Delhi High Court
M/S Anant Raj Projects Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 29 October, 2024
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 01 October, 2024
Decided on: 29 October, 2024
+ LA.APP. 253/2016
M/S ANANT RAJ PROJECTS LTD.(NOW
KNOWN AS TARC PROJECT LTD.) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Soham
Kumar, Ms. Prarthana
Singhania, Mr. Akshit
Navaney, Advocates
V
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
SC with Mrs. K. K. Kiran
Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kr. Jha,
Mr. M. S. Akhtar,
Mr. Musarrat B. Hasmi,
Mr. Mayank Madhu,
Mr. Sami S. Siddiqui,
Advocates for R-1/UOI
Ms. Shama Sharma,
Advocate for R-2/DMRC
AND
+ LA.APP. 255/2016
M/S ANANT RAJ PROJECTS LTD (NOW
KNOWN AS TARC PROJECT LTD.) .....Appellant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 1
17:06:56
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Soham
Kumar, Ms. Prarthana
Singhania, Mr. Akshit
Navaney, Advocates
V
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
SC with Mrs. K. K. Kiran
Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kr. Jha,
Mr. M. S. Akhtar,
Mr. Musarrat B. Hasmi,
Mr. Mayank Madhu,
Mr. Sami S. Siddiqui,
Advocates for R-1/UOI
Ms. Shama Sharma,
Advocate for R-2/DMRC
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. This common judgment shall decide above mentioned two
appeals.The present appeals are filed under section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to
challenge the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2016 passed in LAC
bearing no. 73/10/07 titled as M/s Anant Raj Projects Limited V
Union of India & another (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 2
17:06:56
judgment 1″) and judgment and decree dated 06.05.2016 passed in
LAC bearing no. 71/10/07 titled as Structural Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.
V Union of India & Another (hereinafter referred to as “the
impugned judgment 2”) passed by the court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar,
ADJ-02, West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as “the reference court”) whereby the market value of the
appellant’s land measuring 1410 sq. meters forming part of the
Commercial complex at property no. 67, Najafgarh Road, DLF
Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, Delhi was assessed at a rate of
Rs.30,124.21/- per sq. meter with other benefits (in LA. APP
253/2016) and the market value of the appellant’s land measuring
3697 sq. meters forming part of the Commercial complex at property
no. 67, Najafgarh Road, DLF Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, Delhi was
assessed at a rate of Rs. 28,510.41/- per sq. meter with other benefits
(in LA. APP 255/2016).
2. The factual background of the case as reflected from the impugned
judgment 1 in LA. APP. 253/2016 is that the Government of NCT of
Delhi acquired the total land measuring 3257 sq. meter under section
4 of the Act vide notification no.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 3
17:06:56
F.7(14)2003/LA/L&B/MRTS(W)/25040 dated 13.02.2004 and under
section 6 of the Act vide notification no. F.7(14)
2003/LA/L&B/MRTS(W)/4011 dated 08.06.2004. The said land was
notified under section 17 of the Act vide notification no. F.7(14)
2003/LA/L&B/MRTS(W)/4012 dated 08.06.2004 and was acquired
for the purpose of Mass Rapid Transit System project. LAC (W) after
completing the requisite formalities as provided under the Act
announced the Award bearing no. 06/DC (W)/04-05 dated
28.01.2005 under section 11 of the Act in respect of the aforesaid
acquired land and determined the market value of the acquired land at
the uniform rate of Rs.19,660/- per sq. meter.
2.1 The factual background of the case as reflected from the
impugned judgment 2 in LA. APP. 255/2016 is that the Government
of Delhi acquired the total land measuring 15765 sq. meter under
section 4 of the Act vide notification no.
F.7(60)2001/L&B/LA/MRTS/19276 dated 04.03.2003 and under
section 6 of the Act vide notification no. F.7(60)
2001/L&B/LA/MRTS/905 dated 25.04.2003. The said land was
notified under section 17 of the Act vide notification no. F.7(60)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 4
17:06:56
2001/L&B/LA/MRTS/906 dated 25.04.2003 and was acquired for the
purpose of Mass Rapid Transit System project. The LAC (W) after
completing the requisite formalities as provided under the Act
announced the Award bearing no. 07/DC (W)/04-05 dated
02.02.2005 under section 11 of the Act in respect of the aforesaid
acquired land and determined the market value of the acquired land at
the uniform rate of Rs.19,660/- per sq. meter. The structure was also
valued as per valuation report submitted by DMRC Ltd. duly vetted
by PWD. The structure of the appellants as per award was
determined for value of Rs.8,90,932/-.
2.2 The appellant, a private limited company, is the owner of both the
properties i.e., 1410 sq. meters (LA. APP. 253/2016) and 3257 sq.
meter (LA. APP. 255/2016) forming part of the Commercial complex
situated at property no. 67, Najafgarh Road, DLF Industrial Area,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the acquired land”)
which were acquired vide Award bearing no. 06/DC (W)/04-05 dated
28.01.2005 (LA. APP 253/2016) and Award bearing no.
07/DC(W)/04-05 dated 02.02.2005 (LA. APP 255/2016).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 5
17:06:56
2.3 The appellant being aggrieved by the compensation assessed by
LAC filed reference petitions under section 18 of the Act bearing
LAC no. 73/10/07 and LAC no. 71/10/07 challenging the Award
bearing no. 06/DC(W)/04-05 dated 28.01.2005 and 07/DC(W)/04-05
dated 02.02.2005 respectively and prayed for enhanced compensation
along with statutory solatium, interest and other statutory benefits.
The grounds to challenge the Awards in the reference petitions are
produced verbatim hereinafter:
7. It is stated that the property under acquisition is a part
of big industrial plot situated on the main Patel Road, it is
an admitted fact as per the award that the land under
acquisition is an industrial property situated in Kirti Nagar
and have residential, commercial activities in the vicinity.
This fact alone makes it abundantly clear that the land in
question had potential value as industrial as well as
commercial site and all around in the vicinity the land
is/was being used as industrial as well as for commercial
purposes.
8. It Is stated that the Collector through has admitted the
land to be the industrial property and having commercial
potential has valued the same at the rate which was fixed by
DDA for conversion charges. The conversion charges which
have been application by DDA in the year 2003 can not be
the actual price of the land. The conversion charges are
charged by the authorities with regard to residential
property or other properties are sought to be converted for
the purposes of user. It is stated that conversion charges by
no stretch of imagination could be the market value of the
land. The market value of the land is where the land of an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 6
17:06:56
ordinary prudent person will be prepared to sell his
property and a man of ordinary prudence is willing to
purchase the same. The price which is falling between the
two constitutes the market value. The market value of the
land around the vicinity at the time of issuance of
notification under Section 4 of the Act was not less than
Rs.2 lacs per sqm.
9. It is further stated that the property in question is
situated on main Road having a great potential value as a
perfect industrial site and was otherwise fit for any
commercial activities. The land in question had a permitted
use of industrial nature and has flatted factories. It is stated
that the matter regarding user of the land which was
earlier used for extensive industry came up from Hon’ble
Supreme Court in CWP No. 467/1985 titled as ‘M.C. Mehta
vs. UOI’ wherein it has been held that all plots which were
earlier used to existing industries would be used only for
light and service industry. As per the permissible use in
Zone M (I) light and service industries the following are
permissible; Hospitals, Guest House, Boarding House,
Lodging House, Storage House, Warehouse, Cold Storage,
Ice Factory, Gas Godown, Cinema, Bus Depot and
Workshop and Nursing Home, Auditorium, Nigh Shelter,
Weekly market. Junk Yard, Motel Garage, Flattered group
industry, railway freight godown, vocational training
centre, R&D Centre, Museum, Exhibition Centre and Art
Gallery. The DDA vide resolution dated 18.08.2001 as
alleged, commercial usage of industrial plot on payment of
certain charges. With this back ground the plot of the
appellants would be used for any of the purposes detailed
herein above and all purposes are commercial in nature
and could fetch a very decent income for the appellants.
