Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 1 of 171
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Pronounced on : 26.09 .2025
LA.AP. 59/207 & CM APL. 1373/2016
BED RAM
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 372/207
BHOPAL SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 2 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar,
Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 40/207
DHARAM VER
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DA.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Pratek Dhir, Mr. Kuljet Singh and Mr. Shivam Takiar, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 42/207
SRI RAM & ANR.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 3 of 171
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 43/207
BED RAM
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar,
Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kuljet Singh, Adv.
LA.AP. 4/207
ATAR SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 4 of 171
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
Ms. Kamna Singh, Panel Counsel for DA.
LA.AP. 58/207
DULI CHAND
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 5 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 143/208
UOI & ANR.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
versus
BHOHTI DECEASED THR.LR'S
.Respondent
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners.
Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DA.
LA.AP. 91/2010
KEHAR SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 6 of 171
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
+ LA.AP. 38/2015, CM APL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016
FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .Apelants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. S.A. Khan, Advocate for R - 2. Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 39/2015 & CM APL. 1804/2015
HUKUM SINGH SINCE DECEASED THR LRS & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Shivansh, Mr. Rajan Sharma, Mr. Depak Gola, Mr. Krishna Kant, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 7 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 14/2019
PRAKASH & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Dhruv Anand, Mr. Dhananjay Khana, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for DA.
LA.AP. 230/202
SALEK RAM (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS.
.Apelants
Through:
Apearance not given.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 8 of 171
LA.AP. 36/202, CM APL. 52464 - 65/202
SITA RAM (DECEASED) THR. LR CHAVAN & ANR.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Akhil Mital, ASC with Ms. Navita Gupta, Mr. Sidhant Garg, Advs. for DA.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 61/207
KESAR SINGH & ORS.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 9 of 171
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 62/207
GANGA RAM & ANR
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 63/207
SATO DEVI & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 10 of 171
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Mr. Sami Samer Sidiqui, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 64/207
ANGORI DEVI (D) THRU. L.R.
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 65/207
RAJ PAL
.Apelant
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 1 of 171
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 6/207
KAILASH SHARMA & ANR
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 12 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 73/207
TEK CHAND
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 87/207, CM APL. 808 - 09/2019
PRITAM SINGH & ORS.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 13 of 171
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Ms. Meghna, Advocate for DA.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 412/207
GIRIRAJ & ORS.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 89/207
BALBIR SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 14 of 171
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for DA.
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DA.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 1234/208
HANS RAJ DECD. THR . LR'S
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UOI &ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 15 of 171
LA.AP. 1235/208, CM APL. 6801/2017 & 16070/2024
SURYA PRAKASH & ORS.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 130/209
SHRI BHIK RAM
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 16 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 607/209
NEKI RAM
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UOI
.Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for DA
LA.AP. 91/207
BHIM SINGH DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 17 of 171
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 293/207
JAGBIR SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Anurop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DA.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 72/2016 & CM APL. 1271/2016
RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHUBER SINGH @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Y.R. Sharma and Ms. Akshita Sharma, Advocates for LRs of Apelant No.2
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 18 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 35/208
MUNSHI DECEASED THROUGH L.R'S & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Anurop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 50/208
BHARAT SINGH & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 19 of 171
LA.AP. 501/208
ZILE SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R'S
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 508/208
JAGWATI
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 509/208
BIR SINGH
.Apelant
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 20 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 564/208
AMAN SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 565/208
SHASHI VERMA
.Apelant
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 21 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 609/208 & CM APL. 917/2016
NIMANT RANA & ORS.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 2 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 631/208
DINESH KUMAR & ORS.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Amit Dhala and Mr. Sohan Singh Rawat, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Manish Kr. Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates for R - 2 to 8.
LA.AP. 737/208
INDER SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 23 of 171
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
U.O.I & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for DA
LA.AP. 739/208
RAMESH BASISTHA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
U.O.I & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 748/208, CM APL. 945/201, 2181/201 & 52896/2018
DAL CHAND & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Apearance not given.
versus
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 24 of 171
U.O.I & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 816/208, CM APL. 12931/2017, 12932/2017, 1293/2017, 362/2017 & REVIEW PET. 132/2017
KISHAN SAHAI THRU L.R'S
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 817/208
JAGBIR & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 25 of 171
versus
UOI & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 876/208
RISHAL SINGH DECD. THR. LR'S
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vais h n a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 96/208
RAJ KUMAR
.Apelant
Through:
Apearance not given.
versus
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 26 of 171
UOI & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 92/208
AJET SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 94/208, CM APL. 1257 - 79/2017, 3659/2017 & REVIEW PET. 128/2017
HARI SINGH
.Apelant
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 27 of 171
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 95/208
PREM SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 28 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 96/208
RAJENDER PRASHAD & ORS.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 1038/208, CM APL. 1903 - 04/2015
UOI
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
versus
KHAZAN SINGH &ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 29 of 171
LA.AP. 1040/208
UOI
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
versus
CHAMPA DEVI DECD. THR.LR'S
.Respondent
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.AP. 1042/208
UOI
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
versus
RICHA RAM & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
+ LA.AP. 1043/208
UOI
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
versus
PHOL SINGH & ORS.
.Respondents
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 30 of 171
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.AP. 136/208
JASWANT SINGH RANA (DECEASED) THR. LRS .Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 141/208
UOI
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
versus
MANSA RAM DECD. THR. LR'S & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 31 of 171
LA.AP. 142/208, CM APL. 4268 - 69/2023
UOI
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Mr. Aakash Mohar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Adv. for Cla i mant
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC with Mr. Gautam Yadav, Mr. Sanjay Singh Rathore, Advocates
versus
KISHORI @ BHOLA DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS. .Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.AP. 14/208
UOI & ANR.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 32 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
versus
NATHU & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.AP. 145/208
UOI
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
versus
BALBIR & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.AP. 146/208, CM APL. 1470 - 71/2015
UOI
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
versus
HARI KISHAN DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DA
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 3 of 171
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.AP. 147/208
UOI & ANR.
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
versus
SOHAN THR.HIS LR'S
.Respondent
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.AP. 148/208
UOI
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
versus
KHAZAN SINGH DECD. THR. LR'S
.Respondent
Through:
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 34 of 171
LA.AP. 1204/208
DEVENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 1238/208
CHINTA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 35 of 171
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 89/209
OM PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS.
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari and Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocates.
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for DA
LA.AP. 528/209
SHER SINGH (DECEASED) THR. LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 36 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 50/209
GUNI RAM DECD THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for D
LA.AP. 51/209
RANJIT KUMAR TRIGUNA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 37 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 52/209
JAGDIP KUMAR TRIGUNA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 53/209
BAHADUR DECD THR LRS
.Apelant
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 38 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DA.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 56/209
ATAR SINGH DECD THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 39 of 171
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 59/209 & CM APL. 41913/2019
PEHLAD
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivam Wadhwa, Advocates.
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 560/209 & CM APL. 14064/2015
AJIT SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 40 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 576/209 & CM APL. 14065/2015
NARENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 580/209, CM APL. 1406/2015
KESAR SINGH & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 41 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 595/209 & CM APL. 14010/2015
PREM RAJ & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 618/209, CM APL. 1472 - 73/2015
BADLEY
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 42 of 171
Mr. Gaganmet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harpret Singh Chadha, Advocates for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 647/209, CM APL. 87 - 79/2025
MEHAR CHAND & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Anurop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 650/209
PREM RAJ & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Anurop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 43 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 101/2010, CM APL. 14013/2015
RATO DEVI DECD THR LRS & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 253/2010 & CM APL. 14060/2015
RAM PAT
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Parmita Nath, Ms. Alka Singh, Mr. Naven K., Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 4 of 171
LA.AP. 263/2010 & CM APL. 14068/2015
RAMESH & ANR
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 264/2010 & CM APL. 14069/2015
HARI SINGH DECD THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 31/2010, CM APL. 14014/2015 & 648/2017
MAMRAJ & ORS
.Apelants
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 45 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 314/2010
LAKHMI CHAND & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Gagandep Sachdeva, Mr. Harshpret Singh Chadha & Mr. Hardesh Khana, Advs. for DA.
LA.AP. 315/2010 & CM APL. 14063/2015
JAGAN & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 46 of 171
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 316/2010 & CM APL. 14062/2015
RAMESH DECD THR LRS & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 380/2010
KESAR SINGH & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara, Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates.
versus
UOI
.Respondent
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 47 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 454/2010, CM APL. 14079/2015 & 21034/2019
DAYA KISHAN DECD THR LRS & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 67/2010, CM APL. 12572 - 74/2017, 369/2017 & REVIEW PET. 127/2017
OM PRAKASH & ANR
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 48 of 171
LA.AP. 678/2010 & CM APL. 14058/2015
SHRI CHANDERMAN @ CHANDER SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Apearance not given.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 679/2010, CM APL. 12927 - 29/2017, 364/2017 & REVIEW PET. 131/2017
RAM SINGH DECD THR LRS & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Roshan Lal and Mr. Bhuvan Goel, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 682/2010 & CM APL. 14067/2015
MOL CHAND DECD THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Apearance not given.
versus
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 49 of 171
UNION OF INDIA
.Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 683/2010
YASH PAL & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep Tokas, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Ms. Nain Singh, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 69/2010
NAIN SINGH THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Apearance not given.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 50 of 171
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel with Mr. Prabhav Rali, Mr. Devrat Arya, Ms. Deya Mital, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 765/2010 & CM APL. 14073/2015
DAL CHAND & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 827/2010 & CM APL. 14012/2015
BHOP SINGH DECD THRU LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 51 of 171
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 1070/2010, CM APL. 14080/2015, 3746 - 47/202
RAM KISHAN DECD THRU LRS & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 15/201 & CM APL. 14081/2015
MUSADI DECD THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 29/201
DAL CHAND & ANR
.Apelants
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 52 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA
.Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 39/201
UMA DHOWAN & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Tushar Sanu, Panel Counsel with Mr. Sourav Verma, Advocate for DA.
LA.AP. 54/201
KARAN SINGH
.Apelant
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 53 of 171
Through:
Mr. Brijesh Chaudhary, Mr. Prins Kumar, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DA.
LA.AP. 140/201, CM APL. 14071/2015, 1510 - 1/2025
RANJET SINGH DECD THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Parmita Nath, Ms. Alka Singh, Mr. Naven K., Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 15/201 & CM APL. 14070/2015
JASPAL SINGH (DEC) THRU.LRS
.Apelant
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 54 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 156/201 & CM APL. 1401/2015
BED RAM
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kuljet Singh, Advocate.
LA.AP. 251/201 & CM APL. 14015/2015
HARI CHAND
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 5 of 171
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 708/201 & CM APL. 307/2017
LEKH RAM
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 716/201
GOPAL SINGH & ORS
.Apelants
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 56 of 171
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 5/2012, CM APL. 3879 - 80/2024
SURJAN & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 57 of 171
LA.AP. 6/2012
GIAN CHAND DECD THR LRS & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R - 2/DA.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Nidhi Raman CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mital, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
LA.AP. 10/2012 & CM APL. 4574/202
ANANT RAM & ANR
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 58 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for DA.
LA.AP. 13/2012
BUDHAN DECD THRU LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 37/2012 & CM APL. 14072/2015
DAROGA DECD THR LRS & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 59 of 171
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 218/2012
NET RAM THROUGH LRS AND ANR
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI AND ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 23/2012
HARI SINGH THROUGH LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI AND ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 60 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 49/2013, CM APL. 5014 - 15/2019
SAMARTA LRS AND ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI AND ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 51/2013 & CM APL. 14061/2015
NET RAM
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI AND ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 61 of 171
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 85/2015 & CM APL. 272/2015
LAKHMI CHAND & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 86/2015, CM APL. 282/2015 & 1952/2023
JUGAL KISHORE & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Gaurav Kakar and Mr. Lakshay Raheja, Advocates for LR of Apelant No.1.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 62 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 390/2015
VIRENDER SINGH (SINCE MISING) THR LRS & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Rajan Sharma, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 423/2015
HARI KISHAN (DECEASED) THR LEGAL HEIRS .Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 63 of 171
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
LA.AP. 426/2015
NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for DA
LA.AP. 45/2015
NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 64 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 14/2016 & CM APL. 354/2016
NAIN SINGH (DECEASED) THR HIS LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA
.Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 18/2016
MAHIPAL (DECEASED) THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 65 of 171
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 19/2016
CHATAR SINGH
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for DA.
Mr. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 173/2016 & CM APL. 9203/2020
RAM SAROP THROUGH LRS
.Apelant
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 6 of 171
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UOI AND ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 196/2016, CM APL. 375/2018 & 28909/2024
BUDH RAM @ BUDH SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
Mr. Ravi Dut Sharma, Mr. Rajat Sharma, Ms. Ruchika Sharma and Mr. Chetan Sharma, Advocates for LR I (a & c)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 67 of 171
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 292/2016 & CM APL. 3754/2018
HARI KISHAN SHARMA & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DA.
LA.AP. 1/2017 & CM APL. 942/2017
SHASHI KUMAR
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 68 of 171
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 256/2017
POJA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for DA
LA.AP. 287/2017 & CM APL. 31509/2017
MEHAR CHAND & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 69 of 171
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 131/2018
UNION OF INDIA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DA
versus
MANMCHAND (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Apearance not given.
LA.AP. 204/2018
OM PARKASH (DECEASED) THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Anurop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Gaurav Dua and Mr. Govil Upadhyay, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 209/2018
VIRENDER & ANR
.Apelants
Through:
Apearance not given.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 70 of 171
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
LA.AP. 245/2018, CM APL. 54192 - 94/2018
UNION OF INDIA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Tushar Gupta, Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advocates for DA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA
versus
BUDH RAM @ BUDH SINGH (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Tushar Gupta and Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 246/2018, CM APL. 54324 - 26/2018
UNION OF INDIA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 71 of 171
versus
HAR KISHAN (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DA.
LA.AP. 247/2018, CM APL. 54360 - 62/2018
UNION OF INDIA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates for R - 2.
versus
RAM SAROP (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates for DA.
Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Mr. Bhuvan Goel, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 4/2019, CM APL. 16 - 68/2019
UNION OF INDIA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
versus
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 72 of 171
RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS.Respondents
Through:
Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DA.
LA.AP. 49/2019, CM APL. 1601/2019, CM APL.1603 - 04/2019
UNION OF INDIA
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
versus
HANSO (DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Podar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Mrinalni Sen, SC with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin and Ms. Gauri Shyam, Advs. for DA
Ms. Prity Sharma, Advocate for DA.
LA.AP. 130/2019, CM APL. 38327 - 28/2024
DAL CHAND SHARMA & ORS
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 73 of 171
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DA.
Mr. Neraj Kumar and Mr. Kartik Garg, Advocates.
