Delhi District Court
Sh Narender Kumar Doomra vs Union Of India on 5 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE-02
WEST, DELHI.
LAC No. 13/2023
CNR No. -DLWT01-004294-2023
DLWT010042942023
Name of Village: Property No.69/6A at Patel Road, Moti Ngar,
67,68 (1-3) DLF Industrial Area, Patel Road, 70, Najafgarh Road,
( Krishna House and Inderjeet House).
Award No.: 02/DC (W)/2006-07 dated 30.08.2006
Shri Narender Kumar Doomra
Prop. Of M/s Bombay Madras Goods Carriers
S/o late Shri H.B. Doomra,
R/o 51/100, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi-110027.
.... Petitioner
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Land Acquisition Collector,
District West,
Shivaji Palace,
New Delhi.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 1/54
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Delhi .....Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 22.05.2023
Date of conclusion of arguments : 22.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.06.2025
Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the
enhancement of the compensation arising out of award no.
2/DC(W)/2006-07 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector,
District West, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1) Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land
measuring 11785.82 sq. meters under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘said Act’)
vide notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9174 dated
03.09.2003. Notification no. F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9375 under
Section 6 of said Act was issued on 02.09.2004. The land was
notified under Section 17(1) vide notification no.
F.7(7)/03/L&B/LA/9376 dated 02.09.2004. Such land had
been acquired for the purpose of construction of
Grade/Flyover at Najafgarh Road & Patel Road Intersection
near Moti Nagar.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 2/54
2) Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Collector’) passed award no. 02/DC (W)/2006-2007 dated
30.08.2006 (Ex. R-1) under Section 11 of said Act. He
determined the market value of the land under acquisition @
Rs.20,900/- per square meter for industrial land under
acquisition. The structure was valued as per the valuation
report submitted by MCD.
3) Vide order dated 22.05.2023, the LAC, west was
directed to file the revised statement under Section 19 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1984, in accordance with reference,
which has been decided under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act
concerning the acquired land.
4) On 14.09.2023, LAC, West filed revised statement
under Section 19 of Land Acquisition Act.
5) According to the revised statement of Section 19 of
L.A. Act, filed by the Collector, the details of share of
petitioner M/s Bombay Madras Good Carriers through its
proprietor Sh. Narender Doomra is illustrated as under:
Sl. IP Number Area of Amount Remarks
No. and Name respective IP in %
in the property
No. 69/6A,
Patel
Road/Najafgar
h Road, Moti
Nagar, New
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 3/54
Delhi
21. IP No. 26 7.40 Sq. 75% of total
M/s Bombay Meter amount of
Madras Good compensation
Carriers along with
proportionate
interest along
with
compensation
pertaining to
structures
which has
been assessed
in the name of
IP No. 26.
6) As per statement under Section 19 of L.A. Act, filed
by LAC, West, the acquired area in respect of M/s Bombay
Madras Good Carriers comes to area ad measuring 5.55 Sq.
Meter. The petitioner has admitted date of possession is
25.10.2005.
7) The petitioner has filed application under Section 18
of L.A. Act against the findings and determination of the
market value of his land/property, made by the Collector.
8) In brief, the facts averred in the petition are that
petitioner is the interested person in respect of property
bearing No. 69/6-A, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi and was
carrying on the business of Transportation under the name
and style of M/s Bombay Madras Goods Carriers, on the
acquired property, at the time of issuance of notification
under section 4 of the Act. It is stated that the petitioner is an
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 4/54
interested person in the the reference petition filed under
section 30-31 of the L.A. Act tilted as Union of India Vs
Harish Virmani and the petitioner has received the awarded
amount of compensation under protest only on 05.08.2019.
9) It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner
came to know about the essential contents of the award only
after receiving the awarded amount of compensation under
protest on 05.08.2019 and the present petition has been filed
within 42 days of receiving the awarded amount of
compensation and therefore, the present petition is within the
period of limitation.
10) The petitioner has not accepted the market value of the
acquired land determined by LAC, West, on the following
grounds:
a) Because the LAC has failed to
assess the fail market value of the land
of the petitioner.
b) Because the LAC has failed to
appreciate that the commercial land of
the petitioner was situated in the hub of
commercial activity and there were
factories and commercial establishment
surrounding the property of the
petitioner. The petitioner was also
carrying out commercial activities on
the acquired property as on the date of
issuance of notification under section 4
of the Act.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 5/54
c) Because the property of the
petitioner was having all the facilities
and amenities such as commercial
power connection, license to run a
factory, registrations from the
competent authorities etc.
d) Because the acquired land prior to
the date of issuance of notification
under section 4 of the Act, was shown
by the wing of respondent no. 2 @ Rs.
75,000/- per sq. mtr, Since the land was
purely commercial in nature and could
be used for industrial as well as
commercial purposes only.
e) Because the properties in the
vicinity were sold by the DDA @ Rs. 1
lakh per sq. meter, in the year 1995
which were for residential purposes and
in the interiors. It is stated that the
property of the petitioner was situated
on the main Najafgarh Road and was
capable of commercial activities only.
f) Because the value of the land alone,
if sold in open market under the
condition of demand and supply,was in
any case not less than Rs. 1 lakh per sq.
mtr. and the petitioner claims the same.
g) Because the market value in respect
of the structures of the petitioner was
not less than Rs. 30 lakhs as on the date
of issuance of notification under
section 4 of the Act and petitioner
claims the same.
h) Because the petitioner has not been
allotted any alternative site for re-
installation of the machinery which she
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 6/54
has to dis-mental on account of the
acquisition proceedings thrust upon her.
The petitioner estimates his loss of
earning to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs and
he claims the same.
I) The petitioner has claimed market
value @ Rs. 1 lakh per sq. mtr.
alongwith all statutory benefits as per
the prevailing Act, interest on solatium
and additional amount in view of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India given in a case titled
Sunder Vs Union of India dated
19.09.2001, Rs. 20 lakhs as loss of
earning and Rs. 30 lakhs as the value
for structures and other relief which this
Hon’ble Court deems fit.
11) The respondent no. 1/Union of India has filed reply, in
compliance of order dated 22.05.2023. It is averred in the
reply that the petitioner had filed the reference application
under Section 18 of L.A. Act on 19.09.2019, vide Diary no.
1051/LAC(W).
12) It is further averred in the reply that Para no. 1 to 6 of
the reference petition are not admitted. It is further averred
that the compensation assessed is sufficient and reasonable as
the same represents the true market value as was prevailing at
the time of issuance of notification under Section 4. It is
further averred that the claim made by the petitioner in
reference is excessive and unjustified. It is also mentioned
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 7/54
that the present reference petition is not within the time limit
and reference petition may be dismissed with costs.
13) While forwarding the reference under Section 18 of
L.A. Act to the Court, the LAC, West kept the issue of
limitation as open to be decided by the Court, as per law.
14) Reply/objections has been filed on behalf of respondent
no.2 / MCD (North). It is contended therein that the present
petition is not maintainable and is an abuse of due process of
law. It is further contended that as per the Act, only the land
owners are supposed to receive compensation during land
acquisition. It is further contended that the Act does not
address compensation to other individuals that are effected by
such acquisition, where as per the the petition, the petitioner
is only an interested person.