Even otherwise the permissible user being absolutely
commercial, will definitely fetch a better price.
10. It is stated that the land of the appellant is well
connected to various parts of Delhi, approachable by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 7
17:06:56
mettled roads from all sides, one side is Patel Road, the
other side is Kirti Nagar Industrial area road, the third side
is Rama Road and the other road is leading towards Moti
Nagar Industrial Area. The land being situated in such a
position has market potential and is of great
commercial/industrial value. All sort of civic amenities such
as electricity, water transport, telephone, bus service,
sewerage, educational institutions etc. are easily available to
the lands of the appellants.
11. It is stated that the topography of the land which has
been acquired is phenomenally exceptional within the close
proximity of about 1- 1.1/2kms there are posh Residential
colonies like Patel nagar, Rajender Nagar, Rajendra Park,
Rajendra Place, Karol Bagh, Pusha Road etc. on the other
side are the posh residential colonies of west Delhi like
Rajouri Garden, Raja Garden, Kirti Nagar residential
area, Bali Nagar etc. This being the topography, the land of
the appellant is of the highest value being on the perfect
location and thus enjoys a great potential value.
12. It is further stated that the question regarding fixation
of market rates of the property in the vicinity came up
before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on various
occasions and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in
unambiguous terms held that 2-3 kms. Distance is of no
consequence in relation to the properties situated in urban
areas or in urban agglomeration as the properties are
capable of fetching the same market value. Appellant also
relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in LC
Officers vs. Eluru & others Vs. Smt. Jasti Rohini & Others,
1995 Vol. I SCC 717.
13. It is further stated that the Collector has made no effort
to find out the existing market rate in the vicinity. The
award indicates only one sale deed which is no way can
reflect the market value of the lands in the area. Appellant
also relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 8
17:06:56
Special Land Acquisition Officer Dev Nagri vs. P. Veera
Bhadha Rappa & others 1984 Vol. 2 SCC 120.
14. It is further stated that considering all the facts and
circumstances and other related matters relevant for
affixation of the correct market value of the land, the value
of the land of the appellant at the relevant time was not less
than Rs.2 lacs per sqm. and appellant claims the same
amount as compensation for its land.
3. The respondent no1/Union of India filed respective written
statement before the reference court in both the reference petitions
wherein stated that the compensation has been assessed in the name
of the recorded owner as per the revenue record and the appellant is
not the recorded owner as per the revenue record. The acquired land
is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and the
acquired land can only be used for agricultural use. There was no
structure, tree or tube at the time of publishing of the notification
under section 4 of the Act on the acquired land. The respondent no 1
on merits denied averments made in the reference petition and stated
that the Collector (West) has correctly assessed the compensation and
the reference petitions are liable to be dismissed.
4. The respondent no.2/DMRC also filed written statement in both
the reference petitions wherein preliminary objection was taken that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 9
17:06:56
the petitions are barred by limitation. The respondent no 2/DMRC on
merits denied all the averments made in the reference petition and
stated that the LAC (West) considered the conversion charge issued
by the DDA, the schedule of rate for residential and commercial
purposes circulated by the Department of Urban Development,
Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment vide letter no. J-
22011/4/95-LD dated 16.04.1999 and price paid within reasonable
time frame in a bona fide transaction of similar land possessing
similar value. The locational advantage of the property being situated
on the main road was kept in mind while assessing the market value
at the rate of Rs.19,660/- per sq. meter. The claimants did not supply
valid evidence regarding industrial land to LAC to support their
claim. LAC relied on the best method of compensation assessment to
achieve the market value of the property by evaluating similarly
advantageous land in the proximity. LAC while passing the award
took into account that the acquired property is situated on the main
road and that there are residential as well as commercial activities in
the vicinity. The acquired land was not used for industrial purposes
and the conversion charge has been taken as only one dimension in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 10
17:06:56
the ascertainment of the true price as conversion charge is only
Rs.17,870/- whereas the market price determined in the award is
Rs.19,660/-. The structure was valued by Government approved
Valuers and was also duly vetted by PWD of GNCTD. The Collector
took into account the entire potential value but the range of potential
value cannot be extended to conjectural value. The immediate and
proximate potentiality can be considered not the distant potentiality.
5. The appellant in LAC no. 71/10/07 subject matter of LA.APP.
255/2016 filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent
no.1/UOI wherein stated that the compensation assessed by the
Collector is too low, unjust, arbitrary, without any reasonable basis
and the same is not acceptable to the appellant. The minimum market
value of the acquired land was assessed by the Registered Valuer in
his valuation report to be not less than Rs.2,10,000/- per sq. meter.
The appellant also denied the averments made in the written
statement.
5.1 The appellant in LAC no. 71/10/07 subject matter of LA. APP.
255/2016 also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent
no.2/DMRC wherein the appellant denied the averments made in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 11
17:06:56
written statement and reiterated the averments made in the petition. It
was stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector is too low,
unjust, arbitrary, without any reasonable basis and the same is not
acceptable to the appellant. The minimum market value of the land in
question was assessed by the Registered Valuer in his valuation
report to be not less than Rs.2,10,000/- per sq. meter. It was further
stated that the respondent did not deny the fact that the appellant has
huge superstructure in the form of boundary wall, gate, iron grill,
rooms etc. and that the said construction was a modern construction
and hence, the value of the superstructure cannot be valued less than
Rs.50 lacs.
6. The reference court in both the reference petitions on basis of
pleadings framed following issues vide order dated 21.02.2008:-
1. What was the market value of the land on the date of
notification U/S 4 Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. What was the value of super structure raised by the
appellant? OPP
3. To what amount of enhancement in compensation the
appellants are entitled?
4. Relief.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 12
17:06:56
7. The appellant before the reference court examined Pankaj Nakra
who is the Director of the appellant company as PW1 who tendered
affidavit stating facts of the petition and submitted a copy of Board
Resolution as Ex. PW1/A in evidence. PW1 in his cross examination
admitted that the company has neither purchased or sold any piece of
land at Kirti Nagar, Delhi and that he does not remember if the
company sent any letter to the LAC for participation in the
proceedings of evaluating the property being initiated by the
approved valuer. PW1 deposed that he accompanied the valuer when
they visited and initiated proceedings of valuation and multiple local
property dealers including Mr. Avinash were called who gave the rate
of the land to the valuer. PW1 further deposed that the distance
between the Kirti Nagar and Moti Nagar Industrial Area is
approximately 500 meters and the same is the distance between Patel
Road and Rama Road. He admitted that there is a residential area at
the distance of ½ – 1 km from the acquired land. He further deposed
that the company used to manufacture tanks on the acquired land for
almost 20 years but he cannot say whether the business was running
in profit or loss. He deposed that he does not remember when the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 13
17:06:56
construction of the acquired land was done and whether he had
submitted sale deed of similarly located property of that area before
LAC.