LA.AP. 137/2019 & CM APL. 384/2019
BHOP SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS
.Apelant
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
.Respondents
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DA.
LA.AP. 298/202
JAI BHAGWAN DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS.
.Apelants
Through:
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
.Respondents
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 74 of 171
Through:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
JUDGMENT
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J. :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE………………………………………………………………… 7 5 BRIEF FACTS………………………………………..…… . …………... . 75
THE HISTORY OF ASSESSMENT……………………… 78
CONTENTIONS OF APELANT ……………………………………. 8 5 CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.2/DDA……………… . 92
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.1/UOI . 9 9 REJOINDER BY APPELLANT …………………………… …10
SUR - REJOINDER……………………………………………………… 10 3 THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. 10 3 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS………………………...... 10 8 The Appeals…..…… ………………………............... .10 9 Vilage Khizrabad ………………………................ . . 1 10
Vilage Kilokari …. ….. ……………………............... . 1 1 Vilage Nangli Razapur …………………................ . . 1 4 Vilage Garhi Mendu ……………………................ . 1 7 The Award …………………………………………………………….1 1 9 The Reference Court Judgments …………………………………….1 20
The Aditional Evidence. …………………............... . 12 2 The Statute………………………………………………………… ….13 4 Compensation a warded in Vilage Behlolpur Khadar & Jasola . . ………………………………………..... . . . 13 8 Proximity to d eveloped c olonies, a gricultural a ctivities & p otentiality………………………………………………………… 14 5 The Location Plan………..…………………………… .15 2 The Exemplar …………………………………………………………1 60
CONCLUSION………….……………………….......... 1 70
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 75 of 171
PREFACE
Since the isues raised in the above captioned apeals are the same, the above Apeals are being disposed of by this comon judgment. The present Apeals were heard together with LA.AP. 59/207 captioned Bed Ram v. UOI & Anr. being argued as the lead mater with the consent of the parties . For the sake of brevity, the facts are being recorded from the lead mater captioned . BRIEF FACTS
The present Apeal has ben filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 [ hereinafter referred to ] against the judgment and decre dated 18.10.206 pased by the C ourt of L earne d ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in LAC No. 1 of 203 captioned Bed Ram v. UOI & A nr . [ hereinafter referred to as — Impugned Judgment“ ] . 2. By the Impugned Judgment the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha , which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Colector [hereinafter refered to as "LAC"] to Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha for the acquired land. The l earned Reference Court
also granted 30% solatium on the value of the land . In adition, it was directed that the Apelant is entitled to 12% interest on the market value of the land and enhanced compensation at rate under Section 28 of the LA Act at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of notification til the date of award or date of disposesion , [whichever is earlier], til the expiry of one year and thereafter @15% per anum . 3. L and was acquired for land development of Delhi in relation to the chanelisation of the river Yamuna, by a notification under Section 4 of the
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 76 of 171
LA Act was isued on 23.06.1989 [here in after referred to Notification“] . The notification set s out in detail that for acquisition of land admeasuring about 350 hectares of land starting from a point 1 km upstream, Wazirabad B arage road along eastern Yamuna marginal bund til it mets the boundary of Union Teritory upto point it mets newly constructed NOIDA Bridge then along the Northern Boundary of the Bridge upto Agra Canal then along the eastern boundary of Agra canal upt o Okhla h ead - works and along the Eastern Boundary of regularised unauthorised colonies of Batla House Joga Bai, Vilage Zakir Nagar, Hinrerbad vilage and then along the eastern boundary of Women Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute, Kalindi Colony til it mets Ring Road the Eastern Boundary of Ring road til mets Indraprastha Power House then along the Eastern Boundary of Power House and then along the bund upto the point it mets old Railway bridge and then along the road joining Ring Road cros ing near Poakey Bridge then along the Ring Road upto 1 km upstream Wazirabad Water Works along the bund upto 1 km then along the imaginary line runing paralel to Wazirabad Barage on the Northern side upto starting point excepting the folowing land: - (a) Government land ; (b) Land already notified under Section 4 or under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is likely to be acquired under the provisions of the said Act for the purpose above stated.
1 Award No. 14/192 - 193 was pased for acquisition of the land admeasuring 26 Bighas and 5 Biswas situated in vilage Kilokari . Award No. 18/192 - 93 was pased for acquisition of land admeasuring 874 Bighas and 4 Biswas in vilage Khizrabad . Award No. 16/192 - 93 was pased for acquisition of land admeasuring 209 Bighas and 10 Biswas in vilage Nangli
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 7 of 171
Razapur and Award No. 13/192 - 93 was pased for acquisition of land admeasuring 1563 Bighas and 1 8 Biswas in vilage Garhi Mendu [hereinafter collectively referred to as —acqui as set out in the Table below:
Award No.
Vilage Area
Area of land acquisitioned by the Award
Award No. 13/192 - 93
Garhi Mendu
1563 Bighas 1 8 Biswas
Award No. 14/192 - 93
Kilokari
26 Bighas and 5 Biswas
Award No. 16/192 - 93
Nangli Razapur
209 Bighas and 10 Biswas
Award No. 18/19 2 - 93
Khizrabad
874 Bighas and 4 Biswas
Pursuant thereto, the notifications under Section 6 and Section 17 of the LA Act were isued on 2.06.190 in respect of the acquired land
including at vilages Madanpur Khadar, Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Chuck Chila, Okhla, Jogabai, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad , Jasola and on 20.06.190 in respect of vilage Garhi Mendu . The posesion of the acquired land was taken in the year 195.
The Award No.14/192 - 93 was pased by the Land Acquisition Colector on 19.06.192, for land admeasuring 2 6 Bighas and 5 Biswa in vilage Kilokari whereby compensation or market value of the land was ascertained at Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha was awarded to the Apelant for the acquired land [hereinafter referred to as Kilokari Award“]. The LAC tok into consideration sale deds of the land executed during the years 1985 - 89 and tok out the average value thereof at Rs. 18,736/ - . In adition, it tok into acount a n ofice order no. F.9(20)/80 - L&B/4313 - 16 dated 03.05.190 [hereinafter referred to as —Offic 27.04.190 and after working out a pro - rata discount, it valued the acquired
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 78 of 171
land at Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha for the land at vilage Kilokari.
The LAC similarly asesed the value of the land for the vilages Khizrabad , Nangli Raza pur and Garhi Mendu and pased thre separate awards asesing the market value of the land of these vilages at a uniform rate of Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha. The reason as asigned by the LAC for the uniform rate was that the purpose of acquisition of al land w as the same and al vilages were adjacent and contiguous to each other. The vilage wise details of the four awards are set out below:
Award No.
Name of Vilage
Kind of Land
14/192 - 93
Kilokari
Sailabi
18/192 - 93
Khizrabad
Khadar
16/192 - 93
Nangli Razapur
Khadar
13/192 - 93
Garhi Mendu
Floded land
Subsequently, by virtue of a notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act dated 25.01.195, lands admeasuring 1430 Bighas and 10 Biswas in vilage Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Nangli Razapur and Chuck - Chila stod de - notified by the LAC. The reasons as set out by the LAC in its order dated 05.1.204 for de - notification, was that the lands admeasuring 1430 Bighas and 10 Biswas were submerged or prone to be submerged, and hence were de - notified.
THE HISTORY OF ASESMENT
In the meantime, being disatisfied with the low asesment of the market value of the land by the LAC, a reference was filed under S ection 18 of the LA Act before the learned Reference Court on 13.07.192 to submit
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 79 of 171
that the present market value of the acquired land is about Rs.10,0/ - per square yard and the acquired land does not form part of riverbed and that large portion of land of vilage , Kilokari was acquired in the year 1959 wherein the LAC asesed the market value of the land at Rs 26,0/ - per Bigha at that time. It was contended that LAC asesed the market value of acquired land,
without taking into acount the prices of land and their enhanced value during the period of 30 years betwen 1959 and 1989, a nd without considering the prevailing market rate of the area.
The Reference Petitions were filed in relation to vilages at Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu before the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court in terms of the judgment pased in LAC No. 18 of 2005 titled ” Atar Singh v UOI ‘ [hereinafter refe Atar Singh case“] pertaining to village Khizrabad , alowed the Reference Petitions by an order dated 25.09.206. The learned Reference Court relying upon the judgment of Tindey & Ors v UOI & Anr . 1 [hereinafter refe Tindey case“] , increased the compensation awarded to Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha.
9.1
Similarly, the Reference Petitions filed in relation to land in the revenue estate of vilage Kilokari were decided. The lead mater for the vilage Kilokari is LAC No. 1/203 titled ”Bed Ram v. UOI & A [hereinafter referred to as — Bed Ram Reference Court case“] whereby th was increased by the learned Reference Court to Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha by a judgment dated 19.06.192 based on the judgment in the Atar Singh case and the Tindey case.
1 19 SC OnLine Del 1070
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 80 of 171
9.2
In respect of Petitions filed for the land acquired at vilage Nangli Razapur, the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 2/198 titled ”Bhopal Singh v. Union of India & Anr.‘ by a judgment dated 29.08.207 [hereinafter referred to as the —Nangli Razapur , relied upon the Atar Singh case and the Bed Ram Reference Court case to award compensation of Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha.
9.3
So far as concerns the vilage Garhi Mendu, the learned Reference Court by a judgment dated 26.07.207 pased in LAC No. 96/1 of 206 titled Khazan Singh v. UOI [hereinafter referred to Khazan Singh case“] relying on the judgment of Smt. Chawli Devi (Deceased) through her LRs v. UOI & DA being LAC No. 34/1 of 206 , similarly enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha to Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha.
10.
As stated above, the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land in al four vilages œ Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad to Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha and for Garhi Mendu Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha. The other antecedent directions such as solatium and interest were also awarded by the learned Reference Court. Agrieved by this award, the Apelants filed the present Apeals before this Court. By a judgment dated 07.06.201, a Cordinate Bench of this Court decided a batch of Apeals, in cluding the present Apeal of which the LA AP. 59/207 captioned Bed Ram v. Union of India & Anr. was the lead mater to hold that the fair market value of the land acquired in thre vilages of Kilokari, Khizrabad and Nangli Razapur as set out by the learned Reference Court was corectly determined
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 81 of 171
at Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha . The Cordinate Bench thus dismised the batch of Apeals including the present Apeal.
10.1
By a separate order dated 07.06.201 also, the Cordinate Bench of this Court decided the batch of Apeals including LA. AP. 1038/208 captioned UOI. v. Khazan Singh & Ors. in respect of vilage Garhi Mendu, and revised the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court to Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha as in the case of vilage Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Khizrabad . 1.
The order(s) dated 07.06.201 , as corected by order dated 2.07.201 pased by this Court , were chalenged by the Apelant by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being Civil Apeal No. 1939/2012 captioned Union of India v. Ram Lal & Ors. and conected maters [hereinafter referred to as —SC Ju 13.01.2015 pased two directions with respect to the maters in vilages Kilokari, Khizrabad Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu . In the first instance, it was held that a Review Petition be filed before the High Court to permit the Apelant to produce aditional documents, maps and awards before Single Judge within 30 days. The Court further held that if the Review Petition(s) we re filed within 30 days , the Single Judge would consider the same without going into the question of limitation. The relevant extract of the SC judgment is set out below:
—2. Briefly stated, the facts in the pertains to the determination of fair market value of lands admeasuring 1536 Bigha 10 biswa in vilage Garhi Mendu , belonging to the claimants/respondents herein. The said land was acquired under Section 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 189 4 (for short, "the Act"), by the apelants/petitioner herein for the public purpose of planed development of Delhi.
The said land, along with land in thre other vilages, namely Khirzahad
[sic: Khizrabad ] , Kilolari [sic: Kilokari] and Chak Chila, was notified by
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 82 of 171
the Government, vide Notification No. F. 9 (1)/89 –L&B (i.) isued under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 23.06.1989 . The same was folowed by Notification No. F. 9 (I)/89 - L&B/LA(i) & (i) isued under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act, dated 20.0 6 .190. In pursuance of the said Notifications, notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were isued to al interested persons.
The L and Acquisition Collector (for s consideration Order No. F - 9(20)/80 - L&B/4313 - 16, isued by the Delhi Administration regarding fixation of minimum price of agricultural land by the LAC, dated 03.05.190. In light of the aforesaid policy of the State administration the LAC vide Award No. 13/192 - 93, determined the
compensation to be awarded at the rate of Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha along with statutory benefits, dated 19.06.192.
Disatisfied with the award of the LAC, the respondents herein sought for a reference under Section 1 8 of the Act for adjudication of the fair market value. It was argued by the claimants that the LAC did not consider, inter alia, the potential value of the land, that the revenue estate of the vilage in which the land was situate was surounded by posh colonies developed by the Delhi Development Authority and other private colonies, and that al l basic civic amenities were available to the land . The Refe rence Court, while considering the contentions raised by the parties to the lis, tok notice of the award of the LAC with regard to land situate in vilages Khizrabad , Kilokari and Chak Chila, dated 19,06.192. By the said awards, the LAC had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha along with statutory benefits, It was further noticed, by the Reference Court, that a reference had ben, sought against the said awards, and consequently, taking into consideration the location, potentiality, nature, topography of the said land, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.89,60/ - per bigha . x
In our considered opinion, these facts, as also the maps and relevant documents, may be brought to the notice of the High Court by the apelant(s)/petitioners herein by filing apropriate review petition(s) before the High Court within thirty d . 3. If such review petition(s) is/are filed within the time granted by this Court, we request the learned Single Judge to consider the same in acordance with law, but without going into the question of limitation . 4. Further, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we permit the apelant(s)/petitioners herein to produce the aditional documents, maps, awards, if any, which are in their posesion, before the learned Single Judge along with the sa id review petition(s) . 5. Al contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the learned Single Judge . “
[Emphasis suplied]
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 83 of 171
12.
Subsequently, several Review Petitions in relation to the acquired land were filed before this Court by the Apelants . By its order dated 13.03.2015, a Cordinate Bench of this Court directed that the decision dated 07.06.201 is withdrawn vis - à - vis the review petitioners and it was directed that the present Apeals would be reconsidered by the roster bench after giving an oportunity to the Apelant/Review Petitioners to place on record further evidence. The relevant extract of the order dated 13.03 . 2015 is below:
—3. The review petitioners, are relyi which include a few judicial determinations in Land Acquisition References made.
In ethos with the order pased by the Supreme Court on January 13, 2015, the review petitioners would be entitled to formaly lead evidence and prove the documents on which they rely requiring a re - consideration of the mater keping in light such docum ents which may be proved.
