer
from locational advantages or disadvantages and cannot simply
be equated to apply to any land, even in the same village.
Nothing has been placed on record to show as to how the sale
amount/consideration in the exemplars relied upon by petitioners,
can be applied to the acquired land. There is no deliberation with
respect to the actual distance of acquired land with the exemplars
relied upon or any locational advantageous or disadvantageous
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.
57. Ex.PW1/12 is an information dated 29.06.2009 under
RTI Act, 2005 furnished by DMRC to the petitioner herein.
Through this letter dated 9.06.2009, DMRC provided the
information regarding certain dimensions. However, except the
mentioning of dimensions no other detail has been mentioned in
the letter. However, the petitioner also filed a map alongwith
letter Ex.PW1/12 and the map is marked as Mark-G. After seeing
the map, it is clear that the dimensions as mentioned in document
Ex.PW1/12 are regarding balance area left out with owner i.e.
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:15:31 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 35 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
petitioner herein. The map contains the dimensions of the subject
land. This document is also not relevant to determine the market
value of the acquired land on the date of notification under
Section 4 of LA Act as it is not related to the valuation of the
subject land.
58. Ex.PW1/13 is a booklet published by DDA in August,
2003 containing scheme of conversion from lease hold to free
hold. One document Mark-H was also filed during the evidence
of PW1/petitioner, which is one circular of DDA dated
20.04.2007 showing market rates of commercial properties and
market rates of industrial properties in various zones of Delhi for
conversion of these properties into free hold. This circular dated
20.04.2007 was also filed by PW3, who was examined as
summoned witness alongwith the attested copy of circular dated
20.04.2007 and it was exhibited as Ex.PW3/1. The letter
Ex.PW3/1 and letter marked as Mark-H are copies of same
circular. However, it was not explained on behalf of the
petitioner that how these documents may be relied upon to decide
the actual market value of the subject land and as it has been
mentioned in the abovesaid circular dated 20.04.2007 itself that
the same were being circulated on provisional basis subject to
approval of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of
India. Any relevant document showing subsequent approval of
the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India in
respect of this circular dated 20.04.2007 was not placed on record
on behalf of the petitioner. It is also noted in the circular itself
that these rights are applicable only for the purpose of
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:15:35 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 36 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
computation of conversion charges for commercial/industrial
plots for allowing conversion from lease hold to free hold and
would not at all be applicable for allotment of plots at market
rates, etc. Accordingly, in absence of any relevant document
showing approval by concerned authority, the document
Ex.PW3/1/Mark-H cannot be considered to determine the actual
market value of the land at the relevant point of time.
59. Document Ex.PW1/13 was relied upon by the petitioner
only in order to show the calculation method for abovesaid
conversion charges and it is also not relevant to decide the actual
market value of the subject land.
60. The petitioner also relied upon copy of Zonal Plan of
Zone F from DDA and the same was marked as Mark-C during
his evidence. Nature of the subject land use is not in dispute and
the parties admitted that the nature of land use of the subject land
is industrial. As per affidavit Ex.PW1/1 of PW1 this document
was filed to show the location of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I
and II. Accordingly, this document was filed with sole purpose of
understanding the location of Phase I and Phase II and apart from
this it does not have any direct bearing on the assessment of
actual market value of the acquired land at the relevant point of
time.
61. Petitioner also examined summoned witnesses i.e. PW2
to PW9.
62. PW2 appeared from DMRC alongwith letter dated
29.06.2009 and 29.07.2009 which were exhibited as Ex.PW2/1
and Ex.PW2/2 respectively. Ex.PW2/1 is the same document
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:15:39 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 37 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/12 during the evidence of the
petitioner/PW1 and the same has already been discussed above
and need not to be discussed again. Ex.PW2/2 is letter dated
29.07.2009 vide which the information under RTI Act, 2005 was
furnished by the DMRC to the petitioner herein. However, this
document only mentions that the reply to the queries of the
petitioner had already been provided to him vide letter dated
29.06.2009 and the letter dated 29.06.2009 is nothing but the
abovesaid document Ex.PW2/1 which has already been
discussed. Accordingly, these documents are of no help to assess
the actual market value of the subject land.