7.1 The appellant also examined Balkishan Chauhan before the
reference court as PW2 who tendered affidavit Ex.PW2/A in
evidence wherein deposed that he is a Building Supervisor/Estimator
Valuer approved by the MCD.PW2 deposed that on the request of
PW1 Pankaj Nakra, he personally went to inspect the acquired land
on 30.03.2003 to assess its market value which was done after
verification of the documents produced and taking into consideration
various locational factors.PW2 also made local enquiry regarding the
prevailing market rate at the time of the section 4 notification from
local property dealers.PW2 prepared Report PW2/2 wherein he
assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.
2,25,000/- per sq. meter as on the date of the section 4 notification.
PW2 in his cross examination admitted that he had not given any
notice to LAC to participate during inspection of the acquired land
for valuation but the manager of the appellant company had already
given such notice to the LAC. He deposed that he had seen the House
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 14
17:06:56
Tax Receipt but no documents regarding purchase of building
material was shown to him and he cannot tell the rateable value of the
property fixed by MCD. He further deposed that he referred two sale
deeds and made inquiries from local property dealers while assessing
the market value of the acquired land. PW2 denied that he had not
gone at the spot or assessed the valuation and gave his report at the
higher value at the instance of appellant.
7.2 The appellant before the reference court also examined Anil Sarin
as PW3who tendered an affidavit P-3 wherein reiterated the facts of
the petition and submitted a copy of Board Resolution dated
04.05.2010 as Ex. PW3/1 in evidence. PW3 in his cross examination
admitted that he was authorized on behalf of the company vide
authorization letter to appear before the LAC during the proceedings
of the Award and that on receipt of notice under section 9 and 10 of
the Act, he has not appeared before the LAC but other
Representatives of the appellant company appeared before the LAC
and hence, he is not competent to disclose the then market value of
the property in question. He denied the fact that they were not the
owner of M/s Structural Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. in 2004. It was further
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 15
17:06:56
deposed that the representative of the appellant company produced
the report of the registered valuer pertaining to the acquired land
before the LAC but no resale deed of the relevant period was
produced before LAC of any other property to show the market value
of the property in the vicinity and relied upon valuation report Ex.
PW3/3. PW3 stated that he never worked for Jones Lang i.e. the
Valuer who valued the acquired land as per report Ex. PW3/3 but
rather he engaged them to value the acquired land but he has not
placed on record any communication vide which the Valuer M/s.
Johns Lang were engaged by the appellant company and admitted
that Ex. PW3/3 does not bear signature of the Valuer or its agent or
the seal or stamp of the Valuer. He further submitted that Jones Lang
Company does not disclose the name of the person who has prepared
the report. The report Ex. PW3/3 was duly forwarded by the
Managing Director of Strategic Consulting Group which is part of
M/s Jones Lang but he does not have any documentary proof to show
the Strategic Consulting group is part of M/s. Jones Lang. The
concerned officials of M/s. Jones Lang visited the spot in 2009 and
admitted that the document Ex. PW3/4 is not legible. He visited the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 16
17:06:56
property qua sale deed Ex. PW3/2. He further admitted that the
appellant company has no concern with the property as mentioned in
Ex. PW3/2 as it was neither the buyer nor the seller. The appellant
evidence was closed vide order dated 07.01.2016.
7.3 The respondent no 1/Union of India in evidence tendered Award
as Ex. Rl. The respondent no 2/DMRC in evidence tendered
photocopy of judgment M/s. Sylvania Laxman Ltd. V UOI dated
08.05.2009 decided by the court of Sh. Ashwani Sarpa, Additional
District Judge as Ex. R2. The evidence on behalf of the respondents
was ordered to be closed vide order dated 18.02.2016.
8. The perusal of impugned Awards reflect that LAC to arrive at fair
market value of the acquired land considered the locality of the site,
situation of the area and quality, potentiality and use of area and the
quality, potentiality and use of land. The acquired property was an
industrial property situated in area of Kirti Nagar with residential and
commercial activities in the vicinities. LAC did not adopt method of
schedule of rates circulated by the Department of Urban
Development, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Development vide letter
dated 16.04.1999 for assessment of compensation for acquired
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 17
17:06:56
property/land. LAC adopted method of valuation i.e. the price within
a reasonable time frame in bona fide transactions of purchase of
similar lands possessing similar advantages. LAC collected certified
registered sale deeds of rates of similar lands in the adjacent areas of
West Patel Nagar and Kirti Nagar to estimate fair market value. LAC
to arrive at fair market value of the land also considered the
conversion rates charged by DDA issued in year 2003. The indicative
rates of Kirti Nagar Industrial Area is Rs. 17,870/- per sq meter. LAC
assessed market value of acquired industrial properties on basis of
above methods and keeping the locational advantage being situated
on main road side at Rs.19,660/- per sq meter. LAC also awarded
compensation for structures and other statutory benefits.
9. The reference court in impugned judgments did not accept
testimony of PW1 and opined that it was not supported with
sufficient documentary evidence that the market value is not less than
Rs.2,25,000/- and observed that testimony of PW1 is silent on
important aspects. The reference court also observed that PW2
proved Report Ex.PW2/2 but it does not contain specific date when it
was prepared and PW2 did not mention any basis for arriving at the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 18
17:06:56
conclusion that the rate of the acquired land was at Rs. 2,25,000/- per
sq meter and PW2 carried out the inspection ex parte and report
Ex.PW2/2 is based on local inquiries and there was no basis
regarding expenditure information including cost of construction and
value of the land. The reference court has rejected valuation report
given by PW2. The reference court opined that that the appellant has
failed to prove that the structure cost allowed by the collector was
unjustified and rejected claim of the appellant as to structure. The
reference court also rejected sale deed Ex. PW3/2 and copy of
valuation report Ex.PW3/3 and another document produced in the
testimony of PW3. The reference court observed that the appellant
has not proved any sale deed to indicate market value of the acquired
land at the time of notifications under section 4 of the Act. The
reference court after relying on Bedi Ram V UOI, 93 (2001) DLT
150 delivered by this court gave appreciation of 12% at time of
assessing compensation of acquired land. The reference court in LAC
No. 71/10/07 which is subject matter of LA. APP bearing no 255 of
2016 determined fair market value of land at Rs. 28,510.41/- per sq
meter and such awarded enhancement of Rs. 8850.41/- per sq meter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 19
17:06:56
The reference court in LAC No. 73/10/07 which is subject matter of
LA. APP no 253 of 2016 determined fair market value of land at
Rs.30,124.21/- per sq meter and such awarded enhancement of
Rs.10,464.21/- per sq meter. The reference court also awarded
statutory benefit as mentioned in finding on issue no 3 of impugned
judgments.
10. The appellant being aggrieved filed the present appeals and
challenged both the impugned judgments on grounds that the
impugned judgments are liable to be set aside being passed without
application of mind. The reference court has wrongly rejected
testimony of PW2 Balkishan Chauhan who was a building supervisor
and estimated valuer duly approved by MCD and his report Ex.
PW2/2. The reference court wrongly rejected sale deed dated
01.05.2000 as referred in report Ex.PW2/2 merely on ground that
copy of the sale deed was not filed. The reference court incorrectly
rejected the reportEx.PW2/2 with respect to the valuation of the
building/structure existing upon the acquired land. The reference
court has not considered true commercial potential value of the
acquired land in assessing market value of the acquired land which is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 20
17:06:56
well connected to various parts of Delhi and is approachable by
mettled road from all sides. The acquired land is situated in the
proximity of posh residential as well as commercial areas of Delhi.
The acquired land is surrounded by Patel Road on one side, second
side is Kirti Nagar DLF Industrial Area Road, the third side is Rama
Road and the fourth road leads towards Moti Nagar Industrial Area.