Since I am presiding over a Division Bench, it may not be posible to spare time in the near future to record evidence and thereafter decide the isue afresh, as agred to betwen the learned counsel for the parties, the review petitions are being disposed of declaring that the decision dated June 07, 201 is withdrawn vis - a - vis the review petitioners. Land Acquisition Apeals filed by the review petitioners would be re - considered by the roster bench, after giving oportunity to the review petitioners to lead further evidence but limited to proving such documents and judicial orders, which have ben filed under cover of the review petition . 6. The Review Petitions stand dispose
[Emphasis suplied]
13 . By an order dated 30.07.2015, this Court directed that aditional evidence and aditional documents be filed in the l ead m ater i.e., the Bed Ram case and the other Apelants can rely on these Afidavits and aditional documents for other cases. The relevant extract of the order dated 30.07.2015 is set out below:
—Counsel for Union of India states th the records and, therefore, seks an adjournment.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 84 of 171
Upon remand by the Supreme Court with liberty to file aditional evidence at the behest of the appellants/claimants reviewed his judgment disposing of the apeals on 07.06.201 and that is how the mater is listed befo re this Court.
Let one set of aditional afidavit and aditional documents to be led in evidence be filed in lead case, i.e. LA Ap No.59/207, titled Bed Ram v. Union of India. Since the said evidence is sought to be relied by al the other apelants, there is no nece sity of filing separate afidavit of evidence in the other cases.
If any of the other apelants wishes to file any aditional documents, they may file the same in their respective apeals. However, the counsels shal cordinate and prepare a comon compilation of aditional documents to be relied upon. The compilation shal be filed in the lead case, i.e. LA Ap No.59/207, Bed Ram v. Union of India . Advance copies shal be furnished to counsel for the respondent. This exercise be completed within four weks.
Learned counsels state that only documentary evidence of unimpeachable nature is required to be filed ….“
[Emphasis suplied]
14.
Pursuant thereto, the evidence was led by the Apelants in the Bed Ram case and the case captioned Karan Singh v. Union of India, LA.AP. 54/2011 [hereinafter referred to Karan Singh case“] for th maters . Afidavits statements of AW1/Kailash Sharma in the Bed Ram case and AW1/Karan Singh in the Karan Singh case were filed and they were cros - examined by the Respondents. Evidence was also led by RW1/Ravinder Dang on behalf of Respondent before this Court.
15.
Subsequently, by an order dated 26.1.2015, the Court directed that the aditional evidence recorded and led in the Bed Ram case and the Karan Singh case shal be read in so far as relevant for the remaining Apeals and listed the maters before the Joint Registrar of this Court for recording of evidence.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 85 of 171
16.
Once the evidence was concluded, these Apeals were listed before this Court in pursuance of the aforegoing decisions of the Supreme Court and the Cordinate Bench.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APELANT S 17.
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s ha ve
divided their submisions into 3 primary contentions:
(i)
location of land and its potentiality;
(i)
submisions of exemplars;
(i)
land being ”S ailabi‘ canot have much potentiality is not a corect analysis.
18 . Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit
that land was asesed by LAC at rate of Rs. 26,0/ - in the year 1959. Hence, the Award by LAC in the year 192 at the rate of Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha was not the fair market value. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the Reference Court in the I mpugned J udgment had observed that, since the market value of land increases over the years , it is unlikely that prices of land have remained stagnant from the year 1959 when market price was Rs. 26,0/ - per Bigha and therefore ra te of land would have ben 10% per anum from 1959. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that as per 10% p.a. progresive increase from 1959 to 1989 as observed in the I mpugned J udgment the actual market value should be more than Rs. 10/ - per square yard or aproximately Rs. 30 lakhs per Bigha . The learned Reference Court on 18.10.206 pased the Impugned Judgment asesing market value of acquired land at rate of Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha as on 23.06.1989. Other antecedents relate d to the acquired land
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 86 of 171
pertaining to solatium and interest was also awarded. While asesing market value of acquired land in vilage Kilokari, the learned Reference Court dr e w comparison with vilage Khizrabad stating that both lands stod acquired by same notification and for the same purpose and the location is also within the same vicinity and acordingly awarded the same market value as awarded in Tindey case.
18.1
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that land of vilage, Kilokari , Behlolpur Khadar , Nangli Razapur, Ch u ck - ch i la admeasuring 1430 Bigha and 10 biswa was de - notified under Section 48(1) of the LA Act by a gazete notification dated 25.01.195 . On 05.1.204, order was pased by the LAC asigning reasons that since part of the land was found to be submerged in the river Yamuna land was de - notified . Emphasis is laid on the fact that the land not submerged was retained and acquired by the Respondents and the acquired land in these Apeals forms part of the land.
18.2
It was contended that the Section 4 notification was also the same in respect of land acquired for vilage Behlolpur Khadar and the compensation awarded by the LAC in this vilage was enhanced by the learned Reference Court to Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha in ter ms of a judgment dated 04.01.201 pased by the learned Reference Court in LAC 75/208 captioned Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr . 1 8.2.1 It was further contended that relying on the testimony of AW - 1, Kailash Sharma , that the witnes had stated that they had ben cultivating the land in question until its acquisition in 1989 and that there was no examination
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 87 of 171
conducted on the aspect of floding. In fact, it is stated that the land was irigated from the water of river Yamuna and not submerged.
18.3
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit
that the market value for the land of v ilage , Behlolpur Khadar and Jasola , both acquired under the same notification as the acquired land , has ben asesed at rate of Rs. 2.5 l acs per Bigha for Behlolpur Khadar and Rs. 4948/ - per sq. yard for Jasola respectively. For the vilage, Behlolpur Khadar
compensation has already ben received by the claimants. R eliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ba l Ram & Anr 2 to submit that if the nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr 3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors . 4 to submit that there should be no discrimination betwen landowners when land is of similar nature.
18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and vilage Jasola is about one kilometre away from vilage Kilokari while vilage Behlolpur Khadar is also a part of adjoining vilage Kilokari, yet a distinction has ben drawn by the learned Reference Court i n the award for these four vilages of Kilokari, Khizrabad , Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu without any legal basis.
2 (2010) 5 SC 747
3 (204) 10 SC 627
4 209 (8) SC 582
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 8 of 171
18.4
Learned Counsel for the Apelant submits that the market value for the acquired land of vilage, Kilokari canot be treated diferently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Sidhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdot Hotel etc. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon the testimony of RW - l, Mr. Ravinder Dang [ Naib Tehsildar at ofice of LAC ] and testimony of R W - 2, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Chandra [ Scientist with Central Ground Water Authority ] . 18.5
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that they are also entitled for 12% per anum aditional market value under S ection 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award til the date of posesion as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to posesion of the acquired land . 18.6
Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the acquired land‘s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires a reasesment of market value using a fair and just aproach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land . It is submited that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause (4) of Section 24 of the LA Act.
18.7
Relying on the sale ded dated 17.03.198 [Ex. PW3/1] which references a sale of one Bigha for Rs.2,07,50/ - per Bigha , i t was contended that the sale ded was proved before the learned Reference Court and that the
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 89 of 171
witnes stod his ground, despite which the learned Reference Court came to a conclusion that the sale ded could not be relied upon.
18.8
The exemplar in respect of vilage Behlolpur Khadar wherein the compensation was enhanced by the learned Reference Court by its order dated 04.01.201 to Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha , was also relied upon to contend that this exemplar was not taken into consideration by the learned Reference Court in the present case . It is further contended that Respondent No.1/UOI has not chalenged these findings in respect of vilage Jasola and Behlolpur Khadar
except in two cases 5 and in al other cases, the land owners have received the compensation, thus, parity must be maintained in respect of adjoining adjacent lands with similar potentiality. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Periasami Vs. Sub - Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) 6 to submit that the acquired land is entitled to compensation at the parity with the other lands situated in the same area and acquired by the same notification as the acquired land . 18.9
In adition, reliance has also ben placed on the Award No.21/92 - 93
pertaining to vilage Jasola wherein the LAC awarded the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha while the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 24 of 201 captioned Jagdish Gulati v. UOI & Anr. decided on 29.1.201 substantialy enhanced the amount to Rs. 4948 / - per sq uare yard . It is stated again that even against the present award only two Apeals 7 were
5 LA.AP. 129/2016 captioned Union of India v. Hari Kishan @ Harkesh (Deceased) Thr. LRs & Ors. and;
LA AP. 128/2016 captioned Union of India v. Kesar Singh & Ors.
6 (194) 4 SC 180
7 LA.AP. 24/2012 captioned Union of India v. Jagdish Gulati and ; LA.AP.25/2012 captioned Union of India v. Sadhna Gupta & Anr.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 90 of 171
filed again by Respondent No. 1 and compensation to remaining land owners was received in terms of order of the learned Reference Court.
18.10 Lastly, on the aspect of the land being ”Sailabi‘ which means submergible, it is contended by the Respondents that the land does not have much potentiality. It is submited that this submision does not take into acount the 1430 Bighas 10 Biswa land which was de - notified by the Respondents, in pursuance of which on 05.1.204, the LAC pased a detailed order stating that the reasons for the de - notification was that the land was submerged or submergible. It is contended that the remaining land which i ncludes the acquired land was thereafter taken into posesion on the recomendation of Respondent No.2/DA while 1,430 Bigha 10 Biswa land was de - notified. Thus, it is avered by the Apelant that the remaining land which includes the acquired land was clearly not submergible or ”Sailab
land. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the Reference Court inspected the site on 2.06.201 and observed that the land as situated in the heart of the city and that the land —appears to b for agricultural purposes“ . 18.10.1 Relying on the notification dated 1 3 .1.1959 pertaining to vilage Kilokari, it was contended that at that time a uniform rate of compensation was awarded by the LAC for diferent types of land, i.e., GM Nala, Sailab i , Chahi and Rosli and compensation of Rs.26,0/ - per Bigha was awarded irespective of the type of land. Learned Counsel contends that LAC has used the term ”S ailabi‘ to describe the land pertaining to vilage Kilokari, the term ”Khadar‘ to describe the land of v nd ”Sailabi to describe the land situated in vilage Behlolpur. Thus, these terms have ben
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 91 of 171
used interchangeably. Since Khadar also means low aluvial land fit for cultivation, the type of land in al thre vilages is the same, thus the compensation canot be varied.
18.10.2 The Appellant‘s witnesses Sharma [ in LA.AP.
5 9 /20 07 ], in his cros examination has contended that he has never witnesed any floding or water loging during his lifetime and this is recorded in his statement as given on 23.01.2016.
18.10.3 Reliance is also placed on LA.AP.372/207 captioned Bhopal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. [Award No.16/92 - 93 dated 19.06.192] [hereinafter refered to as —Bhopal Singh case“] pased for vilage Nangli Razapur wherein it is noted that the entire land is being irigated by the Yamuna River and since it is irigated, there is no question of the same being ”Sailabi ‘ in nature.
18.1 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s have
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjani Molu Des s ai Vs. State of Goa & Anr . 8 to submit that for calculating compensation highest exemplar is to be considered by the Court and not by averaging the diferent types of sale prices . Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Oficer Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb 9 to submit that sale instances of solitary sale ded or smal pieces of land can be relied upon while determining the amount of compensation. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra & Ors. Vs. State of Utar Pradesh & Anr. 10
8 (2010) 13 SC 710
9 (201) 7 SC 714
10 (2017) 9 SC 426
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 92 of 171
to submit that benefit of higher compensation should be granted to even those landowners who could not aproach the court . Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Cordinate bench of this Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India
& Anr. 1 to submit that for determination of market value of land when no sale ded is available principle of escalation is to be aplied. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s further relie d upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Trishala Jain & Anr. Vs. State of Utaranchal & Anr. 12 to submit that concept of guestimation is to be used for determining the market value of the land when no sale ded is available principle of escalation is to be aplied . CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2/DA
19 . Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 /DA has contended that LAC in the Award has specificaly recorded that the acquired land is situated betwen two "Forward Bunds" and the river Yamuna , and that there were no constructions on the land and only a few tres were found available on the land at the time of its acquisition.
19 .1 The LAC relied on an ofice order dated 03.05.190 wherein the Government of NCT of Delhi had notified the maximum price of agricultural land in Delhi as Rs. 4.5 lakhs per acre for agricultural land and Rs. 1.5 lakhs per acre for land situated on the riverbed. The fair market value for the land was thus notified by the LAC on 23.06.1989 as Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha on the basis of minimum price as notified on 03.05.1989 given the nature of the land.
1 201 SC Online Del 325
12 (201) 6 SC 47
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 93 of 171
19 .2 It was further contended that the market value of the land as asesed by learned Reference Court is at Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha . Learned Reference Court gave findings that the acquired land situated in the riverbed on the —Forward Bund“ wil be covered with water during some parts of the year and land may be cultivable for remaining parts of the year. The Apelants/Claimants have failed to le a d any evidence to disprove the fact that subject land was not situated in —Forward Bund“ area. The Learned Reference Court found that the land is not capable of being utilised neither as an agricultural land nor for constructing a building and consequently, canot be compared with other developed lands. Further, isolated constructions on the acquired land canot lead to an inference that land can be used for building structures or that the land is comparable to other lands faling outside the
—Forward Bund“ area . 19 .3 The Respondents have also relied upon a site inspection report, and photographs of the area and a spot report dated 21.1.206 which was prepared by the learned Reference Court along with spot note [hereinafter
colectively refered to as the "Site Report"]. Relying on this Site Report, it was contended that the site inspection found that the land "apears to be under cultivation". However, when the water level of the Yamuna cros es 204 mark, the land gets submerged in water depending on the amount of discharge from the river. In adition, the Site Report states that there are no substantial development s on the land near the site for agricultural purposes. It is thus contended that the land is unfit for development.
19 .4 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the learned Reference Court by order dated 04.01.201 had rejected the evidence
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 94 of 171
relied upon by the Apelants to claim higher compensation. The Apelants had exhibited a sale ded dated l7.03.198 of land of aproximately 1 Bigha
sold from vilage Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,50/ - . Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a posibility that the sale ded was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents in the locality in advance a nd prior to the isuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act.
19 .4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW - 3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW - 3 himself admits that he was not an income tax paye in 198 nor did he inform about purchasing a parcel of land for sum of Rs. 2,07,50/ - to the income tax authority.
19 .5 It was contended that, the testimony of PW - 4, Mr. S.P. Singh [ Asistant at Ofice of DA ] canot be relied upon to ases the market value of the subject land as PW - 4 admits in his cros - examination that he was neither aware of the date of notification nor he was aware of the date of the award by which land was aloted to Akshar Dham Mandir, nor the date of acquisition and consequently he canot be said to be aware of the prevailing market rate of the area. Further, the testimony of PW - 5, Mr. Anwar Abasi [ Asistant Manager Tol Plaza, DND Flyway ] canot be relied upon as he failed to prove the authenticity of the Sale agrements and site plans.