15) It is further contended that the petitioner has no locus
standi to institute the present reference petition. It is further
contended that the LAC has also awarded compensation in
respect of structures acquired for construction of
grade/flyover Najafgarh Road and Patel Road intersection
near Moti Nagar, Delhi. It is further submitted that this
Award is based on valuation of the structure carried out by
the PWD, GNCTD as per CPWD plinth area rates, as
specified in the Award itself.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 8/54
16) Respondent no.2 has contended that it is for the Land
Acquisition Collector to justify its award and the
determination of the compensation is paid to the eligible
claimants in accordance with law. It is further contended that
the petitioner has concealed material facts from the Hon’ble
court that the sub-division of plot no. 69, Najafgarh Road has
been allowed vide resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973
subject to condition that the land required for widening of
Najafgarh Road, Rama Road and Patel Road, shall be left free
of cost as per approval of alignment plan.
17) It is further contended that these awards were made on
the basis of conversion rates charged by DDA issued in the
year 2003. The indicative rate for industrial plots in West
Zone was Rs. 17,870/- per sqm. By evaluating the above
methods and keeping in mind the location of properties,
under acquisition, i.e. being situated on main road and also
the size of land under acquisition and size of land, sale deed
of which was produced in evidence, the market value has
been assessed at Rs. 20,900/- per square meter for the
industrial land under acquisition.
18) It is further contended that the petition filed by the
petitioner is hopelessly time barred.
19) It is further contended that the impugned Award is
based on the sound reason and the respondent no. 1 after
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 9/54
taking into consideration, the evidence/documents produced
during the proceedings of the Award may have rightly
assessed the compensation amount in respect of the land and
structures. It is submitted that compensation already remitted
to LAC by the answering respondent is adequate.
20) On merits, most of the contents of the petition has
been denied as wrong and it is claimed that the petitioner is
not entitled for further enhancement in compensation amount.
21) Petitioner has filed replication to the written statement
revised memorandum filed on behalf of respondent no.
1/UOI. Petitioner has admitted the revised memorandum filed
by UOI to the extent that petitioner is entitled for
enhancement of compensation for an area ad measuring 5.55
square meters. The rest of contents of revised memorandum
are denied by the petitioner.
ISSUES
22) Vide order dated 09.02.2024, the following issues
have been framed:-
1. Whether present reference u/s 18 of
LA Act is barred by limitation ? OPR2
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for enhancement of the compensation inLAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 10/54
respect of land and if so, at what rate?
OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
23) Petitioner, in order to prove his case, has appeared in
the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and also rely upon the following
documents:
i) Mark A : Copy of Nazir report.
ii) Mark B: Copy of judgment titled” Virender
Sood Vs UOI.
iii) Mark C: Copy of order in SLP vide diary no.
3786/19.
iv) Mark D: Copy of judgment titled, ” M/s Esvee
Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI & Anr.
24) During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that the
department never measured any property in front of him prior
to acquisition proceedings. PW-1 further deposed that he has
no knowledge whether any of the officials inspected the
acquired land before acquisition. However, he voluntarily
deposed that it might have been done in his absence. PW-1
further deposed that he did not know about the announcement
of the Award, however, he came to know in the year 2006-07,
from the local officials that there is some bridge will made.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 11/54
PW-1 further deposed that he had filed a claim petition. He
did not receive any notice from the LAC, he received a notice
from the present court only. PW-1 further deposed that he had
filed all documents when he received a notice from the court.
PW-1 further deposed that he had given those documents to
his lawyer in the year 2007-08 but he does not know whether
the same were filed in court or before the LAC. He further
deposed that the award was announced or not was not in his
knowledge before receiving of cheque. PW-1 admitted that it
is correct that he filed the present petition in the year 2019
after receiving the cheque. PW-1 denied the suggestion that
the present petition has been filed beyond the period of
limitation and is not maintainable.
25) During cross examination, PW-1 further deposed that
he has filed title documents in court. He further deposed that
his father was a lessee of 99 years from M/s Jeevan Industries
Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Jeevan Lal Virmani. He has filed the said lease
deed in this court in the present case. PW-1 admitted that the
area mentioned in the present case is as per the judgment u/s
30-31 L.A. Act, under a compromise titled UOI Vs Harish
Virmani & Ors. The acquired land was his total area. PW-1
further deposed that he had filed electricity bill, house tax to
show that the business namely M/s Bombay Madras Goods
Carriers were existing on the acquire property. After
inspection of the court record by PW-1, he deposed that he
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 12/54
has not filed the same in the present case and even the lease
deed has not been filed in the present case.
26) PW-1 further deposed that he has shown the above
stated business in his income tax returns, however, he has not
filed the same in the present case. PW-1 denied the
suggestion that at the time of acquisition proceedings, the
above stated business was not shown in his income tax
returns.
27) PW-1 further deposed that the land of Sh. Virender
Sood is situated in Mansarover Garden. He has not seen the
said land of Sh. Virender Sood. He further deposed that his
land is situated on the Moti Nagar to Patel Nagar Road,
situated on Najafgarh Road only. It was opposite Laxman
Sylvania. The address of his shop is 69/6A, Najafgarh Road,
Moti Nagar to Patel Nagar Road. PW-1 further deposed that
the distance between his land and Sh. Virender Sood must be
one and half to two kilometers. Mansarover Garden is
adjoining Kirti Nagar. PW-1 further deposed that he has not
filed any document to show that the acquired area was a shop.
PW-1 further deposed that he does not know whether he had
received the compensation for structure of his shop acquired.
28) PW-1 further deposed that he does not have knowledge
regarding the evidence filed in case titled Esvee Polymers Vs
UOI or any other judgment passed by Sh. A.K. Sarpal, the
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 13/54
then ld. ADJ. PW-1 further deposed that he has not filed any
sale deed of the adjoining area in the present case. PW-1
admitted that he does not have any knowledge of any sale
deed of adjoining area.
29) During cross-examination on behalf of MCD, PW-1
deposed that he came to know about the award at the time of
receiving the compensation cheque. The name on the cheque
dated 03.08.2019 is Bombay Madras Goods Carriers. In
response to a specific question, how did the LAC come to
know about making the cheque in the name of Bombay
Madras Goods Carriers, PW-1 deposed that his lawyer must
have submitted the documents for the preparation of the
cheque but he does not remember the exact date when it was
submitted but it must have been in the year 2011. PW-1
denied the suggestion that he was aware of the announcement
of the award in the year 2011 and that is why he had
submitted the documents.
30) PW-1 further deposed that the case titled UOI Vs
Harish Virmani was for receiving the awarded amount of
compensation and he was a party in that case. PW-1 further
deposed that he did not know the essential contents of the
award at the time of contesting the case titled UOI Vs Harish
Virmani, however he voluntarily deposed that he came to
know about the same only when he received the cheque.
PW-1 further deposed that he has seen the title documents of
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 14/54
M/s Jeevan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Pertaining to the acquired
property, and he also has the copy of the entire chain. He
further deposed that he does not know whether there was any
condition in the sale deed in favour of M/s Jeevan Lal
Virmani that if the land is ever required for road widening,
the same would be handed over to Municipal Authorities free
of cost. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was doing
industrial work on the acquired property and that is why he
had mentioned that “the petitioner has not been allotted any
alternate site for re-installation of the machinery”.
31) Vide separate statement of ld. Counsel for the
petitioner, evidence on behalf of petitioner was closed on
14.11.2024.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1
32) No witness has been examined on behalf of the
respondent no. 1.