The topography of the acquired plot is phenomenally exceptional and
is situated within the close proximity of about one/one and half km of
posh residential colonies like Patel Nagar, Rajender Nagar, Rajendra
Park, Rajendra Place, Karol Bagh, Pusa Road, etc. on one side and is
having proximity to posh residential colonies of West Delhi like
Rajouri Garden, Raja Garden, Kirti Nagar Residential Area, Bali
Nagar, etc. on the other side. The reference court has wrongly
rejected sale deed dated 17.06.2008 (Ex.PW3/2) on ground that it
pertains to year 2008 and future/subsequent transactions can be
considered in determining market value of the land particularly when
the land acquiring authorities have failed to produce any credible
evidence with respect to the prevailing market value. The reference
court erroneously ignored the auction/conveyance deed dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 21
17:06:56
30.07.2004 with respect to Slum 85 JJ Department ( Ex.PW3/4) on
the ground that witnesses were not examined from Municipal
Corporation of Delhi. Kirti Nagar DLF Industrial Area and other
commercial complex situated in the vicinity, Mansarover Garden and
Vivek Cinema were carved out from of the acquired land of Village
Basaidarapur, Delhi. The acquired land is already well developed and
market value of acquired land could not be less than Rs.2 lacs per sq
meter after considering better location and commercial use of the
acquired land. The reference court while assessing the market value
of the acquired land ignored that acquired land is a front portion of
the commercial complex situated on main 120 feet road and also
failed to appreciate future capabilities and probabilities of acquired
land. The reference court has wrongly ignored the valuation report
dated 30.03.200 which established value of the acquired land is not
less than Rs.2,25,000/- per sq meter. It was prayed that market value
of the acquired land be determined @ Rs.2,00,000/- per sq meter
including built up structure thereon and with all other statutory
benefits.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 22
17:06:56
11. Sh. Rajesh Yadav, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant
advanced oral arguments and common written arguments were also
submitted on behalf of the appellant in both appeals bearing no. LA.
APP. 253/2016 and LA. APP. 255/2016 since the acquired land in
both the appeals is part of the same property. Sh. Yadav stated that
the appellant is seeking enhancement in compensation at the rate of
Rs. 2,00,000/- per sq meter being the market value of the acquired
land on date of the notification under section 4 of the Act along with
other statutory benefits as permissible under the Act. Sh. Yadav
relied on Virender Sood V Union of India & others, LA.APP.
913/2008 decided on 15th November, 2017 by Co-ordinate Bench of
this court pertaining to land measuring 557.61 sq meter situated in
revenue estate of Basai Darapur known as Mansarovar Garden
wherein market value of the acquired land was determined at
Rs.52,000/- per sq meter on 01.04.2004 which was the date of
notification under section 4 of the Act. Sh. Yadav also relied on map
depicting the location of the lands acquired in case of Virender Sood
and the land acquired in the present cases and argued that the location
of land subject matter of present appeals is far better than the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 23
17:06:56
Mansarover Garden land as the acquired land is situated on a 60-
meter wide main Patel Nagar Road at the cross-section of Najafgarh
Road and Patel Nagar Road and the land in Mansarover Garden is
abutting 80 feet wide roads on two sides and 20 feet wide road on
third side. He further argued that both the lands are situated in nearby
localities/colonies although separated by a distance of 1.8 km and
acquisition of land in Virender Sood is of contemporary period with
acquisition of land subject matter of present appeals.
11.1 Sh. Yadav after referring Virender Sood argued that in said
case, the court considered some of the evidences/exemplars which
are relevant for the present case and said evidence/exemplars are
Award dated 28.01.2005 which is subject matter of present LA
Appeal 253/2016 (Exhibit PW1/8), Sale deed dated 15.11.1996
pertaining to the property bearing no.7, West Patel Nagar measuring
800 sq yards which was sold @ Rs.49,375/- per sq yard (Exhibit
PW1/11), Auction dated 10.08.2004 in respect of plots situated at
Shivaji Place, Delhi and plot no.10 was auctioned @ Rs.64,660/- per
sq yard/Exhibit (PW1/13) and plot no.23 was auctioned @
Rs.73,680/- per sq meter (Exhibit PW1/14). Sh. Yadav referred para
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 24
17:06:56
no 32 wherein court referred the sale deed dated 15.11.1996 (Exhibit
PW1/11) which was sold at Rs. 59,043/- per sq. meter and land rate
of said plot by applying 12% annual increment was assessed at
Rs.1,33,325/- per sq. meter. The court in Virender Sood did not
follow said exemplar for the sole reason that Patel Nagar was an
older well developed colony than Mansarovar Garden falling in the
revenue estate of Basai Darapur despite being observed that said plot
was a comparable plot. The court in Virender Sood also considered
the auction of plot in the area of Raja Garden (Shivaji Place), Exhibit
PW1/14 but did not apply same on ground that said sale transaction
was in relation to completely commercial plot whereas user of the
acquired land in Virender Sood was not completely commercial but
the court in para 36 observed that the said transaction was certainly a
pointer to the rate that would have been prevailing in respect of the
land in question. The court after applying some guess work in
Virender Sood came to the conclusion that the market value of the
acquired land would be Rs. 52,000/- per sq. meter and considered
rate of the similar plot falling in Patel Nagar (Exhibit PW1/11) at
Rs.59,043/-while determining the market value. Sh. Yadav stated that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 25
17:06:56
Union of India also filed a SLP (Civil) no. 3786/2019 titled as Union
of India V Virender Sood & another to challenge Virender Sood
which was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2019.Sh. Yadav argued
that location of the land of the appellant is much better than the land
situated in Mansarover Garden and the of the appellant is industrial in
nature but is used for commercial purposes and is situated on a 60
meter wide road. He further stated that the industrial rates are two
times higher than the residential rates as per the circle rates notified
by the GNCTD.
11.2 Sh. Yadav argued that the property situated at Patel Nagar was
sold at the rate of Rs. 59,043/- per sq meter as on 15.11.1996 is most
comparable to the acquired property of the appellant except the fact
that the said property was “residential” in nature whereas the land of
the appellant is “Industrial” and both the properties are situated on
the same road and are at a distance of 1.8 km. Sh. Yadav further
stated that his court by applying 12% annual increment had observed
in Virender Sood that the land rate of the said plot in 2004 would be
Rs.1,33,525/- per sq meter but as per recent judgments passed by this
court as well as by the Supreme Court, the yearly increase at rate of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 26
17:06:56
15% can be given at compounding rates. Sh. Yadav prayed that after
applying 15% increase with cumulative/compounding rates with
effect from 15.11.1996 which is the date of sale transaction of the
property situated at Patel Nagar to 13.02.2004 which is the date of
notification under section 4 in LA Appeal No.253/2016 would be
Rs.1,62,864.458/- per sq meter and on same logic, value of land
subject matter of LA. APP 255/2016 till 04.03.2003, the date of
notification under section 4 of the Act would be Rs. l,42,687.63/-.
Thereafter by applying the multiplier of two (2), as per the circle
rates, the market value of the acquired land being industrial in nature,
in LA Appeal 253/2016, as on 13.02.2004, would be
Rs.3,25,728.90/- per sq meter and in LA Appeal 255/2016, as on
04.03.2003, would be Rs.2,85,375.26/- per sq meter besides
entitlement of the appellant to other statutory benefits. Sh. Yadav
strongly argued that the exemplar of property no.7, West Patel Nagar,
Delhi must be followed in the present appeals being the most
comparable property.