19 .6 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that Respondent No.1/UOI had aduced 5 sale deds [Exhibit R1 to R5] in evidence , of land situated in the same area as acquired land and sold around
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 95 of 171
the same time when the notification was isued. These exhibited sale deds reflected average market value was at Rs. 18,736/ - per Bigha . 19 .7 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 contends that burden lies on the Apelants to prove the prevailing market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act and to prove that the acquired land had building potentiality. In the event of failure to aduce cogent evidence, the claim ought to have ben rejected. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Tandon v Alahabad Development Authority & Anr . 13 to submit that the burden of prof lies upon the Claimant to prove that the amount of compensation awarded by the Colector is inadequate . 19 .8 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 relies on the Tinde y case to submit that when land has similar potentiality and location advantages, it must be similarly valued. The corect aproach is to ascertain what a wiling vendor and a wiling purchaser would reasonably transact at, keping in mind the principles of fairnes and justice . It is wel - setled that the burden lies on
t he claimant to aduce evidence showing that the land has high potential value.
19 .9 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that no development has ben undertaken on the acquired land and it has no building potentiality because it a ”Sailabi Land‘ and is land which is in close proximity to river Yamuna. ”Sailabi‘ lands are valued lower than agricultural land due to seasonal inundation . Learned Counsel further states that the Apelant/PW - 7, Bed Ram in his testimony has deposed that some portion of the land in
13 204 (10) SC 745
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 96 of 171
vilage Kilokari was developed as New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh and Kalindi Colony and he admited that there is no abadi around the petrol pump and the two shops and that there is a drainage in vilage Kilokari but it is far away from acquired land. F urther, testimony of PW - 6, Mr. P.K. Mena sugests that land is capable of being used for cultivation only when it is not covered by the Yamuna river.
19 .9.1 It is contended that the testimony of AW - 1, Mr. Karan Singh in LA AP.54/201 reflects that he never raised an objection to the term ”Sailab
used for the acquired land and he never aplied to the MCD seking sanction of the layout plan for the subject land. Learned Counsel submits that the government did not alow any construction to be raised other than a petrol pump and the two shops of marble on the land of vilage Kilokari. Learned Counsel submits that al these goes to sugest that subject la nd has no potential to build structures.
19 .10 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the argument of the Apelants that the subject land fals in the vicinity of posh colonies and hence, a higher amount of compensation should be awarded is misconceived. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the subject land is prone to water loging and floding as it was situated in the —Forwar Bund“ area. He further submits that Apelants have not placed on record any evidence to show that the land can be used for agriculture or residential purposes. Further, the Apelant is his testimony has admited that except for a petrol pump and the two shops , there is no abadi around the subject land and til date there has ben no development on the subject land which suports the
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 97 of 171
fact that subject land is qualitatively distinguishable from the land on which posh colonies are developed.
19 .1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the land owners have failed to show other comparable sale deds and that the l and owners have failed to show that the acquired land is similar in nature and potentiality to other comparable same vilage or neighbouring vilage.
Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Mohd. Raofudin v. Land Acquisition Oficer 14 . 19 .12 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the Apelants have failed to show any similarity of the acquired land with the lands situated in Jasola or Behlolpur Khadar . Learned Senior Counsel submits that mere contiguity of the acquired land with the other land situated in an urban area is not the aceptable criteria for grant of similar rate. Reliance is placed upon Kanwar Singh & Ors v UOI 15 to submit that the Supreme Court has held that mere contiguity of two vilages canot be adopted to determine the market value of two vilages unles similarity and advantages of both the lands are proved.
19 .12.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 refutes the contention of the Apelants claiming parity with market value of the land situated at vilage Behlolpur Khadar which has ben asesed at Rs. 2.5 lakhs per Bigha in case of Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v UOI & Anr .; LAC No.75/208 and Vilage Jasola at Rs. 4,948 per sq. yard in the case of Jagdish Gulati v. UOI ; LAC No. 24/1. Learned Senior Counsel submits that market value of
14 (209) 14 SC 367
15 198 (8) SC 136
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 98 of 171
the land asesed, as mentioned above, by the learned Reference Court was made by ignoring and overloking the market value as determined by this Court and thus is a nulity. It is further contended that the learned Reference Court ought to have balanced the public interest and private interest while determining market value rate. Reliance is placed on the case of Periyar & Parekani Rubers Ltd. v State of Kerala 16 to submit that lands must be asesed at fair and reasonable market value of the land and to much emphasis on claimant‘s right to co upon the public exchequer.
19.13 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v Asha Ram (dead) through LRs and Others 17 to submit that market value of land must be determined based on comparable sale instances that are proximate in time and location to the acquisition notification . 19.14 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that even if acquired land lies near Yamuna River and building structures is presently prohibited due to environmental regulations, potentiality of the land must stil be asesed. However, there is n o material on record showing development on the subject land on the date of the notification or at the time of posesion of the land. No evidence has ben led showing any aplication made for change of land use from agricultural to residential purpos es, nor is there any such prayer in the documents on record. Learned Counsel submits that mere proximity to developed colonies canot by itself establish potentiality. Once the land is found to lack building potentiality, no benefit of higher
16 191 (4) SC 195
17 2021 (17) SC 289
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 9 of 171
compensation can be granted. Therefore, it is contended that there is no infirmity in the market value of the land as fixed by the learned Reference Court i.e. Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha . CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/UOI
20 . Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that no evidence has ben b r ought on record by the Apelant s to atribute any building potentiality to the acquired land. Learned Counsel submits that in order to determine the market value of the acquired land, the building potentiality of the land must be considered. However, no material has ben brought on recor d to show any development on the acquired land either on the date of the notification or on the date of posesion of the land.
20 .1 Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that as per t he Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 [hereinafter referred to , permision from the authority is mandatory to change the nature of land use and no such permision for change of land use from agriculture to building purposes has ben b r ought on record by the Apelants to evidence any "change of user" aplication.
20 .2 Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has reiterated the contentions as set out by Respondent No. 2 that while awarding the compensation, the LAC/learned Reference Court has to ascertain the market value of the land keping in mind what a wiling vendor ma y reasonably except to obtain from a wiling purchaser. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Supreme Court in the Periyar case.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 10 of 171
20 .3 Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the learned Reference Court while pasing the Impugned Judgment has corectly relied upon Tindey case, wherein the land of vilage, Khizrabad was held to have no building potentiality at the relevant time i.e., at the time of publication of the notification and the amount of compensation was awarded acordingly.
20 .4 Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that the evidence led by the Apelants at best suports that acquired land is used for agriculture purposes only and not for construction of a building. Acquisition of the land for building purposes canot be suficient circumstance to presume land has building potentiality. Acordingly, the acquired land has no building potentiality and hence, no aditional compensation should be granted.
REJOINDER BY APELANTS
21 . Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the characterisation of the land as ”Sailabi‘ does not per se negate its development potential. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that out of total acquired land, pockets of land may have ben prone to floding but not the entire acquired land. Sidharth Nagar and Ganga Vihar, similarly situated as acquired land, have ben fuly developed. Therefore, the argument that ”Sailabi ' l and s lacks potentiality is untenable.
21 .1 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the land which was not submerged by the river Yamuna was retained and not de - notified in terms of the notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act on 25.01.195. It is contended that the posesion was taken by the
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 101 of 171
Respondents and hence the argument of the Respondents that the entire land being ”S ailabi ‘ land canot be used for development purposes is misplaced.
21 .2 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that for market value of land to be asesed at higher value , reliance is placed upon testimony of PW - 3/Mr. Vinod Kumar (land purchaser) who purchased 1 Bigha and 1 biswa of land in vilage Kilokari through Sale ded dated l7.03.198 for consideration of Rs. 2,07,50/ - [hereinafter refered to as "17.03.198 Exemplar"]. The sale ded is dated one year and thre months prior to the date of notification of the subject land and is thus a relevant exemplar. The alegation that the sale ded is inflated to secure higher compensation is without basis. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s clarif y that only one Bigha or 3,025 square yards was purcha sed by PW - 3, and the transaction stands unimpeached and the criticism regarding the purchaser not being an Income Tax paye is irelevant and speculative.
21 .3 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the 17.03.198 Exemplar was rejected by the learned Reference Court on asumption that landowners had prior knowledge about the acquisition , which
is not corect. In this regard , l earned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Apelant s places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahamaya General Finance Company v. State of Utar Pradesh & Ors. 18 wherein a similar speculative finding that the Apelants had prior knowledge of the acquisition which was adopted by the learned Reference Court without any reasons , was disaproved by the Supreme Court.
18 (2014) 1 5 SC 290
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 102 of 171
21 .4 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that testimony of PW2/Gopal Singh is not being relied upon. The emphasis is only upon the testimony of PW3, in relation to the 17.03.198 Exemplar, which testimony remains unimpeachable.
21 .5 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Apelant s further reiterates that the land in Behlolpur Khadar which even as per the map and rough location plan relied upon by the Respondents is a vilage bordering Kilokari and that the learned Reference Court gave a finding enhancing the compensation of the said land to Rs. 250/ - per sq. yd./Rs. 2.5 lacs per Bigha
[aproximately] and the same compensation must be awarded to vilage Kilokari, vilage Nangli Razapur and vilage Khizrabad . 21 .6 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Apelant s further distinguished the Tindey case. It was submited that the Tindey case was based in respect of Section 4 notification of 1976 whereas the notification in the present case is of 1989. The other distinction sought to be drawn was that the Tindey case was related to vilage Khizrabad , whereas the present case is of vilage Kilokari. In adition, it was submited that in the Tindey case, there is a clear finding of the Court that no evidence was led and thus, the Cordina te Bench of this Court relied upon in earlier notification and aded escalation at the rate of 12% per anum to arive at the final value given the fact that there were exemplars provided. No reliance could have ben placed by the learned Reference Court i n the Tindey case.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 103 of 171
SUR - REJOINDER
2 2 . A brief Sur - Rejoinder was given by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 to contend that there is no denial that the acquired land is situated betwen two "Forward Bunds" and the river and thus, any distinction canot be sought to be drawn betwen the acquired land and the land which was de - notified under Section 48 of the LA Act on 25.01.195. In adition, it was contended that there is no evidence was led by the Apelant s to show future building potentiality.
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
23 . As stated above, the Kilokari A ward was pased on 19.06.192 by the LAC for the acquisition of land admeasuring 26 Bighas and 5 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of vilage, Kilokari for development of Delhi
chanelization of river Yamuna . The LAC while asesing the market value relied upon various similar awards pased for the land within the vicinity of the acquired land and also relied upon the Ofice Order of 190 wherein the minimum price for agricultural land had ben fixed at Rs. 1.5 lacs per acre as on 27.04.190 and treat ing the land as ”Sailabi ‘ land situated betwen two —F orward B unds “ by discounting 15% per anum, LAC asesed the market value at Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha . 23 .1 Similarly, the award no. 18/192 - 93 was pased for acquisition of 874 Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of vilage Khizrabad
[hereinafter referred to as ” Khizrabad Award‘]. The LAC si consideration the Ofice Order of 190 and discounting it as in the Kilokari Award, asesed the fair market value for the land at Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 104 of 171
23.2
The award no. 16/192 - 93 for land admeasuring 209 Bighas and 10 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of vilage Nangli Razapur as notified was also pased on 19.06. 192 [hereinafter referred Award‘]. The LAC found that the ki market value of the land, as it did in the case of Kilokari and Khizrabad Award as Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha.
23 .3 In the case of land situated in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu, the award no. 13/192 was pased in the acquisition of 1563 Bighas and 1 8 Biswas in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu [hereinafter ref Mendu Award‘] . The clasification in the Garhi Mendu Award of the land was of floded land and the LAC asesed the market value of the land at Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha.
23.4
The Apelant s chalenged this determination by filing a Reference Petition s under Section 18 of the LA Act. The Apelant s claimed the value of acquired land at about Rs 10,0/ - per square yard and avered that the land i s not situated under the riverbed.
23.5
The f olowing isues were framed by the l earned Reference Court in Atar Singh case and Bed Ram Reference Court case : (i)
Whether the provisions of the DLR Act is aplicable to the land in dispute, if so, to what efect?
(i)
What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of isuance of notification u nder s ection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 ? (i)
To what enhancement in compensation, the Apelant is entitled to?
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 105 of 171
6 An aditional isue was framed by the learned Reference Court in the Bhopal Singh case, which is reproduced below:
—( i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to amount u/s 23(1)A of the LA Act with respect to Khasra nos. of which the posesion has ben taken subsequently, for the period during which the procedings for the acquisition of land were held up on acount of an y stay or injunction? “ 23 .7 No evidence was led by the Respondent No.2 /DA in his suport before the learned Reference Court. However, evidence in suport of their contentions was led by the Apelant and the Respondent No.1/UOI.
2 3 .8 The learned Reference Court held that no evidence has ben led by the Apelant to show acquired land was not situated in "Forward Bund" area and hence it canot be compared with other lands. It was held that the land in vilage, Khizrabad and acquired land both fal in the "Forward Bund" area and are comparative lands. Since the rate of land in vilage, Khizrabad has ben asesed at rate of Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha and is ”Sailabi‘ land in LAC No. 13 of 2004 titled ” Sri Ram v. UOI ‘, LAC No. 18 of 2 ”Atar Singh v UOI ‘ and LAC No. 19 of 205 titled ”Bed Ram Vs. UOI ‘ has also ben asesed at the rate Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha , the acquired land being similarly situated is asesed at the same rate. Learned Reference Court also relied on the judgment pased by this Court in Tindey case for vilage Khizrabad , to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha . Other antecedent directions were also pased with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI 19 .
19 (201) 7 SC 21
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 106 of 171
24 . Before the learned Reference Court, the Apelant had argued that vilage Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vilage and that there was no evidence to show that the land was not situated in a "Forward Bund" area. Reliance was also placed by the Apelant on the judgment in Dhom i Singh & Anr. v. UOI 20 wherein this Court enhanced the compensation of the land acquired for vilage Jasola by Rs.2,240/ - per square yard , which was land acquired in vilage Kilokari by an Award in 1981 . 2 4 .1 The Respondents/DA and UOI on the other hand had contended that the DLR Act is aplicable to the acquired land and had also relied on exemplars of the land to submit that the LAC had corectly asesed the valuation for the acquired land at Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha.
2 5 . The learned Reference Court gave a finding that the DLR Act was not aplicable to the acquired land. It further relied upon the sale deds/exemplars as placed on record by the Apelant and the Respondent/DA the details whereof are set out below : Apelants : S.No.
Ex.No.
Date of
Sale ded
Vilage
Area of land
Total
C onsideration
with stamp duty
Ex.P1
1 7 . 0 3. 198
Kilokari
1 Bigha
1 Bis wa
2 , 07 , 5 0/ -
20 Judgment dated 19.10.201 in RFA 408/1986 œ Delhi High Court
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 107 of 171
Respondents : S.No.
Ex.No.