63. PW3 is Assistant from DDA Vikas Sadan, INA and he
exhibited the document Ex.PW3/1 i.e. circular dated 20.04.2007
regarding the revised rates of conversion from
commercial/industrial properties to free hold for the financial
year 2007-08 during his evidence, which has already been
discussed above alongwith document Mark-H as filed by PW1
and need not to be discussed again.
64. PW4 is Assistant Director (Plg.), DDA, Vikas Mandir,
who brought the summoned record i.e. attested copy of map and
it was exhibited as Ex.PW4/1. Ex.PW4/1 and abovesaid
discussed document Mark-C as filed during the evidence of PW1
are same. In Ex.PW4/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I is marked
as Mark-B and Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II where the subject
land is situated has been marked as Mark-A. Undisputedly, both
the Phase-I and Phase-II are adjoining to each other. However,
this court cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the fact that the subject
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:15:42 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 38 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
land is situated at remote end of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II
towards Harkesh Nagar and not towards Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase I. So, this document for the purpose of comparison of the
subject land in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II with the lands of
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I cannot be considered because
there is a considerable distance between the subject land and
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II.
65. PW5 appeared from MCD office on 18.09.2012 and his
examination-in-chief was deferred for want of certified copies of
the layout plan (map) of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and
Phase-II. Perusal of the record shows that thereafter, PW5 did not
appear for remaining examination. Accordingly, his incomplete
evidence cannot be read. However, PW5 was summoned only for
the purpose of bringing on record the original/certified copy of
layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and Phase-II and
these documents have already been discussed while discussing
documents Mark-D, Mark-E and Mark-F as filed by
PW1/petitioner during his evidence.
66. PW6 is summoned witness from MCD, who brought the
original layout plan for Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I and Phase-
II . The certified copies of these layout plans were exhibited as
Ex.PW6/1 and PW6/2 respectively for Phase-I and Phase-II.
These lay out plans have already been discussed above and need
not to be discussed again to avoid repetition.
67. PW7 is a summoned witness from DSIIDC, who brought
the conveyance deeds Ex.PW7/1 and Ex.PW7/2. These
documents have already been discussed above alognwith
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.09
17:15:47 +0530
LAC 110/16
Page 39 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
documents Ex.PW1/11 and document Mark B and need not to be
discussed again in order to avoid repetition. PW8 is also a
summoned witness from DSIIDC, who was partly examined on
22.10.2013 and his further examination was deferred for want of
original documents, however, thereafter PW8 did not to appear
and accordingly his incomplete examination cannot be read in
evidence. He filed one conveyance deed dated 23.05.2012 which
was marked as Mark-A during his evidence and otherwise also
this document cannot be considered to assess the market value of
the subject land as it was executed post notification under Section
4 of LA Act in the present case. Even Ld. counsel for petitioner
also did not discuss this document during final arguments.
Respondents’ Evidence:-
68. Ld. counsel for UOI examined himself as RW1 and filed
sale deed dated 19.04.2007 pertaining to F Block of Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-II and exhibited it as Ex.RW1/A. During
final arguments, Ld. counsel for UOI submitted that the sale deed
was not of the same locality and UOI does not rely upon that
document. On submissions on behalf of UOI and also
considering that this sale deed pertains to different Block and
there is no deliberation with respect to the actual distance of
acquired land with the exemplar or any locational advantages or
disadvantages factor with regard to specification of location of
acquired land vis-à-vis the exemplar and also considering that
any party to the sale deed was not examined to prove the
bonafideness of the transaction, this document cannot be relied
upon to determine the actual market value of the subject land.
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 110/16
17:15:52 +0530Page 40 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
69. The Law Officer, DMRC examined himself as RW2 and
on 09.01.2018 filed copy of sale deed dated 10.05.2007 exhibited
as Ex.RW2/A pertaining to Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area.
During his evidence, one copy of judgment dated 21.04.2017 in
LAC No. 101/16 titled as Mate Ram Vs. UOI & Ors. were also
filed and exhibited as Ex. RW2/B. However, during final
arguments, it was submitted by DMRC that the abovesaid
documents as filed on behalf of DMRC on 09.01.2018 pertain to
different locality and need not to be taken into consideration to
determine the market value of the subject land. In view of the
submissions and considering no evidence regarding
comparability of present case subject land with the subject land
of these cases, these documents are also liable to be ignored to
assess the market value of the subject land.