11.3 Sh. Yadav in support of arguments cited Ashok Kumar V State
of Haryana & others, (2016) 4 SCC 544, Narendra & others V
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 27
17:06:56
State of Uttar Pradesh &others, (2017) 9 SCC 426, Mehrawal
Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others V State of
Punjab and others, (2012) 5 SCC 432, Udho Dass V State of
Haryana & others, (2010) 12 SCC 51, Viluben Jhalejar
Contractor (Dead) By Lrs. V State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789,
National Fertilizers Limited V Jagga Singh (deceased) through
LRs & Another, (2012) 1 SCC 74, Mehra (Major General) &
Others V Union of India & another, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4612,
DDA V Kapil Mehra & others, (2015) 2 SCC 289, Anjani Molu
Dessai V State of Goa and another, (2010) 13 SCC 710, Ashok
Kumar & others. V State of Haryana & others, (2015) 15 SCC
200, Madhusudan Kabra & others. V State of Maharashtra and
others, (2018) 1 SCC 140 and various other decisions.
12. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, the Standing Counsel for the
respondent no 1/UOI referred evidence led by the appellant in
LA.APP No. 253/2016 and argued that PW1 Pankaj Nakra during
cross examination admitted that their company i.e. the appellant has
neither purchased nor sold any piece of land at Kirti Nagar and did
not remember whether the appellant has sent any letter to LAC for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 28
17:06:56
participating in the proceedings of evaluating the property being
initiated by approved valuer. PW1 further deposed that he
accompanied with the valuer when they have visited and initiated
proceedings of valuation and on the spot a number of local property
dealers have been called who had given the rate of the land to the
valuer and one of the property dealer was Mr. Avinash who was
having office in the same area. Sh. Pathak further argued that there is
a residential area at the distance of ½ to 1 km from the acquired land
and word FAR is not mentioned in his reference petition. Sh. Pathak
also referred cross examination of PW2 who deposed that on the
request of Pankaj Nakra i.e. PW1 he went to inspect the property in
question on 30.03.2003 to assess the market value of a portion of the
property admeasuring 1410 sq. meters which was sought to be
acquired vide notification dated 13.02.2004 but did not give any
notice to LAC to participate during inspection of the building for the
purpose of valuation. Sh. Pathak thereafter argued that PW2 was a
civil Draftsman having Diploma of two years and without any
experience of construction of building and the knowledge of material
used during the construction. PW2 proved report Ex. PW2/2 in which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 29
17:06:56
no specific date month or year has been mentioned when it was
conducted and prepared. The Report Ex.PW2/2 is based upon local
inquiries and one sale deed of the year 2000 belonging to. Ashok
Dang but neither copy nor original of said sale deed was filed on
record. Sh. Pathak emphatically argued that no basis was mentioned
by PW2 to arrive at the conclusion that the rate of the acquired land
was Rs.2,25,000/- per sq. meter and further PW2 conducted
inspection in absence of LAC and as such valuation report has rightly
been rejected by the reference court. Even the appellant has not
pressed or relied upon this evidence.
12.1 Sh. Pathak during argument also referred testimony of PW3 who
admitted that Ex. PW3/3 does not bear signature of valuer or its agent
etc. and further Report Ex. PW3/3 also does not seal, or stamp of the
valuer. PW3 also admitted that Report Ex. PW3/3 does not bear the
signature of any person on behalf of the appellant and no notice was
issued to LAC or other competent authority for informing that the
Report Ex. PW3/3 was under preparation or has been prepared. Sh.
Pathak referred sale deed Ex. PW3/2 and argued that it pertains to
year 2008 but land subject matter of present appeals were acquired on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 30
17:06:56
04.03.2003 which is accordingly not relevant. Sh. Pathak further
attacked valuation report Ex. PW3/3 by arguing that it was prepared
by Jhones Lang LaSalle Meghraj which was appointed by the
appellant and pertains to year 2010 i.e. after 6 years of notification
under section 4 of the Act. The Report Ex. PW3/3 is also ex parte
report and LAC has not joined proceedings at the time of inspection
and as such the reference court rightly rejected the valuation report
Ex.PW3/3 as well as Ex. PW3/4 as the appellant has failed to prove
document Ex. PW3/4.
12.2 Sh. Pathak further argued that the appellant before the reference
court has claimed that market value of the property is not less that
Rs.2,25,000/- per sq. meter but could not produce any documents to
prove that acquired land can fetch the said market value on the date
of notification under section of the Act. The reference court has
rightly rejected documents relied upon by the appellant. Sh. Pathak
further argued that the reference court while determining market
value of the acquired land relied upon Ex. R-2 i.e. judgment
delivered in the case of M/s. Sylvania & Laxman Ltd. V Union of
India & another in LAC No. 127/09/06 decided on 08.05.2009 by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 31
17:06:56
the court of Sh. A.K. Sarpal, Additional District Judge wherein
market value of acquired land was fixed at Rs.26,896.62/- per sq.
meter and also gave increase of 12 % per annum for 12 months and
determined market value @ Rs.30,124.21/- per sq. meter as on
13.02.2004 i.e. date of Notification u/s 4. Accordingly, the reference
court granted enhancement of Rs.10,464.21/- per sq. meter only in
respect of the acquired land. Sh. Pathak said judgment Ex. R2 relied
upon by the reference court was of the same area and notification of
the contemporary period.
12.3 Sh. Pathak also referred Virender Sood V UOI & another and
argued that Virender Sood cannot be relied upon in determining the
market value of the acquired land subject matter of present appeals as
it pertains to different village i.e. Basai Darapur which is situated at a
distance of about 1.7 Kms from the acquired land and exemplars
relied upon in Virender Sood cannot be applied in present appeal
case as same would be hit by huge difference in potential value and
location and distance from the acquired land. He further argued that
date of notification was 01.04.2004 while in the present appeals, date
of notification is 13.02.2004. Sh. Pathak relied on Kanwar Singh V
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 32
17:06:56
Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136 and argued that it is settled
principle of law that the land in adjacent village or even the same
village may not possess the same quality and therefore, cannot
command common market price. He further argued that judgments
relied upon by the appellant are misplaced as have been passed in
particular facts and circumstances which are totally different from the
present case.
12.4 Sh. Pathak also encountered argument advanced by Sh. Rajesh
Yadav and stated that claim of the appellant in seeking 15% per
annum increase at compounding rate is misplaced as suitable
exemplars were not placed and proved before the reference court and
the evidence relied upon by the appellant was rejected by the
reference court. Sh. Pathak in support of his arguments cited Priya
Vart V Union of India,(1995) 5 SCC 437;ONGC V Ramesh Bhai
Jivanbhai Patel & another,(2008) 14 SCC 745andCentral
Warehousing Corporation V Thakur Dwara Kalan ul-Maruf
Baraglan Wala (Dead) and others,2023SCC OnLine SC 1361. Sh.
Pathak also referred Lal Chand V Union of India & another,
(2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 769 wherein the Supreme Court after
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 33
17:06:56
examining the entire gamut of law including the development cost,
has rejected the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to plots
allotted by industrial authority or lease hold allotment made by
developmental agency like DDA in developed layout for
determination of adjoining under-developed land. He further argued
that the Supreme Court also made observations that while a distance
of about a 1 kilometre may not make a difference for purposes of
market value in a rural village but even a distance of 50 metre may
make a huge difference in market value in urban properties like in
Delhi. Sh. Pathak further argued that the appellant has failed to
produce any document/evidence to reflect that the acquired land was
converted into residential/commercial land till the date of acquisition.