Date of
Sale ded
Vilage
Area of land
Total
C onsiderati on with stamp duty
Ex.R1
6.4.87
Kilokari
1 Big ha
43,20/ - 2. Ex.R2
1.1.85
Kilokari
1 Bigha
9 Biswa
5 2 ,920/ - 3. Ex.R3
9.9.83
Kilokari
1 Big ha
2,160/ - 4. Ex.R4
28 /31 .3.84
Kilokari
5 Bigha
12 Biswa
15,120 / - 1 Bigha 13 Biswa
Ex.R5
28/ 31.3.8 4 Kilokari
9 B igha
19,40/ -
25 .1 The learned Reference Court further held that the land is situated in the "Forward Bund" in river b e d and is ”Sailabi‘ in nature. The learned Reference Court found that the exemplar given by the Apelant did not apear to be reliable while Ex. R2 to R5 also apear that they have ben undervalued to save stamp duty. The learned Reference Court then relied on the judgment in the Tindey case as asesed in terms of the Award No. 19/192 - 93 which was also notified along with vilage Kilokari and granted compensation at the same rate as was granted for vilage Khizrabad in the Tindey case at Rs.89,60 per Bigha. The relevant extract of the findings in the Impugned Judgment is below:
—…17.
In the present case the land under acquisition is also located in forward bund in river bed and apears to be similarly situated as in the case of land acquired in vilage Khizrabad . Considering the location of vilage Kilokari, there is no reason to asume that rate of land in vilage Kilokari would be les than in vilage Khizrahad . There apears to be no reason as t o why the rate of land asesed in Award No. 19/92 - 93 involving the same date of notification in vilage Khizrabad may not be adopted i n present case . 1 may also mention that for asesment of land (other than situated in forward bund in river bed) which is not covered under the provisions of DLR Act, a
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 108 of 171
marginal increase in compensation can be granted on acount of urbanization when the same is compared with land to which provisions of D L R Act arc aplicable. However in the present case as the land is situated in forward bund area in the river bed, the posibility of any distinct advantage is remote and the fact that the vilage Kilokari had ben urbanized may not be of much consequence . Any benefit on acount of u r banization was also denied by Hon‘ble on acount of urba nization of vilage Khizrabad though the same was claimed to have ben also urbanized, in view of typical location and sailabi nature of land. in view of above, I am not inclined to grant rate of compensation in vilage Kilokari at any higher rate that asesed in vilage Khizrabad . I am therefore of the view that it shal be fair to ases the market value of land @ Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha folowing the rate of land asesed by this Court in vilage Khizrabad wherein the land had ben acquired for same purpo se and involves the same date of notification …“
[Emphasis suplied]
ANAYLSIS & FINDINGS
2 6 . As stated above, the learned Ref spot‘ inspection of the site and Impugned Judgment.
27 . At this stage , it is aposite to set out that the Apeals listed before this Court were in relation to four vilages i.e., Khizrabad , Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu. It is aposite to set out the details by way of a tabular chart below:
S.No.
Total No. of Cases
Vilage Name
Award No. & Date
Rate as Awarded by Reference Court
Rate as awarded by Predecesor Bench of this Court on 07.06.201
21
Khizrabad
18/192 - 93 19.06.192
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
62
Kilokari
14/192 - 93
17.06.193
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
48
Nangli 16/192 - 93
Rs.89,60/ - Rs.89,60/ -
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 109 of 171
The Apeals
28 . Learned Counsel for the parties contended that the reasoning of the learned Reference Court is par i materia in the Impugned Orders in relation to these vilages and thus al 14 Apeals can be heard together and with the consent of the parties LA.AP. 59/207 captioned being Bed Ram v. UOI & Anr. was argued as the lead mater.
29 . P ursuant to the SC J udgment , t he Apelant s esentialy relied upon the evidence which was already available with the learned Reference Court albeit both in the Bed Ram case as wel as in conected maters. The Apelant s have also relied upon the exemplars in the form of sale deds which were available on record, including of vilage Behlolpur Khadar and vilage Jasola.
29 .1 T he Respondents have relied upon the building potentiality of the land and have stated that the land being 'Sailabi' in nature did not have the same building potentiality as the land which was in its vicinity for development. It is aditionaly contended that the burden of prof in such cases is on the Claimants to show the value of the land.
29 .2 The parties agred that no further evidence (other than what was already led by the parties before this Court) was required to be led by either party nor was cros - examination on the sale exemplars necesary a s the Respondents made their submisions contradictin g these exemplars.
Razapur
19.06.192
per Bigha
per Bigha
13
G arhi M endu
13/192 - 93
19.06.192
Rs.90,102/ - per Bigha
Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 10 of 171
Vilage Khizrabad
30.
The learned Reference Court pased a judgment in the LAC No. 18 of 2005 titled ” Atar Singh v UOI ‘ on 25.09.206 [hereinafter refered to as the " Khizrabad Judgment"]. The Khizrabad Judgment in esence made the calculations with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tindey case to award Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha . The 21 cases that have ben decided are set out below:
S. No.
Case No. & Case Title
LA.AP. 40/207
Dharam Ver vs. UOI & Anr.
LA.AP. 42/207
Sri Ram &Anr. vs. UOI & Anr.
LA.AP. 43/207
Bed Ram vs. UOI & Anr.
LA.AP. 4/207
Atar Singh vs. UOI & Anr.
LA.AP. 293/207
Jagbir Singh vs. UOI & Anr
LA.AP. 72/2016
Raghubar Dayal @ Raghuber Singh @ Raghbar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
LA.AP. 35/208
Munshi Deceased Through LRs & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 647/209
Mehar Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 650/209
Prem Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
10.
LA.AP. 31/2010
Mamraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.
LA.AP. 314/2010
Lakhmi Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.
12.
LA.AP. 315/2010
Jagan vs. Union of India & Anr.
13.
LA.AP. 316/2010
Ramesh Decd Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.
14.
LA.AP. 69/2010
Nain Singh Decsd. Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
15.
LA.AP. 13/2012
Budhan Decsd. Thru LRs vs. Union of India & Ors
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 1 of 171
16.
LA.AP. 37/2012
Daroga Decsd. Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
17.
LA.AP. 85/2015
Lakhmi Chand & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr
18.
LA.AP. 14/2016
Nain Singh (Deceased) Thr His LRs vs. Union of India
19.
LA.AP. 131/2018
Union of India vs. Mamchand (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
20.
LA.AP. 204/2018
Om Prakash (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of
India & Anr
21.
LA.AP. 4/2019
Union of India vs Raghubar Dayal @ Raghbar Singh & Ors.
Vilage Kilokari
3 1 . The judgment in the Bed Ram Reference Court case relied upon the Atar Singh and the Tindey case to calculate the compensation in these maters were listed before this Court in respect of the revenue estate of vilage
Kilokari , which are set out below : S. No.
Case No. & Case Title
LA.AP. 58/207
Duli Chand vs. UOI &Anr.
LA.AP. 59/207
Lead mater
Bed Ram vs. vs. UOI & Anr.
LA.AP. 38/2015
Fakir Chand (Deceased) Thr. Lr & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.
LA.AP. 39/2015
Hukum Singh Since Deceased Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.
LA.AP. 14/2019
Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 230/202
Salek Ram (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.
LA.AP. 36/202
Sita Ram (Deceased) Thr. LR Chavan &Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
LA.AP. 61/207
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr.
LA.AP. 62/207
Ganga Ram &Anr vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 63/207
Sato Devi & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 12 of 171
LA.AP. 64/207
Angori Devi (D) Thru. LR vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 65/207
Raj Pal vs. UOI & Anr
LA.AP. 6/207
Kailash Sharma &Anr. vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 73/207
Tek Chand vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 87/207
Pritam Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 412/207
Giriraj & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 89/207
Balbir Singh vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 130/209
Shri Bhik Ram vs. Union of India & Ors.
LA.AP. 91/207
Bhim Singh Decd. Thr. LRs & Or vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 50/208
Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 748/208
Dal Chand & Ors. vs. U.O.I & Ors.
LA.AP. 89/209
Om Prakash (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
LA.AP. 528/209
Sher Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI &Anr.
LA.AP. 53/209
Bahadur DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 59/209
Pehlad vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 595/209
Prem Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 101/2010
Rato Devi Decd Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
LA.AP. 380/2010
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. UOI and Anr.
LA.AP. 765/2010
Dal Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.
LA.AP. 827/2010
Bhop Singh Decd Thr LRs vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 1070/2010
Ram Kishan Decd Thru LRs & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr.
LA.AP. 15/201
Musadi Decsd Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Ors.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 13 of 171
LA.AP. 29/201
Dal Chand &Anr vs. Union of India
LA.AP. 39/201
Uma Dhawan & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.
LA.AP. 54/201
Karan Singh vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 15/201
Jaspal Singh (Dec) Thr LRs vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 156/201
Bed Ram vs. UOI &Anr.
LA.AP. 251/201
Hari Chand vs Union of India & Ors
LA.AP. 5/2012
Surjan & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
LA.AP. 6/2012
Gian Chand Decsd. Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 10/2012
Anant Ram &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 218/2012
Net Ram Through LRs and Anr vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 23/2012
Hari Singh Through LRs vs. UOI &Anr.
LA.AP. 49/2013
Samarta Decsd. Thru LRs and Ors vs. UOI and Anr
LA.AP. 51/2013
Net Ram vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 86/2015
Jugal Kishore & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 423/2015
Hari Kishan (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 426/2015
Nathu (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 45/2015
Nathu (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 173/2016
Ram Sarop Through LRs vs. UOI and Anr
LA.AP. 196/2016
Budh Ram @ Budh Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 292/2016
Hari Kishan Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 1/2017
Shashi Kumar vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 287/2017
Mehar Chand & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 14 of 171
LA.AP. 209/2018
Virender &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 245/2018
Union of India vs. Budh Ram @ Budh Singh (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
LA.AP. 246/2018
Union of India vs. Hari Kishan (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
LA.AP. 247/2018
Union of India vs. Ram Sarop (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
LA.AP. 49/2019
Union of India vs. Hanso (Deceased) Thr LRs &Anr
LA.AP. 130/2019
Dal Chand Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 137/2019
Bhop Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 298/202
Jai Bhagwan Deceased Through His Legal Heirs and Ors vs. Union of India and Anr.
3 1 .1 T hese Apeals emanate either from the Impugned Judgment or judgments pased by the Reference Court thereafter , relying on the Impugned Judgment . Vilage Nangli Razapur
3 2 . So far as concerns the vilage Nangli Razapur , t he lead mater for this vilage is LA.AP. 372/207 captioned Bhopal Singh vs. UOI & Anr. The learned Reference Court by a judgment dated 29.08.207 in LAC No. 2/198 titled as Bhopal Singh v. UOI & Anr. / Nangli Razapur Reference Court Judgment ascertained the compensation to be awarded at the same rate as those in vilage Kilokari at Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha . The learned Reference Court in this mater relied on the judgment in the Atar Singh case in respect of vilage Khizrabad to hold that the compensation should be awarded. The learned Reference Court discuse d the sale exemplars relied in the Bed Ram
Reference Court case of vilage Kilokari , referencing the fact that the land
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 15 of 171
was situated in the —Forward Bund“ area . The details of the 48 cases in relation to vilage Nangli Razapur are set out below:
S. No.
Case No. & Case Title
LA.AP. 91/2010
Kehar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
LA.AP. 1234/208
Hans Raj Decd. Thr LRs vs. UOI & Anr
LA.AP. 1235/208
Surya Prakash & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
LA.AP. 607/209
Neki Ram vs. UOI
LA.AP. 372/207
Lead Mater
Bhopal Singh vs. UOI &Anr
LA.AP. 501/208
Zile Singh (Deceased) Through LRs vs. UOI & Anr
LA.AP. 508/208
Jagwati vs. UOI & Anr
LA.AP. 509/208
Bir Singh vs. UOI & Anr
LA.AP. 564/208
Aman Singh vs. UOI & Anr
10.
LA.AP. 565/208
Shashi Verma vs. UOI & Anr
LA.AP. 609/208
Nimant Rana & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
12.
LA.AP. 631/208
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
13.
LA.AP. 737/208
Inder Singh vs. U.O.I & Anr
14.
LA.AP. 739/208
Ramesh Basistha vs. U.O.I & Ors
15.
LA.AP. 816/208
Kishan Sahai Thru LRs vs. UOI & Anr
16.
LA.AP. 817/208
Jagbir & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
17.
LA.AP. 876/208
Rishal Singh Decd. Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Anr
18.
LA.AP. 96/208
Raj Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.
19.
LA.AP. 92/208
Ajet Singh vs. UOI & Ors.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 16 of 171
20.
LA.AP. 94/208
Hari Singh vs. UOI & Anr
21.
LA.AP. 95/208
Prem Singh vs. UOI & Anr
LA.AP. 96/208
Rajender Prashad & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
23.
LA.AP. 136/208
Jaswant Singh Rana (Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Anr
24.
LA.AP. 1204/208
Devender Kumar Triguna vs. UOI & Anr.
25.
LA.AP. 1238/208
Chinta vs. UOI &Anr.
26.
LA.AP. 50/209
Guni Ram Decsd. Through LRs vs. Union of India & Ors.
27.
LA.AP. 51/209
Ranjit Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India & Anr
28.
LA.AP. 52/209
Jagdip Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India &Anr
29.
LA.AP. 56/209
Atar Singh DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
30.
LA.AP. 560/209
Ajit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
31.
LA.AP. 576/209
Narender Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India &Anr
32.
LA.AP. 580/209
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
LA.AP. 253/2010
Ram Pat vs. Union of India & Anr.
34.
LA.AP. 263/2010
Ramesh &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
35.
LA.AP. 264/2010
Hari Singh DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
36.
LA.AP. 454/2010
Daya Kishan Decd Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr.
37.
LA.AP. 67/2010
Om Prakash &Anr vs. Union of India & Ors.
38.
LA.AP. 678/2010
Shri Chanderman @ Chander Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
39.
LA.AP. 679/2010
Ram Singh Decsd Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors.
40.
LA.AP. 682/2010
Mol Chand Decd Thr LRs vs. Union of India and Ors.
41.
LA.AP. 683/2010
Yash Pal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
42.
LA.AP. 140/201
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 17 of 171
Ranjet Singh Decd Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
43.
LA.AP. 708/201
Lekh Ram vs. Union of India & Anr
LA.AP. 716/201
Gopal Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Anr
45.
LA.AP. 390/2015
Virender Singh (Since Mising) Thr. LRs & Ors vs. Union of India &
Anr
46.
LA.AP. 18/2016
Mahipal (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
47.
LA.AP. 19/2016
Chatar Singh vs. Union of India & Anr
48.
LA.AP. 256/2017
Poja vs. Union of India & Anr
Vilage Garhi Mendu
3 3 . As stated in paragraph 9.3 above, the learned Reference Court had enhanced the market value of the land as acquired from Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha to Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha in the lead mater in this vilage being LA.AP.