33) Sh. S.S. Dalal, Ld. Counsel for UOI has tendered the
copy of Award No. 02/DC(W)/2006-07 as Ex. R-1 and has
closed evidence on behalf of respondent no. 1/ UOI on
16.01.2025.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 15/54
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2
34) Respondent no.2/MCD has examined Sh. Dhananjoy
Kumar Prabhat as R2W1 and he tendered in evidence his
affidavit as Ex.R2W1/A. R2W1 relied upon the following
documents:-
i).Ex.RW2/A: Copy of Award( already exhibited
as Ex. R-1).
ii).Mark A: Copy of Resolution no. 1294 dated
31.05.1973.
iii).Ex.RW2/C : Copy of the schedule of rates
notified by the Ministry of Urban Development,
Govt. of India vide No. L&DO/F-24013/3/2013-
CDN/107 dated 02.05.2017. ( document is not
disputed by ld. Counsel for the petitioner).
35) During cross-examination, R2W1 deposed that he has
been posted in land and Estate department in February, 2023.
He further deposed that he does not know if the MCD filed
any appeal against the judgment passed in case titled UOI Vs
Harish Virmani & Ors. which was a 30-31 L. A Act case.
Thereafter the witness was confronted with certified copy of
written statement filed by MCD itself in case titled M/s.
Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI dated
16.04.2013, the same is Ex. R2W1/P1.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 16/54
36) During cross-examination of RW2W1, following
question has been put to him and he gave the following reply
of the said question:
Ques: In the above written statement your department has
admitted that the Resolution dated 31.05.1973 has been
lapsed. Is it correct that this W.S. has been filed by Land &
Estate Department.
Ans: It is correct. The department has mentioned the said
fact since the terms and conditions of the Resolution were
not fulfilled, therefore it was lapsed. As per the terms and
conditions mentioned in Para ‘f’ of the written statement
the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was required to
leave some area for road widening of Patel Road,
Najafgarh Road and intersection of Patel Road and
Najafgarh Road which was to be handed over to Land &
Estate Department. The occupiers of 69/1A came to MCD
for regularization however the occupiers of 69/2A to 69/6A
never approached the MCD for regularization.
Ques: Do you see the original Resolution dated
31.05.1973?
Ans: No.
37) In response to a specific question that is there any
document/notice filed in the present case whereby the
predecessor in interest of the petitioner of document
ExR2W1/P1 was asked to hand over the land to your
department, R2W1 deposed that No. However he voluntarily
deposed that they were supposed to hand over the area on
their own.
38) R2W1 further deposed that it is correct that the present
award was never challenged by the MCD. He further
deposed that he is not aware if the LAC sent any notice u/s
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 17/54
12 (2) of the L.A. Act to the petitioners after announcement
of the Award. R2W1 further deposed that the commercial
rates Ex.RW2/C are based on 100 FAR while calculation of
the same. He admitted that it is correct that the PWD,GNCTD
had carried out the valuation report stating that the acquired
properties were commercial in nature or that it is correct that
the acquired property was commercial in nature.
39) On 27.02.2025, R2W1 was again re-examined and he
exhibited Letter no. AO/L&E/MCD/2024/D-3127 dated
21.01.2025 as Ex RW-2/D and resolution no. 1294 dated
31.05.1973 as Ex RW-2/E. He was again cross examined on
behalf of the petitioner.
40) During cross examination, R2W1 admitted that on page
no. 1, 4 & 5 of Ex RW-2/E, some paragraphs mentioned in
the said document are cover with another paper/pasted. In
response to the question, R2W1 admitted that the said
resolution is already lapsed and voluntarily deposed that as
the beneficiaries parties under the resolution had not
complied with the conditions of the resolution.
41) Sh. S.B. Sharma, appeared as R2W2 in the court and
brought the record book containing original Resolution No.
1294 dated 31.05.1973, the true copy of the same is Ex.
R2W2/1 (OSR). However, the document is objected to by ld.
counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the record
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 18/54
brought by the witness is not the original record of Resolution
No. 1294 dated 31.05.1973.
42) During cross-examination, R2W2 admitted that there is
no letter of Sh. Jiwan Lal Virmani applying for sub-division
of plot no. 69, Najafgarh Road in the original record brought
by him. R2W2 further admitted that it is correct that there are
no signatures of any MCD employee or commissioner in the
document Ex. R2W2/1, the same is true typed copy of the
original record. R2W2 further deposed that he has been
posted in this department since the last one year. R2W2
further deposed that there is no signatures either of Sh. Jiwan
Lal Virmani or of the present petitioner in the original record
brought by him.
43) Vide separate statement of ld. counsel for the MCD,
evidence on behalf of MCD stands closed on 21.04.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
44) Arguments heard from ld counsel for the parties. I
have also perused the written submissions and judgments
filed by the ld counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through
entire case file, including pleadings and testimony of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the parties in court. I have
also gone through case file bearing no. LAC 10/A/10/07 titled
” UOI Vs Harish Virmani & Ors” decided on 14.12.2017.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 19/54
ISSUES-WISE FINDINGS.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE No. 1
Issue no. 1: Whether present reference u/s 18
of LA Act is barred by limitation? OPR-2.
45) The onus to prove issue no. 1 is upon the respondent
no. 2. In order to prove the said issue, the respondent no. 2
has examined two witnesses i.e. Sh. Dhananjoy Kumar
Prabhat/R2W1 and Sh. S.B. Sharma/R2W2.
46) The award of present reference has been passed by the
LAC, West on 30.08.2006. The present reference petition has
been filed by the petitioner before LAC, West on 16.09.2019.
47) Ld counsels for respondents have argued that the
present reference petition is barred by limitation. They further
argued that the petitioner has filed objections before LAC,
West, so, the petitioner cannot say that he was not having
knowledge of the award of the present reference. They further
argued that the petitioner has filed claim petition in reference
petition forward under Section 30-31 LA Act by the LAC,
West to the Court, so, during the pendency of the said
reference petition, the petitioner had knowledge about the
passing of award. Ld counsels for the respondents further
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 20/54
submit that the present reference petition is hopelessly barred
by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.
48) Ld counsel for petitioner has argued that the petitioner
was not aware about the essential contents of the award. Ld
counsel further argued that the petitioner did not know the
basis on which market value of the property was ascertained
by the LAC, West. Ld counsel further argued that the
petitioner came to know about the essential contents of the
award only on 05.08.2019, when the petitioner finally
managed to receive the awarded compensation amount under
protest and at that time, the petitioner became aware about the
essential contents of the award i.e. market value, basis of
ascertaining the market value etc and thereafter, within 42
days of receiving the awarded compensation amount, the
petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of L.A. Act
before LAC, West. So, the present petition is within
limitation.
49) Petitioner/PW-1 has deposed in his evidence by way of
affidavit that he was not present at the time of announcement
of the award and no notice under Section 12 (2) of the LA Act
was ever served upon him. PW-1 further deposed that he
came to know about the essential contents of the award only
after receiving the awarded amount of compensation from the
court, in a case titled UOI vs Harish Virmani and therefore,
the present petition is within the period of limitation.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 21/54
50) Petitioner has further deposed in his evidence by way
of affidavit that the title of the petitioner gained finality only
after receiving the awarded amount of compensation for an
area ad measuring 5.5 sq. meters which was decided by the
Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, West, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi in a case titled Union of India Vs Harish Virmani.
51) During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that he did
not receive any notice from the LAC. He further deposed that
he had filed the present case for enhancement after he
received the cheque, when he came to know that the amount
is very less. He further deposed that announcement of the
award was not in his knowledge before receiving of cheque.