Sh. Pathak also referred Pratap Singh (Dead) through LRs V
Union of India, LA Appeal No. 193 of 2006decided on 19.12.2008
wherein it was held that when the land in question was used for
agricultural purpose, mainly because it is likely to be used for
commercial purpose, would not be relevant consideration in fixing
the market value.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 34
17:06:56
12.5 Sh. Pathak also attacked impugned judgments by arguing that
the reference court wrongly gave increase of 12% per annum for 12
months and thus determined Rs.30,124.21/- per sq. meter as on
13.02.2004 i.e. date of notification under section 4 of the Act without
considering the factor that whether there was increase in the price of
the land during the relevant period or not. The reference court has
failed to appreciate that LAC has already granted excess
compensation after taking into account all relevant factors and thus
enhancement granted by the learned reference court over and above
the compensation awarded by the LAC is liable to be deducted by
this court by exercising power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. He
argued that no ground is made by the appellant for enhancement of
compensation and LAC has granted just and reasonable
compensation and after considering relevant factors including
location of land, potentiality and other relevant factors assessed the
market value of the land. The reference court should not granted
further enhancement and enhancement of Rs. 10,464.21/- per sq.
meter granted by the reference court over and above the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 35
17:06:56
compensation granted by LAC is bad and same need to be
deducted/deleted. The appeals are liable to be dismissed.
12.6 Ms. Shama Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no 2/DMRC
after referring Ex.PW2/2 which is the license issued by the MCD
argued that it was issued by MCD and as per Ex. PW2/2, PW2 was
entitled to valuation of the plot size measuring 200 sq. yards and a
building of two and half storey and was valid till 31.12.2003. She
argued that PW2 did valuation of plots measuring 480 sq. meters and
1410 sq. meters and valuation of the plot measuring 1410 sq. meter in
March, 2004 i.e. after expiry of license. She further argued that
Valuation as per Ex. PW3/3 was done after six years of acquisition.
In addition of above arguments, Ms. Shama Sharma also referred
arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent no 1/Union of India.
Ms. Sharma argued that the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
13. Section 23 of the Act provides statutory provisions regarding
determination of compensation for acquisition for land acquired for
public purpose and section 24 of the Act also laid down the factors
which are not to be considered for the purpose of determining the
compensation. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act read as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 36
17:06:56
23. Matters to be considered on determining
compensation.- (1) In determining the amount of
compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this
Act, the Court shall take into considerationfirst, the market-value of the land at the date of the
publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section
(1)];
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by
reason of the taking of any standing crops trees which may
be on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking
possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of
the land, by reason of serving such land from his other
land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of
the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting
his other property, movable or immovable, in any other
manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the
Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his
residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if
any) incidental to such change, and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from
diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the
publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time
of the Collector’s taking possession of the land.
[(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above
provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount
calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 37
17:06:56
such market value for the period commencing on and from
the date of the publication of the notification under section
4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the
award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of
the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation. – In computing the period referred to in this
sub-section, any period or periods during which the
proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on
account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court
shall be excluded.]
(2) In addition to the market value of the land as above
provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of
[thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration
of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. –
But the Court shall not take into consideration –
first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition;
secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part
with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a
private person, would not render such person liable to a
suit;
fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the
land acquired, after the date of the publication of the
declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use
to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely
to accrue from the use to which it will be put when
acquired;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 38
17:06:56
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the
person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the
land acquired will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of
the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without
the sanction of the Collector after the date of the
publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section
(1); [or]
[eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account
of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or
opposed to public policy.]
13.1 The Supreme Court in Narendra & others V State of Uttar
Pradesh & others, (2017) 9SCC426 after following Ashok Kumar
V State of Haryana, (2016) 4SCC 544 observed that it is duty of the
court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration
true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of claim
made by the landowner and there is no cap on the maximum rate of
compensation that can be awarded by the court and the courts are not
restricted to awarding only that amount that has been claimed by the
landowners/applicants in their application before it.
13.2 The Supreme Court also in Major General Kapil Mehra &
others V Union of India & another, (2015) 2 SCC 262 observed as
under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 39
17:06:56
10. Market Value: First question that emerges is what
would be the reasonable market value which the acquired
lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the market value
of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer is
required to keep in mind the following factors:-
(i) existing geographical situation of the land;
(ii) existing use of the land;
(iii) already available advantages, like proximity to
National or State Highway or road and/or developed area
and
(iv) market value of other land situated in the same
locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the
acquired land.
11. The standard method of determination of the market
value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the
land on the date of valuation publication of notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical
purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at
the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell
such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is
determined with reference to the open market sale of
comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller
to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary
notification, as that would give a fair indication of
the market value.
14. Sh. Rajesh Yadav during course of arguments placed heavy
reliance on judgment passed by this court in Virender Sood. In
Virender Sood case land of the appellant measuring 557.61 sq.
meter which was situated in the revenue estate of Basai Darapur
known as Mansarover Garden, New Delhi was notified u/s 4 of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 40
17:06:56
Act vide notification dated 01.04.2004 and the notification u/s 6 of
the Act was issued on 10.11.2004. LAC passed the award on
07.04.2005 and assessed the compensation at rate of 13,4911/- per sq
meter for land, Rs.2,000/- per large tree, Rs.l,000/- per small tree and
Rs.5,000/- for borewell besides awarding statutory benefits. The
appellant being dissatisfied ·with the said Award sought reference
under section 18 of the Act for enhanced compensation. The
appellant contented that LAC had failed to take into consideration the
market value of the land situated in the surrounding localities and the
land in question is situated in the heart of West Delhi i.e. Kirti Nagar.
LAC also failed to take into account the nature of permitted use of
the land in question which was residential-cum-commercial. LAC
had also failed to assess the potentiality of the land for commercial as
well as residential use. LAC had assessed the market value of the
land in question by treating it as agricultural land and determined the
value accordingly. The land in question is one of the best plots which
could be used commercially as it was situated in Kirti Nagar which is
one of the biggest timber markets in India. The land of the appellant
was surrounded by developed colonies like Saraswati Garden and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 41
17:06:56
residential colonies like Rajouri Garden, and Patel Nagar which are
hardly 1 km away from the acquired land. The acquired land was
hardly 1 km from Mayapuri Industrial Area as well as Loha Mandi
Naraina. It was less than 1 km from metro railway station at Kirti
Nagar and Ramesh Nagar, Moti Nagar. It was also contended that
LAC had also failed to appreciate that in terms of the Zonal
Development Plan, the area m question could be used as guest house,
nursing home, post office, dispensary, ESS and conveniences. LAC
had failed to assess the compensation for the super structure over the
land in question and damage caused to the appellant by uprooting
him from his residence, as well as from his business. All modern
amenities and facilities of life such as mettled road, electricity,
drinking water were easily available on the land in question, much
prior to the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. The
appellant claimed that the market value of the land as on the date of
issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act was not less than
Rs.60,000/- per sq. meter. The respondent contested the claim of the
appellant. It was claimed that the Delhi Land Reforms Act was
applicable to the land in question. The land was not surrounded by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 42
17:06:56
developed or undeveloped colony and could be used only for
agricultural purpose. The respondent defended the compensation
assessed by LAC.
14.1 This court on basis of evidence led by the parties before the
reference court observed that the land in question is the single plot
measuring 557.61sq meters. It cannot be described as a ‘large tract’ of
land and isusable as a single plot. The land is abutting 80 feet wide
roads on 2 sides and 20 feet wide road on third side. It is a three side
open plot. The area is fully developed, inasmuch, as in the immediate
neighbourhood, there are few built up structures being gainfully
occupied and utilized for residential-cum-commercial purposes. The
plot in question is not in the immediate neighbourhood, it is at close
quarters from other well-developed localities in West Delhi, such as
Kirti Nagar, Saraswati Garden, Rajouri Garden and Patel Nagar. The
plot in question is not situated on the far flung outskirts of Delhi.