70. Thereafter, on 04.03.2025, RW2 was further examined
for additional evidence and that day he filed agreement to sell
dated 09.08.2006 exhibited as Ex.RW2/C, copy of notice under
Section 12 (2) & 32(1) of LA Act as Ex.PW2/D (OSR), copy of
DMRC’s requisition dated 15.06.2007 Ex.RW2/E (OSR) and
copy of representation dated 10.06.2008 as Ex.RW2/F (OSR).
Document Ex.PW2/C was objected to on the ground of mode of
proof on behalf of the petitioner.
One another witness RW3 on behalf of DMRC filed
certified copy of sale deeds dated 14.06.2007 and 18.10.2007,
which were exhibited as Ex. RW3/A and Ex.RW3/B respectively.
Both these documents were also objected to on the ground of
mode of proof on behalf of the petitioner. Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:15:55
+0530
LAC 110/16
Page 41 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of India
71. Document Ex.RW2/E is merely an intimation letter from
DMRC to the Secretary, Land & Building Department regarding
requirement of private land on permanent basis in connection
with Construction of Central Secretariat – Badarpur Corridor of
Delhi MRTS Project, Phase-II. This document does not speak
anything about the market value of the subject land. The purpose
of filing of this document was also not explained on behalf of
DMRC. Accordingly, this document is useless to determine the
actual market value of the subject land.
72. Document Ex.RW2/F (OSR) is also not helpful in
assessing the actual market value of the subject land as it is
merely a copy of representation unrelated to the valuation of the
property.
73. Document Ex.RW3/A is a Sale Deed for an industrial
plot bearing No. 129, Block-A measuring 1226.5 sq. yards
situated in revenue estate of Village Bahapur and Jasola in the
layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. Document
Ex.RW3/B is Sale Deed of an industrial plot bearing No. 20/1 in
D Block, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II. However, these
documents were objected on behalf of the petitioner on the
ground of mode of proof. These documents cannot be relied upon
to determine the actual market value of the subject land as there
is no deliberations with respect to the actual distance of the
acquired land with the exemplars or any locational advantages
and disadvantages factor with regard to the specifications of
location of acquired land vis-a-vis the exemplars. Moreover, any
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:15:59
+0530
LAC 110/16
Page 42 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiaparty to the sale deed was also not examined to prove the
bonafideness of the transaction.
74. However, one fact which may not be ignored is that as
per sale deed Ex.RW3/A, the subject land of this sale deed is
situated in Block A of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, in the
revenue estate of Village Bahapur and Jasola. On the other hand,
subject land of the present case is situated in the Block Z of
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, in the revenue estate of the
Village Harkesh Nagar. It shows that even the Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-II is not situated in the revenue estate of any single
village what to talk of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II and Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-I put together. In these circumstances, the
observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh & Ors.
(supra) cannot be ignored.
75. Document Ex.RW2/C is certified copy of Agreement to
Sell dated 09.08.2006 entered into between one Sh. Arun Bhatia
and Sh. Nitin Juneja. This Agreement to Sell pertains to the
subject land of the present case. During the evidence of RW2,
this document was objected to on behalf of the petitioner on the
ground of mode of proof.
On 29.04.2025, it was requested on behalf of the
respondents that judicial notice of the sale transactions of the
subject land in connected case bearing LAC 105/16 titled Rakesh
Verma Vs. UOI and LAC 92/16 in case titled Jagdeep Singh
Sapra Vs. UOI may also be taken.
Perusal of the order dated 29.04.2025 shows that that day
Ld. counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the veracity of the
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
LAC 110/16
17:16:03 +0530Page 43 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiadocuments of abovesaid sale transactions as relied upon by
respondents and on inquiry Ld. counsel for the petitioner also
submitted that original of these documents were never produced
before this court.
It is also pertinent to mention here that on 01.11.2011 in
the connected LAC No. 22/16 titled Arun Kumar Vs. UOI, it was
submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that there were five
other connected matters alongwith that case and that case be
treated as a lead case and prayed for leading his evidence in that
case. Thereafter, on submissions on behalf of the petitioner
common evidences were led only in that case. During the final
arguments also, Ld. counsel for the petitioner requested to read
the evidence of that case in other connected cases also. It is also a
factual as well as admitted position of the parties that the subject
lands of these connected cases are adjacent to each other and are
similarly located. The sale and purchase documents of these
properties are best piece of evidence to assess the actual market
value of the subject land in view of the settled legal position.