He further deposed that he does not know when the land was
acquired or that when the award was passed.
52) During cross examination, R-2W1 deposed that he is
not aware if the LAC, sent any notice under Section 12 (2) of
the LA Act to the petitioner after announcement of the award.
53) It is admitted on the part of LAC West that reference
petition under Section 18 of LA Act was filed by the
petitioner on 16.09.2019 and thereafter writ petition bearing
no. WP(c)14491/2022 titled as Smt Santosh Suri & ors Vs
UOI was filed before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi directed the LAC to decide the
reference application filed by the petitioner and other persons
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 22/54
and pass appropriate orders. Therefore vide Letter no. LAC
(w) Ref/2023/436 dated 19.04.2023, the LAC, West
forwarded the present reference under Section 18 of LA Act
to this court by keeping the issue of limitation as open to be
decided by the court as per law.
54) As per proviso (a) of Section 18 of Land Acquisition
Act, 1984, the petitioner is required to file application under
Section 18 of the Act for sending the reference to the court,
within 6 weeks from the date of collector’s Award, in case,
the petitioner was present or represented before the collector
at the time of passing of award.
55) As per proviso (b) of Section 18 of Land Acquisition
Act, 1984, if the case of the petitioner does not fall in proviso
(a) of Section 18 of the Act then he is entitled to file
application under Section 18 of the Act for sending the
reference to the court, within 6 weeks from the receipt of
notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act or within 6 months
from the date of collector’s award, whichever period shall
first expired.
56) In a case bearing no. W.P. (c) 1323/2017 titled
“Vaibhav Gupta & Ors Vs Union of India, W.P. (C)
1323/2017, decided on 30.11.2017, the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi, has discussed the law regarding the period, within
which the petition is entitled to file reference application
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 23/54
under Section 18 of L.A. Act and the relevant paras of the
said judgment are mentioned as under:-
Once the award has been made and the party has
knowledge about its ingredients, the time limit on a
realistic interpretation would commence from that date and
has expired on lapse of six months. Prohibition of
limitation in a statute is normally to be construed strictly
and the equitable or ethical consideration would not
normally be with the courts in giving it totally a liberal
interpretation so as to wipe out the very effect of the
limitation clause.
Reliance placed by the petitioners upon the judgments
of the Supreme Court afore-referred is certainly well
founded. It is a settled principle that the knowledge must
relate to essential contents of the award and not merely the
information that the Collector has passed the award.
It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in
Harish Chandra‘s case, 1962-1 SCR 676 :(AIR 1961 SC
1500) (supra) is that the party affected by the award must
know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six
months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now,
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. These
contents may be known either actually or constructively.
In the case of Bharat Chand Dilwali v. UOI 1988,
Rajdhani Law Reporter 224 as well as a Division Bench of
Gujrat High Court in the case of Rsulkhanji Sardar
Mahomad Khanji v. H.P. Rathod 3rd Spl Land Acquisition
Officer, Ahmd and Anr. 1975 (16) Gujrat Law Reporter
911 took the view that mere knowledge of the award or
taking part in the proceedings under section 30 of the Act
would not be helpful for holding that limitation had
commenced from such a date. For this purpose, the date
would be when either the award was communicated to the
party actually or he had knowledge of essential contents of
the award actually or constructively.
The Court in Bhagwan Das then held:
“When a person interested makes an application for
reference seeking the benefit of six months’ period from
the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove
that he (or his representative) was not present when the
award was made, that he did not receive any notice under
section 12 (2) of the Act, and that he did not have theLAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 24/54
knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of
six months prior to the filing the application for reference.
This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath.
He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial
onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is
for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the
person interested was present either in person or through
his representative when the award was made, or that he
had received a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act, or
that he had knowledge of the contents of the award. Actual
or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can
be established by the Collector by proving that the person
interested had received or drawn the compensation amount
for the acquired land, or had attested the
mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of
the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had
filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged
the making of the award in any document or in statement
on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in
possession of the acquired land and the name of the State
or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal
records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of
constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such
evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person
interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be
accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to
do so.”
There is also no quarrel with the proposition in view of
the law laid down by the Apex Court, which has been
noticed in the case of Sh. Bale Ram (supra) and the law
laid down in the case of Premji Nathu (supra) that the
period of limitation would start from the knowledge of the
contents of the Award.
57) In a case titled ” Jagdish Vs Union of India & Anr,
2024, DHC, 8427, decided on 23.10.2024, the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, has discussed the law regarding the period,
within which the petition is entitled to file reference
application under Section 18 of L.A. Act and the relevant
paras of the said judgment are mentioned as under:-
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 25/54
“12. The Supreme Court in Madan & Anr. case has held
that it is only after the question of apportionment under
Section 30 of the LA Act is crystalized, that a reference
under Section 18 of LA Act can be legitimately sought. The
relevant extract is below:
“11. A cursory glance at the provisions of Sections 18
and 30 of the Act, extracted above, may suggest that there
is some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as
both contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of
compensation to the court. But, a closer scrutiny would
indicate that the two sections of the Act operate in entirely
different circumstances. While Section 18 applies to
situations where the apportionment made in the award is
objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies
when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the
Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a
situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make
a reference of the question of apportionment to the court
under Section 30 of the Act. The other is to relegate the
parties to the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right
to receive compensation under the award would crystallise
after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. It is
only thereafter that a reference under Section 18 for
enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the
claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is
passed either by the court in the reference under Section 30
or in the civil suit, as may be.”
(Emphasis supplied).
13. As stated above, in the present Case, the Appropriation
Judgment came on02.11.2015 and thereafter, that the
Petition under Section 18 of the LA Act, was filed by the
Appellant. It is not disputed that the Reference Petition was
filed within six weeks of the date of the Apportionment
Judgment.
14. Given this position and relying on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Madan & Anr case, since the Appellant
had filed its Application for Reference under Section 18 of
the LA Act within the stipulated period after the
Appropriation Judgment, the Application could not be
rejected on the ground of limitation.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 26/54
58) In a case titled ” Shanti Devi & Ors Vs Union of India,
W.P. (C) 10039/2016, decided on 30.11.2017, the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi has held that the petitioner is entitled to
file application under Section 18 of L.A. Act within 06
months from the date, when he came to know about the
essential contents of award, either actually or constructively
and the relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:
11. A cursory glance at the provisions of Sections 18 and
30 of the Act, extracted above, may suggest that there is
some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both
contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of
compensation to the court. But, a closer scrutiny would
indicate that the two sections of the Act operate in entirely
different circumstances. While Section 18 applies to
situations where the apportionment made in the award is
objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies
when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the
Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a
situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make
a reference of the question of apportionment to the court
under Section 30 of the Act. The other is to relegate the
parties to the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right
to receive compensation under the award would crystallise
after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. It is
only thereafter that a reference under Section 18 for
enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the
claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is
passed either by the court in the reference under Section
30 or in the civil suit, as may be.”
It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in
Harish Chandra‘s case, 1962-1 SCR 676 :(AIR 1961 SC
1500) (supra) is that the party affected by the award must
know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six
months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now,
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. These
contents may be known either actually or constructively.
If the award is communicated to a party under S.12
(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 27/54
knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it
or not. Similarly when a party is present in 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. Having regard to the scheme of
the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean
knowledge of the essential contents of the award.”