14.2 The court considered the sale deed dated 01.05.2000
(Ex.PW1/10) pertaining to a plot admeasuring 50sq. yards (41.80 sq.
meter) situated in the area of Kirti Nagar for Rs. 22.50 lakhs
(Rs.53,827/- per sq meter) and by applying escalation of 12% per
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 43
17:06:56
annum, the market rate of the plot translates to Rs.70,623/- per sq
meter. However, the court did not accept said sale deed as the area of
the plot was only 50 sq yards and smaller plots are able to fetch
higher rate in the market. The court also considered another sale deed
dated 15.11.1996 (Ex. PW1/11) pertaining to area measuring 669 sq.
meter situated in Patel Nagar for sale consideration of Rs. 3.95 crores
which translates to Rs. 59,043/- per sq meter. Sh. Yadav heavily
relied on this sale deed during course of arguments in present appeals
for claiming enhanced compensation. The court also observed that by
applying 12% annual increment, the land rate of the said plot in the
year 2004 comes to Rs.1,33,525/- per sq meter. It was also observed
that said plot was is a comparable plot to the plot in question.
However, the court after considering fact that Patel Nagar is an older
well developed colony than Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi, falling
in the revenue estate of Basai Darapur did not rely upon said sale
deed to assess the value of the plot in question on the date of the
issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act but observed that
same appears to be at a close distance from the plot in question. The
court also did not accept another sale deed (Ex.PWl/15) dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 44
17:06:56
11.04.2005 in respect of a plot situated in Janakpuri having an area of
444 sq meter for consideration of Rs.2.5crores which translates to
Rs.56,306/- per sq meter. The court noticed that the area of the plot in
question is comparable to the area of the plot in respect whereof Ex.
PWl/15 was executed and time is also approximate i.e. one year after
the elate of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act in the
present case. But the court did not accept said sale deed as area of
Janakpuri is about 5 km away from the plot in question and Janakpuri
is an older development compared to Mansarovar Garden and if
Ex.PWl/15 is to be adopted then the rate of the land in question
would be higher.
14.3 The court in Virender Soodalso considered two instances of
open auction (Ex.PWl/12 and Ex.PWl/14) pertains to area of Raja
Garden held on 30.07.2004 which were considered as relevant as the
consideration disclosed in an auction sale is completely over board
and there is no component which is hidden or undisclosed. The first
sale pertains to plot admeasuring 10728 sq meters for Rs. 71.12crores
which translates to Rs. 66,293/- per sq meter. The sale deed
Ex.PWl/14 pertains to another plot admeasuring 11427sq meters for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 45
17:06:56
Rs.84.08 crores which translates toRs.73,580/- per sq meter. But the
court observed that these sale transactionsrelation to completely
commercial plots but the user of the land in question was not a
completely commercial on the date ofissuance of the notification
under section 4 of the Act andthese transactions are in respect of very
large plots. However, the court did not consider it to appropriate to
lift rate of land emerging from above mentioned two open auction
sale consideration as permitted user of the land in question was
residential-cum-commercial which could be used as a guest house,
nursing home, post office, dispensary, ESS and for conveniences.
The court however and also emphasized by Sh. Rajesh Yadav that
these auction sales are a pointer to the land rate that would have been
prevailing on the date of acquisition of the plot in question. The court
also considered that another auction sale (Ex. PW1/13) held on
30.07.2004 for a plot admeasuring 5832 sq meter for Rs.37.71 crores
which translates to Rs. 54,372/- per sq meter in the area of Raja
Garden but opined that the rate disclosed by this transaction also
cannot be lifted and applied to the acquisition in question, though, it
certainly is a pointer to the rate that would have been prevailing in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 46
17:06:56
respect of the land in question on the date of acquisition i.e.
01.04.2004.
14.4 The court in Virender Sood observed as under:-
37. Having discussed the pros and cons of the several
transactionsrelied upon by the parties, the prevalent
market rate on the date of issuance of notification under
Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 01.04.2004, on an over-all
assessment, which entails some amount of guess work, in
my view, could fairly be assumed to be Rs.52,000/- per sq
meter. While arriving at the said figure, I have taken into
consideration the fact that the rate on the relevant date in
respect of a similar plot falling in Patel Nagar came to Rs.
59043/-; the rate in respect of a plot admeasuring 444
sqmeters in Janakpuri on 11.04.2005 came to Rs. 56306/-
per sq meter; and the rates of auction sales of large
commercial plots in Raja Garden ranged between
Rs.73580/- and Rs. 54372/- per sq meter as on 30.07.2004.
Considering the fact that the plot in question has a
significant locational advantage – being three side open with
opening on 80′ wide roads on two sides and 20′ wide road
on the third side, coupled with the fact that the plot could
be used for residential-cum-commercial purposes, I am of
the view that the rate of Rs. 52,000/- per sq meter on the
elate of issuance of Section 4 notification is fair and just.
39. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal preferred by
the respondent, the appeal preferred by the appellant is
partially allowed. The market rate of the land in question is
determined at Rs.52,000/- per sq. mtr. as on 01.04.2004.
The appellant will also be entitled to all the statutory
benefits granted by the learned ADJ. Decree sheet be
prepared accordingly.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 47
17:06:56
15. It is reflecting that the acquired land is an industrial property. The
perusal of impugned Awards also reflects that the acquired land
which is situated in Kirt Nagar is having residential and commercial
activities in the vicinities. The Report Ex.PW2/2 although not
accepted by the reference court and referred by Sh. Yadav, the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also reflects that the
acquired land/plot subject matter of present appeals are situated on
120 feet wide road and are freehold properties. The acquired
land/plot are situated on main Patel Road which is 120 feet wide and
on back side there is road of 10 feet between the acquired land/plots
and residential plots of Kirti Nagar. The acquired land/plots forms the
front portion of the total plot and are situated opposite to Moti Nagar
Market and two side open plots. It is further reported that number of
showrooms are located in vicinity of the acquired land/plots. The
appellant also pleaded that as mentioned in impugned Awards,
acquired land/plots are having residential and commercial activities
in vicinities and these facts make clear that the acquired land/plots
are having potential value as well as commercial site. It is also
admitted that all around in the vicinity land is being used as industrial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 48
17:06:56
as well as for commercial purposes. The acquired land/plots is stated
to be fit for commercial activities. The acquired land/plots is stated to
be well connected to various parts of Delhi and approachable by
mettled roads from all sides. There is Patel Road on one side and
there is Kirti Nagar Industrial Area Road on another side. It is also
appearing that there is Rama Road on one side and another road is
leading towards Moti Nagar Industrial Area. The appellant also stated
that civic amenities such as electricity, water transport, telephone,
bus service, sewerage educational institutions etc. are easily available
to the acquired land/plots. It is also apparent that within close
proximity of 1- 1 ½ km posh residential colonies like Patel Nagar,
Rajender Nagar, Rajendra Park, Rajendra Place, Karol Bagh, Pusha
Road etc. are situated besides other prominent posh colonies of West
Delhi are situated on other side of acquired land/plots. The acquired
land/plots are stated to have extreme potentiality and high value.