In Special Deputy Collector & Anr. Etc vs Kurra
Sambasiva Rao & Ors. Etc‘, AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT
2625, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“The best evidence of the value of property are the
sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to
which the claimant himself is a party; the time at
which the property comes to be sold; nature of the
consideration and the manner in which the
transaction came to be brought out. They are all
relevant factors.” Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:16:07
+0530LAC 110/16
Page 44 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of IndiaAccordingly, the judicial notice of sale transactions of the
subject land of abovestated connected cases and of the present
case is hereby taken.
The Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.2006 was entered into
between Sh. Arun Bhatia and Sh. Nitin Juneja for sale of
industrial Plot No. 61, Block Z, measuring 487.78 sq. mtrs.
situated in layout plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I for sale
consideration of Rs.29,50,000/- is hereby taken. As per this sale
transaction the subject land of the present case was purchased for
a consideration amount of Rs.6,047.70/- per sq. mtrs. The
transaction took place around 15 months before the notification
under Section 4 of LA Act dated 07.11.2007 in the present case.
Even by applying the progressive increase @ 15% per annum,
consideration amount of this transaction remains below the
compensation awarded by the LAC in the present case.
The agreement to sell dated 16.02.2004 pertaining to
subject land of connected case LAC No. 105/16 in case titled
Rakesh Verma Vs UOI was entered into between Sh. Sushil
Kumar and Sh. Rakesh Verma for sale of industrial plot bearing
No. Z-65 measuring 605 sq. yards (505.85 sq. mtrs.) situated at
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi for a sale
consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- i.e. Rs.6611.57/- per sq. yards
(7907.48 per sq. mtrs.). The transaction took place around 45
months before the notification under Section 4 of LA Act dated
07.11.2007 in the present case. Even by applying the progressive
increase @ 15% per annum, the consideration amount of this
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:16:11
+0530LAC 110/16
Page 45 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of Indiatransaction remains below the compensation awarded by the
LAC in the present case.
The sale deed dated 22.08.2008 pertaining to subject land
of connected case LAC No. 92/16 in case titled Jagdeep Singh
Sapra Vs UOI is found to be executed in favour of Sh.
Gagandeep Singh Sapra and Sh. Jagdeep Singh Sapra for sale of
free hold property bearing No. Z-62, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II admeasuring 534 sq. mtrs. and other common easement
together with undivided, indivisible and impartial proportionate
ownership rights of the land underneath the said building for a
total consideration of Rs.99,70,000/- i.e. Rs.18670/- per sq. mtrs.
Again the consideration amount of this sale deed also is lesser to
the compensation awarded by the LAC in the present case.
It is also pertinent to mention here that per square meter
value of the abovesaid subject lands of the connected cases and
of the present case has been calculated without deducting the
construction cost of the structure available on the subject lands of
these sale deeds /agreement to sell of connected cases and despite
this their consideration amount remain lesser to the compensation
awarded by the LAC for the acquired land in the present case.
76. In view of the abovesaid discussion, case laws, material
available on record and considering the abovesaid best piece of
evidence in form of sale transactions of the subject lands of the
abovesaid connected cases and of the present case, I am of the
considered opinion that LAC has correctly assessed the market
value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under
Digitally signed
Section 4 of LA Act, 1894. YADVENDER
by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.06.09
17:16:16 +0530LAC 110/16
Page 46 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025
Nitin Juneja Vs Union of IndiaIn view of the abovesaid discussion and considering the
fact that market value of the acquired land as assessed by the Ld.
LAC has been upheld, so the petitioner is held not entitled for
any enhanced compensation. Accordingly, issue no.3 is decided
against the petitioner.
Issue No.4: Relief.
77. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition is
dismissed. Both the sides will bear their own costs.
78. The reference petition under Section 18 of LA Act is
answered in terms of findings on issues no.1 to 4. Statement
under Section 19 of the L.A. Act be annexed to the award. Copy
be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for
information and necessary compliance. Thereafter, file be
consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by Pronounced in the open Court YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: on this 9th June, 2025. 2025.06.09 17:16:20 +0530 (DR. YADVENDER SINGH) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI LAC 110/16 Page 47 of 47 Dr. Yadvender Singh /DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/09.06.2025