In the case of Bharat Chand Dilwali v. UOI 1988,
Rajdhani Law Reporter 224 as well as a Division Bench of
Gujrat High Court in the case of Rsulkhanji Sardar
Mahomad Khani v. H.P. Rathod 3rd Spl Land Acquisition
Officer, Ahmd and Anr. 1975 (16) Gujrat Law Reporter 911
took the view that mere knowledge of the award or
taking part in the proceedings under section 30 of the Act
would not be helpful for holding that limitation had
commenced from such a date. For this purpose, the date
would be when either the award was communicated to the
party actually or he had knowledge of essential contents of
the award actually or constructively.
59) Reliance has also been placed on the following
judgments regarding entitlement of the petitioner to file
reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act, within six
months from the date of knowledge of the essential contents
of award, as per proviso (b) of Section 18 of L.A. Act.
(a) Premji Nathu Vs State of Gujarat, AIR 2012, SC
1624.
(b) Bhagwan Dass Vs State of UP, AIR 2010, SC 1532
(c) Bharat Chand Dilwadi Vs Union of India, 1988,
Legal Eagle (DEL) 32.
(d) State of Punjab Vs Qaisar Jahan Beigum, 1963,
AIR(SC) 1604.
60) As per abovesaid judgments, it is settled proposition of
law that the period of six months for filing reference
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 28/54
application under Section 18 of L.A. Act mentioned in
proviso (b) of Section 18 of L.A. Act, will run from the date
of knowledge of the petitioner regarding the essential
contents of the award. The petitioner is entitled to file
reference application within six months from the date of his
knowledge regarding the essential contents of award. The
knowledge of the petitioner about the essential contents of
award may be either actual knowledge or constructive
knowledge.
61) The initial burden is upon the petitioner to prove the
date when he came to know about the essential contents of
the award. In the present case, the petitioner has deposed on
oath that he was not present at the time of announcement of
the award and no notice under Section 12 (2) of the LA Act
was ever served upon him. PW-1 further deposed that he
came to know about the essential contents of the award only
after receiving the awarded amount of compensation from
this court in case titled UOI vs Harish Virmani and therefore,
the present petition is within the period of limitation.
62) Petitioner has deposed in para no. 5 of his evidence by
way of affidavit that the title of the petitioner gained finality
only after receiving the awarded amount of compensation for
an area ad measuring 5.5 sq. meters which was decided by the
Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
in case titled Union of India Vs Harish Virmani.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 29/54
63) During cross examination, PW-1 deposed that he did
not receive any notice from the LAC. He further deposed that
he had filed the present case for enhancement after he
received the cheque, when he came to know that the amount
is very less. He further deposed that announcement of the
award was not in his knowledge before receiving of cheque.
He further deposed that he does not know when the land was
acquired or that when the award was passed.
64) During cross examination, R-2W1 deposed that he is
not aware if the LAC, sent any notice under Section 12 (2) of
the LA Act to the petitioner after announcement of the award.
65) As per judgment of Hon’ble High court of Delhi
passed in a case titled Vaibhav Gupta & Ors Vs UOI (supra),
the petitioner has discharged the initial burden by deposing
on oath that he was neither present nor representative before
collector at the time of passing of award and no notice under
Section 12 (2) of Land Acquisition Act was ever served upon
him.
66) No evidence has been led by the respondents to prove
that the petitioner was either present or represented before the
collector at the time of passing of the award, so, proviso (a)
of Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act is not applicable in the
present case.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 30/54
67) Respondents have also failed to prove that any notice
under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever issued to or received
by the petitioner. So, the case of the petitioner falls in the
second part of Proviso (b) Section 18 of LA Act. As per said
proviso, petitioner is entitled to file reference application
within six months from the date of knowledge of the essential
contents of collector’s award.
68) Petitioner/PW-1 has deposed on oath that he came to
know about the essential contents of the award on 30.08.2019
when he received the cheque of compensation amount. The
fact of receiving cheque of compensation amount by the
petitioner on 30.08.2019 is not disputed by the respondents.
Now, the burden is upon the respondents to prove that the
petitioner had knowledge of essential contents of award
before 30.08.2019 but no evidence has been led by the
respondents to prove that the petitioner had knowledge about
the essential contents of award before 30.08.2019. The
respondents have also not deposed about sending copy of
award to the petitioner or receiving of the same by the
petitioner from the collector or from the respondents.
69) Ld counsel for the respondents have argued that the
knowledge of the petitioner about knowing the contents of
award can be presumed from the date of filing of claim by the
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 31/54
petitioner in the reference petition forwarded under Section
30-31 of L.A. Act by the collector to the court.
70) Ld counsels for petitioner has argued that till the title
of the petitioner in the acquired land was not upheld by the
court, the petitioner was not having any right to file reference
petition under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Ld counsel for the
petitioner has further argued that during the pendency of the
reference proceedings under Section 30-31 of LA Act, the
petitioner was never delivered the copy of award and
essential contents of the award was also not disclosed to the
petitioner.
71) As per judgments of Hon’ble High court of Delhi
passed in cases titled Jagdish Vs UOI (supra) and Shanti Devi
& Ors Vs Union of India (supra), if the petitioner participates
in proceedings under Section 30-31 of the L.A. Act, it cannot
be presumed that the petitioner had the knowledge about the
essential contents of the award. So, the abovesaid contentions
of ld counsels for respondents have no force. Moreover, only
after passing of appropriation judgment in reference petition
under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act, the reference under Section
18 of L.A. Act can be legitimately sought by the petitioner
and the relevant paras of the said judgments have been
mentioned in succeeding paras.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 32/54
72) In a case titled ” Jagdish Vs Union of India & Ors
(Supra), the Hon’ble High court of Delhi has held as under:-
12. The Supreme Court in Madan & Anr. case has
held that it is only after the question of apportionment
under Section 30 of the LA Act is crystalized, that a
reference under Section 18 of LA Act can be legitimately
sought.
13. As stated above, in the present Case, the
Appropriation Judgment came on02.11.2015 and
thereafter, that the Petition under Section 18 of the LA Act,
was filed by the Appellant. It is not disputed that the
Reference Petition was filed within six weeks of the date of
the Apportionment Judgment.
14. Given this position and relying on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Madan & Anr case, since the
Appellant had filed its Application for Reference under
Section 18 of the LA Act within the stipulated period after
the Appropriation Judgment, the Application could not be
rejected on the ground of limitation.
73) In a case titled ” Shanti Devi & Ors Vs Union of India,
(Supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, has held as under:
11. A cursory glance at the provisions of Sections
18 and 30 of the Act, extracted above, may suggest
that there is some overlapping between the
provisions inasmuch as both contemplate reference
of the issue of apportionment of compensation to
the court. But, a closer scrutiny would indicate that
the two sections of the Act operate in entirely
different circumstances. While Section 18 applies
to situations where the apportionment made in the
award is objected to by a beneficiary
thereunder, Section 30 applies when no
apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector
on account of conflicting claims. In such a situation
one of the options open to the Collector is to make
a reference of the question of apportionment to the
court under Section 30 of the Act. The other is to
relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit. In either
situation, the right to receive compensation under
the award would crystallise after apportionment is
made in favour of a claimant. It is only thereafterLAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 33/54
that a reference under Section 18 for enhanced
compensation can be legitimately sought by the
claimant in whose favour the order of
apportionment is passed either by the court in the
reference under Section 30 or in the civil suit, as
may be.”