Pankaj Nakra PW1 in affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed all these
facts which are not much disputed on behalf of the respondents in
pleadings as well as in cross examination of PW1.Sh. Rajesh Yadav
during course of arguments also referred Valuation Report in respect
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 49
17:06:56
of plot no 67, DLF Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi which
was also not accepted by the reference court in impugned judgments.
16. Sh. Rajesh Yadav, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
placed reliance on judgment delivered by Coordinate Bench of this
court in Virender Sood as discussed herein above. This Court in
Virender Soodcase although did not accept but referred a sale deed
dated 15.11.1996 pertaining to area of Patel Road which was
measuring 669 sq. meter for consideration of Rs. 3.95 crores which
translates to Rs. 59,043/- per sq. meter and further mentioned that by
applying 12% annual increment, the rate of land of said plot would
comes to Rs. 1,33,525/- per sq meter and opined that this is a
comparable plot to the plot in question. The acquired land/plots were
also acquired in year 2004 and area of Patel Nagar is situated in near
vicinity of the acquired land/plots. This court again in Virender
Sood case also referred two instances of open auction held on
30.07.2004 pertains to area of Raja Garden where rates of plots were
translated to Rs.66,293/- per sq meter and Rs. 73,580/- per sq meter
respectively. The court observed that these two instances are
extremely relevant and would be pointer to the rate of land prevailing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 50
17:06:56
on the date of acquisition of land in question in Virender Sood
although not accepted due to reason that these instances pertain to
commercial land but land in question in said appeal was not
completely commercial on date of issuance of notification under
section 4 of the Act and permitted user of the land in question in said
appeal i.e. Virender Sood was residential-cum-commercial. The
Coordinate Bench of this court after entailing some amount of guess
work awarded compensation of Rs. 52,000/- per sq meter and also
after considering significant locational advantage. It is worth
mentioning that Special Leave Petition filed by Union of India to
impugned judgment dated 15.11.2017 passed in Virender Sood titled
as Union of India V Virender Sood & another, SLP (Civil) no
3786/2019 was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated
25.02.2019.
17. Sh. Rajesh Yadav argued that location of acquired land/plots is
far better than the land situated in Mansarovar Garden which was
subject matter of Virender Sood as the acquired land/plots are
situated on a 60 meter wide main Patel Nagar Road at the cross
section of Najafgarh Road and Patel Nagar Road while the land in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 51
17:06:56
Mansarovar Garden is abutting 80 feet wide roads on two sides and
20 feet wide road on third side. Although both lands are separated by
a distance of 1.8 km but are situated in nearby localities/colonies.
17.1 Sh. Rajesh Yadav further argued that property as referred in
Virender Sood and situated at Patel Nagar was sold at rate of
Rs.59,043/- per sq meter on 15.11.1996 is most comparable to the
acquired land/plots belonged to the appellant and said property was
residential in nature while acquired land/plots are industrial in nature.
Both the properties/land/plots are situated on same road and are
separated by a distance of 1.8 km. The court in Virender Sood after
applying 12% annual increased observed that rate of land in year
2004 would be Rs. 1,33,525/- per sq meter. Sh. Yadav further argued
that as per latest pronouncement by the Supreme Court and this court
which are Anjani Molu Dessai V State of Goa & another, (2010)
13SCC710; Ashok Kumar & others V State of Haryana & others,
(2015) 15 SCC 200; Tripat Kaur V Union of India V Union of
India & another, LA. APP. Bearing no 749/2008 decided on
04.05.2021 by this court, 15% increase with
cumulative/compounding rates from 15.11.1996 i.e. date of sale
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 52
17:06:56
transaction till 13.02. 2004 i.e. date of notification under section 4 of
the Act in appeal no 253/2016 should be applied and value of the
acquired land subject matter of LA. App. No 253/2016 would be
Rs.1,62,864.45/- per sq meter. Likewise, the value of land subject
matter of LA. App. 255/2016 as per notification under section 4 of
the Act dated 04.03.2003 would be Rs.1,42,687.63/-. Sh. Yadav
finally argued that after applying multiplier of 2 (two) as per circle
rates, the market value of the acquired land being industrial in nature
would be Rs. 3,25,729.90/- per sq meter in LA.APP bearing no
253/2016 and Rs. 2,85,375.26/- per sq meter in LA. APP bearing no
255/2016 and he prayed accordingly.
18. The Supreme Court recently in Horrmal (deceased) through his
LRs and others V State of Haryana & others, Civil Appeal No.—
/2024 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7963/2023 decided on 21.10.2024
observed that the process of assessing or affixing is not tethered to
precision but is rather aimed at a nuanced estimation of pertinent
factors. The Supreme Court also referred Special Land Acquisition
Officer V T, Adinarayan Setty, AIR 1959 SC 429 wherein it was
observed that the market value connotes the price that a willing buyer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 53
17:06:56
would pay to a willing seller, taking into account the land’s current
conditions and its advantages and potentialities.
19. The Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is social welfare legislation and
it is duty of the court to award just and fair compensation to the land
owners and to consider relevant factors in assessing value of the land
on date of notification issued under section 4 of the Act. The
Supreme Court in Narendra & others V State of Uttar Pradesh &
others also observed that it is duty of the court to award just and fair
compensation taking into consideration true market value and other
relevant factors. The arguments so advanced by Sh. Yadav appears to
be attractive but cannot be accepted due to reason that Coordinate
Bench of this court in Virender Sood did not accept sale deed
15.11.1996 and other exemplars by giving cogent reasons. The
decision in Virender Sood against which SLP filed by Union of
India was dismissed by Supreme Court can be the relevant factor to
assess market value of the acquired land subject matter of present
appeals. It is correct that the reference court did not accept the
evidence led by the appellant and also rightly argued by Sh. Pathak.
However there is no force in argument advanced by Sh. Pathak that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 54
17:06:56
reliance on Virender Sood by Sh. Rajesh Yadav was misplaced and
decision in Virender Sood is not applicable in present appeals is
without any force as lands in Virender Sood and in present appeals
are separated by just 1.8 km and are situated in nearby localities. It is
also come on record that that acquired land subject matter of present
appeal is better placed and located from the land involved in
Virender Sood case. The acquired land subject matter of present
appeals is Industrial nature and land subject matter of Virender Sood
was residential-cum-commercial in nature. The appellant is entitled
for increase in assessment of compensation in comparison to
compensation awarded in Virender Sood keeping in view that
acquired land subject matter of present appeals is purely industrial in
nature. LAC and the reference court have awarded very less
compensation to the appellant and did not appreciate advantage and
potentiality of the acquired land as referred and mentioned
hereinabove. The acquired land is industrial in nature and is
surrounded by huge residential and commercial activities. The
compensation in present appeals is deserved to be enhanced and is
accordingly assessed at Rs.65,000/- per sq meter and by multiplier of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 55
17:06:56
two (2) as per the circle rates, the market value of acquired land is
assessed at Rs.1,30,000/- per sq meter on date of notification under
section 4 of the Act which is just and fair. The appellants are not
entitled to claim compensation at rate of Rs.3,25,728.90/- per sq
meter in LA.APP. no 253/2016 as on 13.02.2004 and
Rs.2,85,375.26/- per sq meter in LA. APP no 255/2016 as on
04.03.2003 on basis of sale deed 15.11.1996 which was not accepted
by this court in Virender Sood. The appeal is partly allowed. The
appellant shall also be entitled for other statutory benefits awarded by
the reference court along with proportionate cost. The decree sheets
be prepared accordingly in both the Appeals.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 29, 2024
N/AK/ABK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2024 LA.APP 253/2016 & LA.APP. 255/2016 Page 56
17:06:56