1038/208 captioned UOI vs. Khazan Singh & Ors. by a judgment dated 26.07.207 [hereinafter refered to as the " Garhi Mendu Judgment"] . Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Smt. Chawli Devi
(Deceased) through her LRs v. UOI & Anr. , being order dated 31.05.20 0 7 pased in LAC No. 34/1 of 206 by the learned Reference Court . The details of 13 maters in relation to vilage Gar h i M en du which were listed before this Court as below : S. No.
Case No. & Case Title in High Court
LA.AP. 143/208
UOI &Anr. vs. Bhohti Deceased Through LRs
LA.AP. 1038/208
UOI vs. Khazan Singh & Ors.
LA.AP. 1040/208
UOI vs. Champa Devi Decd. Thr LRs.
LA.AP. 1042/208
UOI vs. Richa Ram & Ors.
LA.AP. 1043/208
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 18 of 171
UOI vs. Phol Singh & Ors.
LA.AP. 141/208
UOI vs. Mansa Ram Decd. Thr. LRs & Ors.
LA.AP. 142/208
UOI vs Kishori @ Bhola Decd. Thr. LRs & Ors.
LA.AP. 14/208
UOI &Anr vs. Nathu & Ors.
LA.AP. 145/208
UOI vs. Balbir & Ors.
10.
LA.AP. 146/208
UOI vs. Hari Kishan Decd. Thr LRs & Ors.
LA.AP. 147/208
UOI &Anr vs Sohan Thr. His LRs
12.
LA.AP. 148/208
UOI vs. Khazan Singh Decd. Thr. LRs
13.
LA.AP. 618/209
Badley vs. UOI &Anr
3 3 .1 The Garhi Mendu Judgment was chalenged by the Apelants before this Court. B y an order dated 07.06.201, this Court directed that the fair market value per Bigha of the lands in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu would be Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha and not Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha as awarded by the learned Reference Court. The amount of compensation for vilage Garhi Mendu was kept at parity to Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha in view of the amounts awarded for the adjoining vilages of Kilokari , Khizrabad and Nangli Razapur . The relevant extract of order dated 07.06.201 is set out below:
—8. Since in the decisions pronounced Khizrabad , Kilokari and Nangli Rajapur I have upheld the market value determined by the learned Reference Court for said vilages @ ০89,60/ - per bigha by asigning the minimum value to the lands, I se no scope to further reduce the market value of the lands in vilage Ghari Mendu and by way of an ilustration may simply state that on the poverty index, those who are listed as Below Po verty Line would have no scope for further sub - clasifica tion as 'Below Poverty Line' and 'Litle Below Poverty Line'.
I acordingly hold that the fair market value of the subject lands in vilage Ghari Mendu as of 23.6.1989 would be ০89,60/ - per bigha and not ০90,102/ - per bigha worked out by the learned Reference Court .
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 19 of 171
Acordingly, LA Ap.No.618/209 filed by Badley seking enhancement of compensation is dismised.
The Land Acquisition Apeals filed by Union of India are partly alowed by modifying the Reference Order and - to be the fair market value per bigha of the subject lands in vilage Ghari Mendu which are the subject maters of the apeals filed by Union of India and nedles to state on the said sum the land owners would be entitled to statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. Un ion of India 93 (201) DLT 569. Cros objectio ns in said appeals filed by the land owners are
[Emphasis Suplied]
3 4 . T he Impugned J udgment has ben made aplicabl e in respect of the lands comprised in the revenue estate of vilage Kilokari, Khizrabad , Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu . It is clarified that not al agricultural land in the revenue estate of these thre vilages was acquired , some part of land in these vilages were also de - notified under Section 48 of the LA Act.
The Award
35.
The Kilokari Award which was pased for land admeasuring 26 Bighas and 5 Biswas pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, relied upon the Ofice Order dated 03.05.190 which conveyed the decision of the Administration regarding fixation of minimum rise for agricultural land to be taken into consideration by the LAC. It was further stated therein that it would aply to al cases where land had ben notified under Section 4 of the LA Act after 27.04.190. The Kilokari Award sets out that since the notification in the present case was isued on 23.06.1989, the guidelines isued prior to 190 were to be used after working out a pro rata discount of compensation at the rate of 15% per anum was calculated as Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha and the Award was made acordingly.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 120 of 171
35 .1 The Kilokari Award further recorded the existence of 251 Safeda tres, 6 Shehtot tres, 3 Amrod tres, 4 Nem tres and 1 Shesham tre along with a tubewel and a wal on the land. It further states that other than boundary wal and one temple [which w as not acquired], no other permanent structure were found in existence at the time of the notification. The relevant extract is below:
—Hence, in view of the guidelines conveyed by the Administration for discounting the rates in regarding to notification isued prior to 190, at the rate of 15% per anum on this price of Rs.1.5 lacs per acre , after working out the pro - rata discount of compensation works out to Rs.27,34/ - per bigha i.e. Rs.1,31,251/ - per acre . Therefore, I ases the true and fair market value of the land as per policy at Rs.27,34/ - per bigha and award acordingly. No other type of tre is available in any of the khasra under acquisition excepting some Safeda tre and a few below mentioned, w hich are asesed as below:
251 Safeda Tre @ 10/ -
25,10/ - 6 Shahtot @ 50/ -
30/ - 3 Amrod @ 50/ -
150/ - 4 Nem @ 125/ -
50/ - 1 Shisham @ 20/ -
20/ -
Total:
26,250/ - As regards tube wel/wel only one old wel is recorded in zamabandi and that to is un - usable for any purpose. So , no compensation deserves to be awarded. Regarding structures only boundary wal were e re cted and no other
construction of permanent nature was found, in existence at the time of the notification u/s 4 i.e., on 23.6.89, excepting one temple in Kh. No. 520 Min of which, the posesion was also not taken . “
[Emphasis Suplied]
The Reference Court Judgments
36 . The first asesment of the market value for the acquired land was done by the learned Reference Court in Atar Singh case , wherein learned Reference Court had asesed the market value of the acquired land in vilage
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 121 of 171
Khizrabad as Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha . Relying on the judgement in the Atar Singh case , the learned Reference Court also decided other cases pertaining to the vilage Khizrabad . 3 6 .1 Since the land in vilage Kilokari was also located in the "Forward Bund" in river bed and apear ed to be similarly situated as in the case of land acquired in vilage Khizrabad , the judgement in the Atar Singh case was relied on by the learned Reference Court in LAC 1/203 captioned Bed Ram v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 18.10.206 [ the Impugned Judgment]
and the market value for the vilage Kilokari was asesed at the rate of Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha as wel . 36 .2 The land under acquisition in the vilage Nangli Razapur was also found to be similarly situated to the land under acquisition in vilage Kilokari and thus, learned Reference Court in LAC 2/198 captioned Bhopal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 29.08.207 relied upon the Atar Singh
case and Bed Ram Reference Court case ( the Impugned Judgment) and asesed the market value of land in vilage Nangli Razapur at the rate of Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha.
3 6 .3 The market value of the acquired land in vilage Garhi Mendu was asesed by the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 96/01/206 captioned as Khazan Singh v. Union of India decided on 26.07.207 at the rate of Rs.90,102/ - per Bigha. In the Garhi Mendu Judgment, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the judgement in LAC 34/1/06 captioned as Smt . Chawli Devi (decd.) thr o u gh her LRs v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 31.05.207 which had also asesed the market value of the land in the vilage Garhi Mendu. The l earned Reference Court in the Chawli Devi case relied
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 12 of 171
upon the judgment of Bed Ram Reference Court c ase and Sri Ram & Anr v. Union of India and Anr . 21 to categorize the land of vilage Garhi Mendu to be similarly situated with the land of vilage Khizrabad and Kilokari. The l earned Reference Court , however, relied upon Rameshwar Solanki and Anr. v. UOI & Anr. 2 to marginaly enhance the market value of the acquired land in Garhi Mendu to Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha as on the date of notification i.e., 23.01.1989.
36.4
Thus, both the learned Reference Court as wel as th i s Court in the Bed Ram case judgment pased on 07.06.201 has found the lands in vilage Kilokari, Nangli Razapur , Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu to be similarly situated for the purposes of award of compensation.
The Aditional Evidence
37.
As stated above, emphasis was placed by the learned Senior Counsel/learned Counsel for the Apelants that in terms of the location of land, the award by the Reference Court was not comensurate with the potentiality of the land. Reliance was also placed o n the awards given for vilages Jasola and Behlolpur Khadar . Relying on the Afidavit in evidence dated 01.09.2015 filed by AW1/Karan Singh, it was contended that the acquired land was under cultivation and the compensation as awarded for vilage Behlo lpur Khadar , which was adjoining and acquired by the same notification was Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha , and since this area was adjoining vilage Behlolpur Khadar , similar compensation should have ben awarded. The witnes also placed reliance on the Khasra Girdawari showing the land
21 LAC 13/204 decided on 25.09.206
2 57 (195) DLT 4 1 0
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 123 of 171
of the Apelant as wel as the map of the location of the land. The witnes relied on the judgment dated 04.01.201 pased in LAC 75/208 captioned Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr. 23 [hereinafter refered to as the —Behlolpur Khadar Reference Court Judgment“] captioned S.S. Dhilon v. Union of India & Anr. 24 to submit that these awards have not ben chalenged by the Respondent.
38 . Two witneses were produced by the Apelants before this Court , Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. Kailash Sharma [AW - 1 in LA.AP. 54/201 and AW - 1 in LA.AP. 59/207 respectively] . Mr. Karan Singh deposed on the Khasra Girdavari showing notification of the land of the Apelants. He further deposed that the compensation for the adjoining vil l age of Behlolpur Khadar which was acquired by the same notification was given at the rate of Rs.250/ - sq. yds. The deponent also relied on the Behlolpur Khadar Reference Court Judgment which awarded Rs. 2.5 lakhs per Bigha for vilage Behlolpur Khadar as wel as the judgment in Jagdish Gulati cas e which awarded Rs. 49, 4 1,0/ - p e r Bigha for land situated in the vilage Jasola. In adition, he confirmed that the land was being used by him for agricultural purposes. The relevant extract of the evidence of Mr. Karan Singh is set out below:
—4. That it is pertinent to mention he i.e., L.A.AP NO. 54 OF 201 titled Karan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors, was treated as the lead case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as Civil Apeal No. 1236 of 201 and it is on the basis of these aditional documents (the Eicher map showing the location of the land of the instant Apelant, the khasra Girdawri showing cultivation on the land of the Apelant herein, Judgments/ Awards by the Court of the LD.ADJ @ Rs.250 per Sq Yard in the adjoining Vilage Behlolpur which was acquired vide the same notification on the same date and for the same purpose) which were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Hon'ble Apex court vide its order/judgment dated 13.01.2015 had granted an oportunity to the Apelant herein to file these
23 LAC 75/208: Judgment dated 04.01.201 œDistrict Courts
24 LAC 27/2012: Judgment dated 03.12.2014
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 124 of 171
documents before this Hon'ble court for being considered prior to adjudging the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Apelant herein in comparison to the compensation so awarded earlier. It is further significant to mention that the benefit of the said order/Judgment dated 13.01.2015 so pased by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was extended to al other Apelants who were before the Hon'ble Supreme court then and are now before this Hon'ble Court.
That the Copy of the Eicher map showing the location of the land of the Apelant is marked as Exhibit AW1/2 (already filed in L.A.AP NO. 54 OF 201 at page number 47.)
That the true copy of the Khasra girdawari showing the land of the Apelant herein as being used for agricultural purposes is marked as Exhibit AW1/3
(already filed in L.A.AP NO. 54 OF 201 at page number 350 - 359.) (Original is in the posesion of the Apelant and can be produced as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court).“
[Emphasis suplied]
3 8 .1 In his cros - examination conducted on 23.01.2016 by the Respondents the witnes deposed that the nomenclature of the land was 'Sailabi' , which when translated meant flod in the English translation filed. The witnes also clarified that ' Sailabi ' as mentioned in Khasra Girdavari meant the area in close proximity to the river Yamuna and that the Khasra Girdawari showed the cultivation caried out on the land. He further deposed that there were several established institutions like the women polytech nic, CRI staf quarters which came into existence in the vicinity of the acquired land in the period from 1965 - 75. In adition , h e deposed that the Ei c her Map was filed to show the pro x imity of the land to Kalindi Kunj which was near Maharani Bagh the women polytechnic came into being in the year 1978 - 80 . The relevant extract of the cros - examination is set out below:
—23.01.2016
AW1 Statement of Mr. Karan Singh, S/o Late Sh. Likhi Ram, aged about 53 years, R/o 8, Taimur Nagar, Near New Friends Colony. New Delhi 1065, On SA.
My land which has ben acquired by the Government bears K ha sra N o. 8 6 0 in Revenue Estate of Vilage Kilokri.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 125 of 171
Q. What is the meaning of flod mentioned in Khasra Girdawari at
runing pages 350 - 359 in LA. AP. 54/201 (Ex. AW 1 /3).
A ns . The translator who - did translation of Khasra Girdawari has described the Urdu word Sailabi as ”flood English. (Voluntered). This Khasra Girdawari also mentions details of the cultivation caried out in the particular years.
The Eicher Map (Ex. AW1/2) filed by me along with my afidavit was prepared in the year 2012. (Vol u ntered) if required, I can produce the original bok carying this map also. I was not at al asociated with the preparation of this Eicher Map (Ex. AW1/2). (Voluntered) It was filed only to show the proximity of my land to Kalindi Colony. I never apli ed to the MCD seking sanction of the layout plan with respect to land in question . The Kalindi Colony near Maharani Bagh started developing from the year 1970. I do not know about the completion of development of that area. Likewise, Maharani Bagh was also developed in the years 1965 - 70. The Women Polytechnic in Maharani Bagh came into b eing aproximately in the year 1978 - 80. CRI Staf Quarters came into existence in the year 1975 - 76 Akshardham Temple also came into existence about 10 - 12 years back Comon Wealth Garnes were held, in the year 2010.