74) In view of the above-said judgments, it is settled
proposition of law that until the rights of the parties in the
acquired land are not crystalized/upheld by the Court, in
reference petition filed under Section 30-31 of LA Act, the
petitioner is not required to file reference petition under
Section 18 of L.A. Act. The petitioner has the right to file the
reference petition under Section 18 L.A Act after the date of
decision of reference petition filed under Section 30-31 of the
LA Act.
75) The reference petition titled “UOI Vs Harish Virmani
& Ors forwarded under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act was
decided by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide judgment
dated 14.12.2017. Thereafter, the said judgment was further
corrected vide order dated 12.01.2018 and 22.01.2018. Sh.
Ashok Virmani filed writ petition before Hon’ble High court
of Delhi in a case ” Ashok Virmani Vs Hon’ble L.G. & Ors”
by challenging the abovesaid orders. Vide order dated
16.02.2018, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi stayed the
operation of abovesaid three orders dated ie. 14.12.2017,
12.01.2018 and 22.01.2018 till NDOH i.e. 18.04.2018. On
18.04.2018, the stay order stands extended till further order.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 34/54
On 30.01.2019, the abovesaid petition was dismissed as
withdrawn and the stay was vacated by Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi.
76) In view of the testimony of petitioner/PW-1, it is
proved that the petitioner came to know about the essential
contents of the award on 03.08.2019, when he received the
cheque of compensation amount and after seeing the less
amount of compensation, he filed reference application under
Section 18 of LA Act before LAC west on 16.09.2019, which
is within 42 days of getting knowledge of essential contents
of award and is within limitation. Hence issue no. 1 is
decided against the respondents and in favour of the
petitioner.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2.
Issue no. 2 : Whether the petitioner is
entitled for enhancement of the
compensation in respect of land and if so, at
what rate? OPP
77) The onus to prove the issue no. 2 is upon the
petitioner. In order to prove the said issue, the petitioner has
examined only one witness/PW1 i.e. petitioner himself.
78) Ld counsel for the respondent no. 2 has argued that the
sub-division of plot no. 69, Najafgrah road was allowed by
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 35/54
Resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 as Ex R2W2/1, subject
to condition that the land required for widening of Najafgrah
road shall be left free of cost as per approval of alignment
plan. Ld counsel for the MCD further argued that the MCD is
entitled to obtain the acquired land free of cost and petitioner
is not entitled to receive any compensation.
79) Ld counsel for the petitioner has argued that MCD has
not led any evidence to prove that the predecessor in interest
of the petitioner was ever approached MCD for sub-division
of Plot no. 69, Najafgrah road. He further argued that the
MCD has never demanded acquired land from the petitioner
or his predecessor in interest, free of cost. He further argued
that MCD has never filed any claim either before LAC or
before this court in reference petition filed under Section 30-
31 of L.A. Act for claiming its right to obtain the acquired
land free of cost. He further argued that this court has already
passed judgment in the abovesaid reference petition under
Section 30-31 of L.A. Act, in favour of the petitioner and the
petitioner is declared to be entitled to receive the
compensation amount and the petitioner has already received
the compensation amount determined by the LAC. He further
argued that the abovesaid resolution was lapsed as per
statement given by R2W1.
80) The witness of MCD, namely, Sh. Dhananjoy Kumar
Prabhat/R2W1 deposed during his cross examination that the
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 36/54
occupiers of plot no. 69/1A came to MCD for regularization,
however, the occupiers of 69/2A to 69/6A never approached
the MCD for regularization.
81) R2W1 has admitted during his cross examination that
in the written statement dated 16.04.2013 filed by MCD in a
case titled “M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI“,
the department has admitted that the resolution dated
31.05.1973 has been lapsed.
82) From the testimony of R2W1, it is proved that the
resolution dated 31.05.1973 as Ex R2W2/1 was lapsed as the
occupiers of said plots never approached the MCD for
regularization.
83) In view of the foregoing testimony of R2W1, it is
proved that the resolution no. 1294 dated 31.05.1973 was
lapsed. So, on the basis of the said resolution, the MCD
cannot claim any interest in the acquired land. Moreover,
MCD has never raised its claim over the acquired property
either before LAC or before this court during the pendency of
the reference petition under Section 30-31 of LA Act. This
court, vide judgment dated 14.12.2017 has already held that
the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation amount of
the acquired land and appeal against said judgment filed
before Hon’ble High court of Delhi has also been dismissed
as withdrawn, vide order dated 18.04.2018. The
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 37/54
compensation determined by the LAC, West has already been
released to the petitioner on 03.08.2019. So, at this stage, the
MCD cannot claim any right to obtain the acquired land free
of cost.
84) The present reference has been forwarded to the Court
on the reference application under Section 18 L.A. Act filed
by the petitioner. This reference has been sent to decide
whether the petitioner is entitled to receive enhancement of
compensation amount and what is the market value of the
acquired land on the date of issuance of notice under Section
4 of L.A. Act. This court has the domain only to decide the
above-said issue as to what was the market value of the
acquired land and whether the petitioner is entitled to receive
enhanced compensation amount. No reference petition of
MCD regarding making claim on acquired is pending in this
court. The claim of the MCD to receive the acquired land free
of cost cannot be considered in the present reference.
Reliance placed upon judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in a case titled “P.K. ShreeKantan Vs. P.Sree
Kumaran Nair” AIR 2007 SC 516 and case titled “Shyamali
Vs Illa Chaudhary” AIR 2007, SC 215.
85) Petitioner/PW-1 has deposed in his evidence by way of
affidavit that he is the proprietor of M/S Bombay Madras
Good Carriers. PW-1 further deposed that the acquired land is
commercial in nature. PW-1 further deposed that Hon’ble
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 38/54
High court of Delhi has enhanced the market value of
property situated in Mansarover Garden, which has been
acquired vide award no. 16/2004-05 from Rs.37,500/- per
square meter to 52,000/- per square meter. He further deposed
that the date of notification in the said award was 01.04.2004,
which is few months subsequent to the date of notification of
present award. He further deposed that the acquired property
of award no. 16 was situated in the same revenue village
Basaidara pur, New Delhi and the said property is extremely
approximate to the acquired property of present award and is
also similar in location as well as potentiality. He further
deposed that the acquired property of the petitioner is more
than 500 square meter away from the acquired property of Sh.
Virender Sood in Mansarovar Garden. Petitioner has relied
upon judgment passed in a case titled “Virender Sood Vs
UOI“, which is exhibited as Ex PW-1/2. Petitioner has further
deposed that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the
market value as determined by Hon’ble High court of Delhi
in a L.A. Appeal no. 913/2008 vide judgment dated
25.02.2019. The copy of said order is exhibited as ExPW-1/3.
86) There is no evidence on record except the bald
statement of petitioner that acquired land is situated near to
property of award no. 16. The petitioner has not seen the
acquired property of award no. 16. On behalf of UOI,
suggestion has been given to petitioner that the acquired land
of award no. 16 is more than 5 km away from the acquired
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 39/54
property of petitioner. In chief examination, the petitioner
deposed that his acquired property is at a distance of more
than 500 square meter from the acquired property of award
no. 16 but during cross-examination, he deposed that it must
be one and a half to two km away. The acquired land under
award no. 16 was a single plot of 557.61 square meter. The
said plot was three side open plot and was situated in fully
developed area. The permitted use of said lot was residential-
cum-commercial. The acquired land under present award is
Plot no. 69/6A, total ad measuring 2222.25 square meter and
out of this total land of Plot no. 69/6A, the petitioner has
share of land ad measuring 5.55 square meter. The acquired
land is situated at main road but it is not the case of the
petitioner that it is three side open plot. The permitted use of
acquired land is industry. It is also not proved that the
acquired land of award no. 16 & acquired land of present
award are situated nearby. In view of the abovesaid disparity
between the both acquired lands, this court is of the view that
the market rate of acquired land of award no. 16 cannot be
considered for determining the market rate of acquired land
of present award as both are not similar situated and have not
similar potential value.