Acording to me, the 'posh colony' means a colony which has al the civic amenities and facilities for the convenience of the residents. Acording to me, the word 'Sailabi' means the area which is in close proximity to the river Yamuna and has ben categor ised as su ch . The other col oni es a t Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, N e w Friends Colony have ben categorized as plain land. I have never raised any objection to the word ”Sailibi' [sic; Sailabi] mentioned in Khasra Girdawari (Ex. AW1/3) in relation to my land. “ [Emphasis Suplied]
39 . The other witnes - son of Shri Bed Ram, Shri Kailash Sharma, also deposed before this Court by way of an Afidavit dated 14.09.2015. The said Kailash Sharma deposed that the acquired land in vilage Kilokari touches New Friends Colony, Kalindi Colony, Maharani Bagh and various other colonies of Delhi and is in the vicinity of Akshardham Temple and Comon Wealth Game Vilage Complex. The witnes deposed that the acquired land is neither the river bed nor the flod plain since the land which was submerged
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 126 of 171
and/or submergible had already ben de - notified on 25.05.195 from the area under acquisition under Section 48 of the LA Act. He also relied on the Award of vilage Behlolpur Khadar as decided in the Behlolpur Khadar Reference Court Judgment dated 04.01.201 as wel as the award qua vilage Jasola. It was deposed that the vilages Kilokari , Khizrabad , Nangli Razapur , Behlolpur Khadar and Jasola had already ben urbanised prior to the 23.06.1989 N otification under Section 4 of the LA Act. The relevant extract is set out below:
" 6. That in the earlier acquired land of Vilage Kilokari, several posh colonies like New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Women Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute had already ben developed and the remaining land of these vilages was acquired vide above said notification dated 23.06.19 8 9 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
That the presently acquired land is neither riverbed nor flodplain because the land which was submerged or submergible has already ben de - notified under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act (already on record).
That the presently acquired land of Vilage Kilokari touches New Friends Colony, Kalindi Colony, Maharani Bagh, Women Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute, Ring Road and Indraprastha. Akshardham Temple and Comon Wealth Game Vilage Complex are also in the vicinity.
That as the presently acquired land of the apelant in Vilage Kilokari is of the same kind/nature and enjoys beter location and has ben acquired for the same purpose, the apelant canot be treated discriminately and therefore, in view of the ste p rise in the market value of the land after 1959 and in view of the evidence placed on record, the apelant deserves the same market value of the entire acquire land . " [Emphasis suplied]
39 .1 The deponent was cros - examined by the Respondents on various aspects including as to whether any layout or sanction plans were aplied for change of land use in the vilage which was answered in the negative . He further deposed that he was runing a shop in vilage Kilokari since the year 196 doing the busines of paint and hardware. The witnes also deposed that
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 127 of 171
for the last 50 years or so, he never experienced any flod or water loging in the land . He further deposed that they had ben cultivating the land in question since the year 1989. The relevant extract of this cros - examination conducted on 23.01.2016 is set out below:
—23.01.2016
AW1
Statement of Mr. Kailash Sharma, S/o Sh. Bed Ram, aged about 5.5 years, R/O D - 63, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 1065 . On S A.
I am runing the busines of paints and hardware and I have a shop at Vilage Kilokri [sic: Kilokari] since 196 . I have brought al the papers in Court which are relevant to the present case. Whatever I have stated in para - 9 of the afidavit is on the basis of my personal knowledge.
I am related to the disputes of land in question for the last 25 years . I have never aplied to MCD seking sanction of the layout plan in respect of land in question. I have never experienced any flod or water loging on the land in question for the last 50 years . (Voluntered) I am presently 50 years of age and to my knowledge I have never experienced any flod or water loging in respect of land in question during my lifetime.
Acording to my knowledge , Maharani Bagh was developed betwen 1959 - 65. New Friends Colony was also developed during the said period. Same is the position with Kalindi Colony . The Women Polytechnic came into being in Maharani Bagh area in the years 1965 - 70. Same is the position with CRI. Akshardhan Temple came into existence during the period after acquisition and before Comon Wealth Games started in Delh i . We had ben cultivating the land in question til it was acquired in the year 1989. "
[Emphasis Suplied]
4 0 . Both the witneses, Shri Kailash Shama as wel as Shri Karan Singh had in their cros - examination refered to the facts that the land adjacent to the acquired land included the ”po Friends Colony, which were developed i n the 1960s. They further deposed that there was a women‘s polytechn -
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 128 of 171
70s 25 and as did the CRI staf quarters. Shri Karan Singh also deposed that these colonies of Maharani Bagh and New Friends Colony etc. had al civic amenities and facilities for the convenience of the residence . 4 1 . The Respondents on the other hand placed on record an Afidavit dated 24.05.2016 of the Naib Tehsildar of the Ofice of the LAC, Shri Ravinder Dang, as RW - 1. The said witnes refered to the water loging in the areas of Sidharth Nagar and South East Delhi and relied on an inspection report in that behalf. The Respondent ‘s witness also relied on an inspection report caried out by the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) where the technical expert of the CGWB as noted in paragraph 4 of the report that the historical level data shows that the wels located at Kalindi Colony , Maharani Bagh and Sarai Kalen Khan being in proximity of the river Yamuna have a shalow ground water levels varying from les than 2 to 4 meters belo w ground level , in the folowing terms:
—EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFADVIT ON BEHALF OF UNION OF INDIA
I, Ravinder Dang, aged 50 years S/o Sh . Kesar Das. Presently Posted As Naib Tehsildar With the Ofice Of Land Acquisition Colector, South/East, Having Its Ofice At Lajpat Nagar - IV, New Delhi do hereby solemnly afirm and declare as under:
—2. That I say that the answering respondent/UOI on the other hand intend to prove that the compensation as was granted by the than Land Acquisition Colector under the captioned Award was just and fair and the same does not require any enhancement by the H on‘ble Court.
That I say that it is stated that in the third wek of May 2016, the counsel for the UOI has informed about one writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 7957/2014 titled Mohan Lal Ahuja v. Delhi Jal Board which stated to have pertained to the problem of water loging in Sid dharth Nagar and adjoining areas of South - East Delhi. The counsel further informed that the Hon'ble Court has pased orders to conduct an inspection as to the reasons of the water loging in Sidharth Nagar and its adjoining areas. The counsel further info rmed that the Central Ground Water Board has
25 Both witneses gave diferent years
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 129 of 171
conducted an inspection in Sidharth Nagar and adjoining areas of South East Delhi to check the cause of w ater loging problem and have submited a report thereto. A copy of the inspection report caried out by the Central Ground Water Board was also placed before the ofice of answering respondent . The technical experts of Central Ground Water Board must have caried out the said inspection and it has ben noted in para 4 of the said report that the historical water level data of its observation wels loca ted at Batla House, Kalindi Kunj. Maharani B agh and Sarai Kale Khan reveals that these areas being the proximity of Yamuna river have shalow ground water levels varying from les than 2 to 4 meters below ground level. A copy of the said inspection report has ben filed before the Hon'ble Court and is exhibited as Ex. RW1/1. “ [Emphasis suplied]
41 .1 In the cros - examination conducted by the Apelant on 23.09.2016 , the said witnes confirmed that the areas of Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, New Friends Colony, Central Road Research Institute [CR I ] and the Vilage Polytechnic are part of the vilages of Behlolpur Khadar , Kilokari , Khizrabad
and now also Jasola. He further afirmed that these are adjoining to ITO, Ashram Chowk and the Ring Road . 4 1 .2 The witnes also deposed that there were multi - storeyed buildings including DA flats constructed in Sidharth Nagar and Bhagwan Nagar . In adition, the wi tnes afirmed that the areas of Maharani Bagh and New Friends Colony and Sidharth Nagar were developed 30 years ago. The relevant extract of the cros - examination is set out below:
—STATEMENT OF RW - 1: MR. RAVINDER DANG, S/O SH, KESAR DAS. PRESENTLY POSTED AS NAIB TEHSILDAR WITH OFICE OF LAND ACQUISITION COLECTOR, SOUTH/EAST, HAVING ITS OFICE AT LAJPAT NAGAR - IV, NEW D ELHI
ON S.A.
… Q. I put it to you that the areas, namely, Maharani Bagh, Kalandi Colony, New Friends Colony, Central Road Research Institute and Women Polytechnic are situated in the previously acquired lands which are part of the vilages, namely, Behlorpur [sic : Behlolpur] . Khizrabad and Kilokari. What do you have to say?
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 130 of 171
A. It is corect that the areas, namely, Maharani Bagh, Kalandi Colony, New Friends Colony, Central Road Research Institute and Women Polytechnic are part of the vilages, namely, Beh lol pur, Khizrabad , Kilokari and also Jasola.
It is corect that the vilages, namely, Behl o orpur [sic: Behlolpur] , Khizrabad
and Kilokari are adjoining to the Ring Road i.e. from ITO to Ashram Chowk via Sarai Kale Khan . It i s corect that Maharani Bagh and Kalandi Colony also are adjoining to the Ring Road.
It is corect that Sidharth Nagar and Bhagwan Nagar are situated adjacent to each other and both the areas are adjoining the Nala.
It is corect that both in Sidharth Nagar and Bhagwan Nagar buildings to the extent of four flors are constructed.
It is also corect that multi stor i ed buildings are constructed and existing in areas Maharani Bagh, Kalandi Colony and New Friends Colony.
I do not know exactly how many years it is, since Maharani Bagh, Kalandi Clony [sic: colony] , New Friends Colony, Sidharth Nagar and Bhagwan Nagar have ben developed.
Q: I put it to you that there are DA Flats constructed in Sidharth Nagar and Sidharth Nagar Extension. What do you have to say?
It is corect. Again said, I am sure of DA Flats in Sidharth Nagar Extension. But I do not know about DA Flats in Sidharth Nagar . Q. Can you deny the fact that the areas, namely, Maharani Bagh, Kalandi Clony [sic : colony] , New Friends Colony, Sidharth Nagar and Bhagwan Nagar are developed way back 30 - 40 years?
A. It is corect that they are developed for more than 30 years.
I do not know exactly in the land of which vilage the Akshardham and Comon Wealth Vilage are constructed. May be in Be hlo orpur [sic : Behlolpur]
Vilage.
I have not sen the land of Vilage Nangli Razapur:
I do not know exactly whether Mayur Vihar is situated on one side of the land in vilage Nangl i Razapur.
I do not know exactly whether Chiraga Janabi area is there in our revenue records. I can say that only after seing the record.
I am not sure whether Indraprastha is adjoining to Vilage Chiraga Janubi.
It is corect that, Indraprastha Milenium Depot is adjacent to vilage Behlo l pur . “
[Emphasis S uplied]
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 131 of 171
41 .3 In the further cros - examination of the Resp deposed that the Akshardham as wel as the Comonwealth Games Vilage are situated in the area adjacent. The witnes deposed that there was a construction like "power station" with chimney on the river side of the ”Ring Road‘ adjacent to the petrol pump in the acquired land. He deposed that the land in vilage Nangli Razapur is oposite to Akshardham which is located on the other side of the Nazimudin Bridge and that the Indraprastha Milenium Depot is adjacent to Vilage Behlolpur Khadar . The witnes also deposed about th e Mayur Vihar area and the fact that there were DA flats constructed in that area. A question was put to the witnes e s as to whether the acquired land was given for the DND flyover or other comercial venture to which the witnes responded that he was no t aware and that he could not say whether the record was available or not. The relevant extract is below:
—STATEMENT OF RW - 1: MR . RAVINDER DANG (recaled for further cros - examination post lunch)
… Q. I put it to you that an area named Taimor Nagar Extension has ben developed with multi storied buildings in the acquired land unauthorisingly. What do you say?
A. I do not know.
There is some construction like power station with chimney on the river side of the ring Road adjacent to the petrol pump in the acquired land , however, I am not sure whether it is a power station.
It is corect that the acquired land of vilage Nangli Razapur and Behlorpur
[sic: Behlolpur ] are oposite to each other and near Chiraga Janubi as per the map prepared by the reference court on the directions of Hon'ble High Court.
The Akshardham and Comon Wealth Games Vilage are adjacent to each other and both of them are on the same side of Nizamudin Bridge.
It is corect that the land of Na n gli Razap u r is oposite to Akshardham and Comon Wealth Games Vilage and situated on the other side of the Nizamudin Bridge.
I do not know whether there was any de - notification with regard to the part of notified land in Nangi Razapur, Kilokari, Behlorpur and Khizrabad .
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 132 of 171
I have sen DND flyover. I do not know exactly in the land of which vilage the same is constructed.
It is corect that tol tax is i mposed on vehicular trafic on DND flyover. I do not know the tol tax on DND flyover is colected by a private company. It is corect that D ND flyover is a comercial venture. I do not know the DND flyover was planed even before year 190.
I do not know whether the land was given for comercial venture li ke DND flyover from the acquired land in the vilages K iloka ri and Khizrabad . I can say only after seing the record but I canot say whether the record is available or not.
I have not sen the site of acquired land in the vilage Jasola.
In the map prepared by the Presiding Oficer of the Reference Court, acquired land of Vilage J as ola is also shown. I do not know whether the land of vilage Jasol a and the land of vilages Kilokari and Khizrabad and Behlorpur [sic : Behlolpur] were acquired by the same notification dated 23.06.1989 in the year 1989.
Q . I put it to you that al the acquire d lands of vilages Kil o kari, Khizrabad , Behlorpur [sic: Behlolpur] , Nagli Razapur Jasola were acquired by a single notification dated 23.06.1989 for the single purpose of chanelization of river Yamuna and for the planed development of Delhi. Is it corect or not ? A. I do not know.
Q. Where is Batla House situated?
A. Near Okhla. I have not visited the places Batla House and Kalindi Kunj.
I do not have the personal knowledge of any of the particulars of the W.P.(C)7957/2014.
I have visited Mayur Vihar about one to one and half year ago.
It is corect that DA Flats are constructed in the area Mayur Vihar . The said DA Flats are may be of 3 or 4 flors. I do not know whether there are any DA Flats with ten flors are constructed in Mayur Vihar.
I do not know whether there are any five star hotels namely "Double Tre' and 'Hilton' also constructed in Mayur Vihar.
Q. I put it to you that an event i .e. world cultural festival was also organized recently by Sh ri . Ravi Shankar on 1.03.2016 in the acquired lands which are adjacent to DND Flyover . What do say?
A. I do not know. I have come to know about the program only from news chanels. I do not know whether any permision was granted by our department for conducting the above said program. “ [Emphasis s uplied]
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 13 of 171
4 1 .4 T he witnes aditionaly deposed in his cros - examination that there is problem of water loging in the Sidharth Nagar. The reference to Sidharth Nagar in the Afidavit was explained as being an adjoining area to the acquired land and an area with problem of water loging. The witnes also confirmed that while Sidharth Nagar is in a category ”E ‘ colon y , Maharani Bagh is in category ”A ‘ colon y , on being confronted with a bok of circle rates. The relevant extract is set out below:
—X by Sh. Amit Khemka, Id. counsel for apelant in I.No. 87 i.e. LA. AP. 54/201
Q. Why you have mentioned Sidharth Nagar in your afidavit.
A. As per report ie. Mark - A, there is problem of water loging in Sidharth Nagar and that is the reason I have mentioned about Sidharth Nagar in my afidavit . Q. What is the conection of Sidharth Nagar with vilage or Kilokari, Khizrabad , Behlorpur, Nag l i Razapur Jasdia?
A. Sidharth Nagar, is an adjoining area to the acquired land and th ere is problem of water loging in Sidharth Nager.
My answer is same with respect to areas Mahara n i Bagh, Sarai Kale Khan, Kalindi Kunj, Batla House. (V o lunters The said areas including Sidharth Nagar are on the other side of the Ring Road).