87) During arguments, Ld counsel for the petitioner has
filed certified copy of judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi passed in a case titled M/S Anant Raj Projects Ltd (now
known as Tarc Project Ltd) Vs UOI & Anr decided on
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 40/54
26.10.2024 along with certified copy of order dated
24.01.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
regarding dismissing the appeal of DMRC filed against the
abovesaid judgment of Hon’ble High court of Delhi. The
abovesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High court of Delhi has
attained as appeal against the said judgment filed by the
DMRC has been dismissed.
88) By way of above-said judgement passed in a case
titled M/S Anant Raj Project Ltd Vs UOI & Anr, the Hon’ble
High court of Delhi has determined the market value of the
acquired land of award no. 6 and award no. 7 as Rs.
1,30,000/- per square meter, on the date of issuance of
notification under Section of the Act. The notification under
Section 4 of L.A. Act in award no. 6 was issued on
13.02.2004 and in award no. 7 on 04.03.2003.
89) Ld counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner is also entitled to receive compensation @ Rs.
130,000/-per square meter. Ld counsel for the petitioner has
further argued that the LAC, West himself relied upon
abovesaid both awards while determining the market value of
property in question. So, both abovesaid awards can be
considered for present award for determining the market
value of property of the petitioner.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 41/54
90) I have perused the copy of award no. 02/DC(W)/2006-
07 in respect of property no. 69/1A to 69/6A, Patel Road,
Moti Nagar, 67, 68 (1-3), DLF Industrial Area, Patel Road,
70, Najafgarh Road which is exhibited as R-1. As per this
award, the properties have been acquired for construction of
grade/flyover at Najafgarh road and patel road intersection
near Moti Nagar.
91) In the abovesaid award, the LAC, West has mentioned
that the properties under acquisition are pertaining to
industrial land situated on Patel road and Najafgarh road.
The LAC, West has considered the sale deed bearing
registration no. 15875 dated 21.11.2022 of area 1710 sq.
meter situated at 3, Najafgarh road, New Delhi. As per this
sale deed, the sale price of the land is Rs.20175/- per square
meter and the status of the property was industrial.
92) The LAC, West has also considered the two awards of
nearby area for determining the market value of the acquired
land and the details of said awards are as follows:
A. Award no. 6/DCW/04-05 situated at Patel
Nagar and the status of land is Industrial and
average rate of acquired property per square
meter is Rs. 19660/-.
B. Award no. 7/DCW/04-05 situated at Patel
Nagar and the status of land is Industrial andLAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 42/54
average rate of acquired property per square
meter is Rs. 19660/-.
93) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has given following
guidelines while determining the market value of the acquired
land in a case titled “Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land
Acquisition officer, Poona and another:
(1) A reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court
cannot take into account the material relied upon by the
Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same
material is produced and proved before the Court.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is
not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or
exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the
Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land
Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for
making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court
unless produced and proved before it. It is not the
function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award,
approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or
affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the
Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original
proceeding before it and determine the market value
afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has
to show that the price offered for his land in the award is
inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the
Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the
other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be
determined as on the crucial date of publication of the
notification under sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act
(dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the
date line of valuation (date of publication of notificationLAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 43/54
under sec.4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser
willing to purchase land from the open market and is
prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has
also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the
land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to
correlate the market value reflected in the most
comparable instance which provides the index of market
value.
(8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account.
(Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of
Acquisition of land).
(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into
account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3)
the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to
pay a higher price on account of the resultant
improvement in development prospects.
(l0) The most comparable instances out of the genuine
instances have to be identified on the following
considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the
index of market value the price reflected therein may be
taken as the norm and the market value of the land under
acquisition may be deduced by making suitable
adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land
under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be
drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be
evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent
purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has
there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in
the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading
it for minus factors(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to
be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudentLAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 44/54
man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate
some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
1.smallness of size. 1.smallness of size.
2. proximity to a 2. situation in the
road. interior at
a distances from the
Road.
3. frontage on a 3. narrow strip of land
road. with very small frontage
compared to death.
4. nearness to 4. lower level
developed area. requiring the depressed
portion to be filled up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from
developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis 6. some special under
land acquistion.
disadvantageous factor
which would deter a
purchaser.
7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property
to whom it may have some very special advantage.
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on
the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast
or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable
guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A
building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be
compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000
sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the
reach of many, a large block of land will have to be
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 45/54
developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads,
leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for
purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be
blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor
can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an
allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between
20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for
carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The
discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it
is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is
picking up, and whether waiting period during which the
capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up, will be
longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern
bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of
land in which position the Judge must place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with
understanding informed with common sense. The problem
which has surfaced in the present appeals needs to be
recapitulated. The question is whether in scaling down the
total compensation payable to the appellant from
Rs.1,14,517 to Rs.63,846, the High Court has violated any
principle of valuation or adopted any faulty methodology.
94) In a case titled Union of India & Anr Vs Ram Phal &
Anr, 2003 SCC 10 167, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
observed as follows:
“That award had not been produced before the High
Court in the case in hand nor was it before the Reference
Court also; though an application for taking that as
additional evidence has been filed in this Court.
Contemporaneous award no doubt is a useful guide for
every court to determine the market value but that award
must be taken into evidence in accordance with law by
giving an opportunity to the other side for rebutting the
same and that had not been done in the case in hand. It is
not possible to look into the additional evidence for
coming to any conclusion as to whether the market value
as determined by the High Court is sustainable or not.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 46/54
Leaving aside the so-called award, if we examine the
impugned judgment of the High Court, we have no other
evidence other than Exhibit A-1 which was a sale
transaction of 10-9-1981 in respect of one bigha of land
and the price therein was Rs 30,000 per bigha. It has been
held in a catena of decisions of this Court that the sale
price in respect of a small bit of transaction would not be
the determinative factor for deciding the market value of a
vast stretch of land. As has been stated earlier, the extent
of land acquired in the case in hand i.e 5484 bighas. In
that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to
the conclusion that the High Court has wholly erred in
relying upon Exhibit A-1 in determining the market value
of the acquired land extending to 5484 bighas. Since the
onus is on the claimant to lead evidence on the
determination of market value and if Exhibit A-1 is taken
out of consideration, then there is no residue of evidence
on which the determination made by the High Court
enhancing the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court could be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the
impugned judgment of the High Court and affirm the
market value as determined by the Reference Court. These
appeals are allowed. Cross-appeals filed by the claimants
are dismissed.
95) In a case titled Jas Rath Vs Union of India, 2006 AD
DEL6, 284, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed as
under:
“54. We have discussed in great detail that Exh. X and
Exh. X-1 even read in conjunction with Resolution dated
24th December, 1980 are relevant factors for determining
the potential, location and as a guiding factor to the value
of the surrounding land to the acquired land. This by itself
cannot be treated to be a determinative factor for awarding
compensation to the claimants. In fact for varied reasons,
we would decline to fix compensation on the basis of this
brochure. Firstly, the claimants have failed to lead any
supporting evidence in that behalf. No witness has come
and stated that the acquired land is identically situated and
has the same facilities like the land covered under Exh. X.
Further there is no direct evidence of comparable lands
and/or the land having identical potential to the land
covered under the scheme. Onus of this kind was certainlyLAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 47/54
upon the claimants and they have failed to discharge their
onus in this regard.”
96) It is well settled legal position that the claimants stand
in the position of plaintiffs. Burden of prove is always on the
claimants to prove by leading cogent and reliable evidence
that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensation
than what is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer,
which is only a offer. It is the duty of the court to evaluate the
evidence and assess the market the value of the land.
97) It is settled law that reference under section 18 of L.A.
Act sent to the court is not an appeal against the award and
the court has to re-determine the market value of acquired
land as per evidence led by the parties. The material
considered by LAC for passing award cannot be considered
unless such material is produced in evidence and has been
proved in accordance with law. The petitioner has not
mentioned anything about award no. 6 and award no. 7 in his
reference application. The abovesaid awards have also not
been tendered in evidence by the petitioner. The petitioner has
not relied upon above awards in his evidence. The petitioner
has not deposed in his evidence as to how the land of award
no. 6 and 7 is comparable with acquired land of petitioner.
The petitioner has not deposed about the nature, situation and
potentiality of acquired land of petitioner, similar to acquired
land of award no. 6 & 7. No evidence has been led by the
petitioner to prove that acquired land of award no. 6 & 7 is
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 48/54
similarly situated and similar in potential value as of acquired
land of present award. In view of foregoing discussion, it is
held that the market value of acquired land of award no. 6 &
7 cannot be considered for determining the market value of
acquired land of present award.
98) The petitioner has also relied upon judgment of this
court passed in a case titled “M/s Esvee Polymers
Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI” in respect of another property
i.e. 69/6A, ad measuring 2083.37 square meter acquired
under the present award and in which, the court determined
the market value of the land as Rs. 31733.59/- per square
meter. The Copy of said judgment is marked as Mark D.
99) I have perused the copy of said judgment, Ld.
Predecessor of this court has already decided reference
petition forwarded under Section 18 of L.A. Act, in respect of
same property i.e. Plot no. 69/6A ad measuring 2083.37
acquired by Government under the same award of present
reference petition and for the same purpose. The title of said
case is “M/s Esvee Polymers Manufacturing Co. Vs UOI &
Anr. Bearing LAC no. 05/2013 (old) and new number
66/2016, decided on 11.04.2022. In the abovesaid case, Ld
Predecessor of this court determined the market value of the
acquired land @ Rs. 31733.59/- per square meter by relying
upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 49/54
a case titled “Nand Ram & Ors Vs The State of Haryana, JT
1988 JT4 260.
98. In the present reference, the land ad measuring 5.5
square meter of petitioner in plot no. 69/6A at Patel road,
Moti Nagar is in question. The total acquired land of plot no.
69/6A is 2222.25 square meter and out of this total land of
plot no. 69/6A, market rate of 2083.37 square meter land has
already been determined by the court vide judgment dated
11.04.2021, given in above case of M/S Esvee Polymers
Manufacturing Co. Vs. Unio of India & Anr. Acquired land of
present reference and acquired land of abovesaid case are
similar and have similar potential value being part of same
plot no. 69/6A and have been acquired under same award.
Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to receive the same
compensation of his land, which has been given in the
abovesaid case.
100) Reliance is also placed on the following judgments, in
which, it is held that similar compensation be given to the
parties, whose similar situated and having similar potential
value lands have been acquired under same award for same
purpose:
1. Nand Ram Vs State of Haryana 1988 JT4 260.
2. Raj Dat & ors Vs UOI & Anr, 2007 AD DEL9 749.
3. Shri Rattan Lal & Ors Vs Union of India 2001, 1LR DEL 7
241.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 50/54
4. Harprat & Others Vs Union of India & Ors 2002 1LR DEL
10 312.
5. Nafe singh (deceased) Lrs etc. Vs Union of India 2001,
SCC online DEL 277.
6. K.H. Parashiva Murthy Vs Special Land Acquisition,
MFA-CROB 128/2012 decided on 03.02.2021 by Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court.
Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land of present
reference is determined as Rs.31733.59/- per square meter.
101) Petitioner is already held entitled to receive
compensation of the acquired land ad measuring 5.5 Square
meter by the court vide judgment dated 14.12.2017 passed in
reference petition under Section 30-31 of L.A. Act, titled
“Union of India Vs Harish Virmani & Ors.
102) So, the petitioner is held entitled to receive
compensation amount Rs. 31733.59/- per square meter
instead of Rs. 20900/- per square meter as determined by
LAC, West.
103) In view of foregoing discussions, issue no. 2 is
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.
RELIEF
104) The petitioner has also claimed in the petition that
value of structure of the petitioner was more than Rs.30 lakhs
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 51/54
on the date of notification and petitioner is also entitled for
compensation for loss of earning to the extent of Rs.20 lakhs
along with enhancement relief of market value of his acquired
land.
105) In the award, the LAC, West has assessed the value of
the structure of the acquired land of the petitioner as
Rs.9255/-. During arguments, Ld counsel for the petitioner
submits that he is not disputing the structure value of the
acquired land and is also not claiming relief of loss of
earning. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove
that the value of structure of petitioner existing in the
acquired property was more than Rs 9255/- There is no
evidence on record regarding any loss of earning suffered by
the petitioner due to acquisition of his land by the
Government. Accordingly, it is held that petitioner is entitled
his share in the structure amount, as per judgment dated
14.12.2017 passed in reference petition titled “Union of India
Vs Harish Virman and others” (Supra) and is not entitled for
further enhancement in the structure value and is also not
entitled to receive any amount for loss of earning.
106) In view of foregoing findings as well as findings on
issues no 1 and 2, the present petition stands partly allowed
and following reliefs have been given to the petitioner.
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 52/54
A) The petitioner is entitled to receive enhanced
compensation @ Rs. 10833.59 square meter over
and above the compensation determined by LAC,
West i.e. Rs.20,900/- in respect of acquired land
5.5 square meter.
B) The petitioner is entitled to receive 30%
solatium of the market value of acquired land, as
per Section 23 (2) of L.A. Act, 1894.
C) The petitioner is also entitled to receive
additional amount @ 12% per annum on the
market Value of acquired land, for the period,
specified in Section 23 (1A) of L.A. Act 1894.
(d) The petitioner is further entitled for interest on
the aggregate of market value of acquired land,
solatium and additional amount, for the period
between the date of taking possession of acquired
land of the petitioner to the date of
payment/deposit at the rate of 9% per annum for
the first year and 15% per annum for the
remaining period.
F). The amount of compensation already paid to
the petitioner be adjusted and deducted from total
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 53/54
amount of compensation. Parties to bear their own
costs.
107) Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Copy of the
judgement and decree sheet be sent to Land Acquisition
collector (west) for intimation and compliance.
108) File be consigned to record room after due compliance
Digitally
signed by
SHIV
Announced in the open court SHIV KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.06.05
on 05.06.2025 (SHIV KUMAR)
16:54:15
+0530DJ-02/West/THC/DELHI
LAC No. 13/2023 Shri Narender Kumar Doomra VS UOI & Ors 54/54
[ad_1]
Source link