Again said: to my knowledge only Sidharth Nager is on the other side of the Ring Road but for the other areas like Maharani Bagh, Saral Kale Khan, Kalindi Kunj, Batla House, I do not know.
At this stage, witnes is shown the page no. 102 of the bok "Circle Rates, Edition 2016" (Comercial Law Publishers Pvt. Ltd). It i s corect that the Sidharth Nagar is shown on page 102 at Serial No. 2059 in category 'E' at point 'A'. The entire bok is taken on record as Ex. R1W1/D1
Maharani Bagh is shown on page 64 at point in the category "A" of Ex. R1W1/01 . Q. I put it to you that constructi on of flats at Comonwealth Games Vilage does not become the part of chanelization of part of r iver Yamuna?
A. 1 canot say.
[Emphasis Suplied]
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 134 of 171
The Statute
4 2 . Sections 23 and 24 of the LA Act set out the principles based on which compensation can be awarded [Section 23] and what not to take into consideration while computing the compensation [Section 24]. In determining compensation for the acquired land, the Co urt is required to consider al relevant factors as provided under Section 23(1) of the LA Act. It is aposite to extract Section 23 and Section 24 of the LA Act which are set out below:
"23. Maters to be considered in determining compensation . - (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shal take into consideration - first,
themarket value of the land at the date of the publication ofthe[notificationundersection4,sub - section (1)];
secondly,
thedamage sustained by the person interested, by reason ofthe taking of any standing crops or tres which may be onthe land at the time of the Colector's taking posesion thereof;
thirdly,
thedamage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at thetimeoftheColector'stakingposesionoftheland,by reasonofseveringsuchlandfromhisotherland;
fourthly,
thedamage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at thetimeoftheColector'stakingposesionoftheland,by reason of the acquisition injuriously afecting his other property,movable or imovable, in any other maner, or hisearnings;
fifthly,
if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Colector,thepersoninterestediscompeledtochangehis residenceorplace of busines, the reasonable expenses (if any)incidentaltosuchchange;and
sixthly,
thedamage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of theprofits of the land betwen the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Colector'stakingposesionoftheland.
(1A) In adition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shal in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per anum on such market value for the period comencing 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 Colector or
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 135 of 171
the date of taking posesion of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation. In computing the period refered to in this sub - section, any period or periods during which the procedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on acount of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shal be excluded.]
(2) In adition to the market - value of the land as above provided, the Court shal in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market - value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."
Maters to be neglected in determining compensation. – But the Court shal not take into consideration – first, the degre 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 wil be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to acrue from the use to which it wil be put when acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to acrue from the use to which the land acquired wil be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of, the land acquired, comenced, made or efected without the sanction of the Colector after the date of the publication of the 49[notification under Section 4, sub - section (1)]; or
eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on acount of its being put to any use which is forbiden by land or oposed to public policy."
[Emphasis s uplied]
42.1
Section 28A of the LA Act provides that where compensation in exces of the amounts awarded by the LAC is awarded by the Court to persons interested , al persons whose land is covered by the same notification, once determined judicialy, shal be awarded compensation as re - determined by the
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 136 of 171
Court , regardles of whether they have made an Aplication for such enhancement . Section 28A of the LA Act reads as folows:
—28A. Re - determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. œ (1) where in an award under this part, the court alows to the aplicant any amount of compensation in exces of the amount awarded by the colector under section 1, the persons interested in al the other land covered by the same notification under secti on 4, sub - section (1) and who are also agrieved by the award of the Colector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an aplication to the Colector under section 18, by writen aplication to the Colector within thre months from the date of the aw ard of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re - determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court : Provided that in computing the period of thre months within which an aplication to the Colector shal be made under this sub - section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shal be excluded.
(2) The Colector shal, on receipt of an aplication under sub - section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to al the persons interested and giving them a reasonable oportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensat ion payable to the aplicants.
(3) Any person who has not acepted the award under sub - section (2) may, by writen aplication to the Colector, required that the mater be refered by the Colector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shal, so far as may be, aply to such reference as they aply to a reference under section 18. “ [Emphasis suplied]
42.2
The Supreme Court in Narendra case , while explaining Section 28A of the LA Act has held that once a particular rate of compensation is judicialy determined, the benefit must be given to al, even those who could not aproach the Court. It held that even in the absence of exemplars and oth er evidence, a higher compensation can be alowed for those whose land was acquired under the same notification. The Court explained that what neds to be kept in mind in the mater of compulsory acquisition by the Government is that the vilagers whose la nd gets acquired are not wiling parties but are
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 137 of 171
compeled to sel their land to the State for a public purpose. It was held that failing to award similar compensation would lead to lands situated in similar areas would lead to discrimination to the land owners. The relevant extract of Narendra case is below:
—3. In this backdrop, the question that fals for consideration is as to whether the High Court was precluded from granting compensation at the rate of Rs 297 per square yard which was the rate of compensation awarded to other farmers of the said vilage whose lands were acquired under the same Notification and were similarly situated ? x
It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be alowed for others whose land was acquired under the same notification.
The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those landowners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicialy determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not aproach the court . It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the legislature. Once we kep the aforesaid purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the vilagers was at leser rate than the compensation which is u ltimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons apropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a leser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made aplicable an d rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the mater of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the vilagers whose land gets acquired are not wiling parties. It was not their voluntary act to sel of their land. They were compeled to give the land to
the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acqui sition Colector. The Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and apeal to the High Court, etc. In order to ensure that the landowners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for —fair compensation“. Once such determined judicialy, al landowners whose land was taken away by the same notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of god governance, failing to do so would also a mount to discrimination by
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 138 of 171
giving diferent treatment to the persons though identicaly situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment canot be denied to them. “
[Emphasis s uplied]
Compensation a warded i n Vil a ge Behlolpur Khadar & Jasola
43 . The princip a l contention that has ben traversed by the learned Senior Counsel /learned Counsel for the Apelants is that the compensation that has ben awarded to the Apelants in the four vilages of Khizrabad , Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu is not in acordance with the compensation as awarded for the vilages of Behlolpur Khadar and Jasola . It is the contention of the Apelant s that the acquired land while being in the —Forward B
area was stil being utilized for agriculture. Relying on Section 28A of the LA Act, i t is contended that the compensation as awarded for the acquired land in the adjoining vilages such as Behlolpur Khadar should also be similarly awarded to the Apelants as wel.
4 4 . A similar argument was taken b efore the Supreme Court in the judgment of Om Prakash case. In the Om Prakash case, the notification was isued for the acquisition of 3 vilages i.e., Bhorgarh, Kureni and Mamurpur , which were located side by side while, the Colector categorised the land into 3 categories, the learned Reference Court gave a finding that the land being similarly situated should be asesed uniformly. The High Court found that in several judgments, escalation had ben granted on difering rates progresively. However, it also noted that market value of agricultural land was les than land which could be used for comercial purposes and enhan ced the compensation in a uniform maner acros 3 vilages . This
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 139 of 171
compensation was upheld by the Supreme Court . The relevant extract of the Om Prakash case is below:
—4. On 2 - 6 - 1983, a notification was isued under Section 4(1) of the Act, whereby the lands for certain parcels situated within the said area were sought to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of godowns for Fod Corporation of India. This was folowed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act made on 2 - 7 - 1983. Further procedings under the Act ensued and on 5 - 9 - 1983, the Land Acquisition Colector made an award in each of the cases. The Colector categorised the lands faling for acquisition into thre blocks, namely, ”A‘, ”B‘ and ”C‘ . He awarded a compensation of Rs . 10,0 per bigha for land in Block ”A‘, Rs 8000 per big bigha for land in Block ”C‘. He also a structures. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Colector, t he claimants moved for references under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 12 - 3 - 19 enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to a uniform rate of Rs 36,30 per bigha as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It also granted other reliefs available under the Ac t. x
6 . In Civil Apeals Nos. 5708 - 09 of 202, the apelant claimants have impugned the judgment of the High Court while the Union of India is in apeal in Civil Apeals Nos. 8591 - 92 of 203 and civil apeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 2135, 21342 - 43, 2385 of 20 02, 1632 and 12968 of 203.
7 . The only question argued before us was the asesment of the market value of the acquired lands as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. No other isue was canvased. The High Court has corectly found that the topography, potentiality and advantages atached to and available to the lands in the five adjoining vilages, namely, Bhorgarh, Kureni, Mamurpur, Narela and Tikri Khurd were almost the same on the date when the noti fication under Section 4 was isued. It also refered to the fact that in its judgment in Dharambir v. Union of India [ RFA No. 54 of 192, decided on 23 - 9 - 196] the market value of the land had ben asesed at Rs 25,0 per bigha as against the asesme nt made by the Reference Court @ Rs 17,50 per bigha. An apeal therefrom was caried to this Court and is the subject - mater of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharambir [ CA No. 405 of 197] . While alowing the apeal of the State Gover nment, this Court held that Rs 16,750 per bigha was the fair market value of al categories of land situate at Vilage Mamurpur as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 30 - 10 - 1963.
In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in working out the fair market value of the lands in question on the basis of Rs 16,750 per bigha as on
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 140 of 171
30 - 10 - 1963. The High Court noticed that in several judgments of this Court escalation at diferent and varying rates i.e. 6% per anum from 1959 to 1965, @ 10% per anum for every year from 196 to 1973 and @ 12% per anum from 1975 had ben considered to be reasonabl e increase to arive at the fair market value , asuming that the pace of escalation during this period was normal for the entire period from 1959 onwards. Since no material was placed on record to show that there was any abnormality during the period, the High Court aplied the same principle to the facts and circumstances before it, and acepted increase of 10% every year progresively from 1963 to 1973 and thereafter @ 12% every year progresively up to the date of acquisition. The High Court noticed in the judgment that if escalation is alowed on this basis, the fair market value would be Rs 1,28,89 per bigha.
In case progresive increase is alowed @ 10% for the entire period, the amount wil work out to Rs 1,08,397 per bigha. Alowing apreciation @ 12% for every year, not cumulatively, but at a flat rate of 12% per anum from 1963 to 1983, the amount would w ork out to Rs 56,12 per bigha. The High Court in its judgment under apeal pointed out that the market value of Rs 16,750 per bigha fixed in the case of Dharambir v. Union of India [RFA No. 54 of 192, decided on 23 - 9 - 196] was not in respect of comerci al land but only of agricultural land. That the market value of agricultural land is much lower than that of land suitable for comercial purposes, is trite. After having worked out the market value of the lands on various bases and keping in view the fact that betwen 8 - 12 - 1982 and 2 - 6 - 1983, the lands in question had at least some comercial potentiality, the High Court decided that the fair market value of a l categories of lands situated in the vilages in question as on the date of acquisition should be fixed at Rs 82,25 per bigha .“
[Emphasis suplied]
4 5. The Supreme Court in K. Periasami Vs. Sub - Tehsildar (Land Acquisition ) 26 has held that since the land of the Apelant w as held by the LAC to be in a more advantageous position and a higher rate of compensation was awarded to such land, the other lands situated in the same area acquired by the same notification were also entitled to compensation at parity and the compensation was enhanced acordingly . The relevant extract of the K. Periasami case is out below:
—2. It is not disputed that the marke said notification has ben determined by diferent Benches of the High Court such as Apeal Nos. 538 of 1987 and 126 of 1986 titled Special Tehsildar,
26 (194) 4 SC 180
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 141 of 171
Land Acquisition v. Lakshmi Ama l . The lands for which the Land Acquisition Oficer had awarded at the rate of Rs 70 per cent and the civil court on reference, had enhanced such rate to Rs 850 per cent, the High Court on apeal had enhanced the rate in two cases to Rs 10 per cent and in two other cases to Rs 1050 per cent. Since the lands under consideration in the present apeals are situated in the same area and were acquired under the same acquisition and the Land Acquisition Oficer himself had treate d the lands to be in a beter advantageous position than the lands covered in the other apeals, it would be clear that the lands in these apeals are posesed of beter advantageous features than the lands covered by the judgment in other apeals by fixing their value at the rate of Rs 92 per cent. This fact was not noticed by the le arned Judge, while disposing of the apeals, as it is observed that there is no evidence as to parity of the advantageous position of the lands to award the same compensation. The observation apears to be incorect. The treatment of the lands by the Land Acquisition Oficer himself by awarding to them a rate of Rs 92 per cent in these apeals while he had awarded the rate of Rs 70 per cent of lands in the other apeals furnishes the intrinsic evidence that the lands in question are situated in a beter adv antageous position than the lands concerned in the other apeals. When such is the situation, the apelant also is entitled to parity of market value for the acquired lands. “
[Emphasis Suplied]
46 . The Apelant has contended that the learned Reference Court failed to consider the exemplar which was placed on record. It was contended that the Respondents produced 5 exemplars of vilage Kilokari and the highest exemplar is to be considered and not by averaging the diferent types of sale prices for calculating compensation. Reliance was placed on the Anjani Molu De s sai case . T he Supreme Court has held that where lands are sold under a sale ded and acquired lands of similar nature, there is no justification in taking the lower value of the land. The Court was discusing the under - developed or ”bharad ‘ lands and held that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usualy the highest exemplar, which is a bonafide transaction, is to be taken into consideration. It was further held that where the values as disclosed in sale deds for the same area is di ferent, these canot be averaged out unles there are several sale deds in
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 142 of 171
a narow bandwidth and the proper method would be by taking the highest exemplar, unles there are strong circumstances justifying otherwise . The relevant extract of the Anjani Molu De s sai case is set out below:
—16. The Land Acquisition Colector however comited a serious eror in deducting 45% from the sale price disclosed by the sale ded dated 30 - 8 - 1989 towards the cost of development. It is wel setled that deduction for development cost has to be made only wh ere the value of a smal residential/comercial/industrial plot of land in a developed layout is made the basis for ariving at the market value of a nearly large tract of undeveloped agricultural land. Where the land sold under the relied upon sale ded and the acquired lands are both of similar nature (as in this case where both are bharad lands) the question of making any deduction towards development cost to arrive at the cost of —undeve uld not arise. Such a deduction would have ben necesary if the sale ded relied upon related to a developed residential or comercial plot . Therefore, we are of the view that the Land Acquisition Colector was not justified in making 45% deduction from t he price disclosed by the sale ded dated 30 - 8 - 1989.
Further, the award of the Colector specificaly states that the land sold under the sale ded dated 30 - 8 - 1989 is a similar land, that is, a bharad land at a distance of 20 m. Significantly, there is no such finding that the subject - mater of the second sale dated 31 - 1 - 190 which was one kilometre away, was a similarly situated land. The sale ded dated 31 - 1 - 190 should therefore be infered to be either an undervalued sale or a distres sale or at al events not a comparable sale. The Land Acquisition Colector was not therefore justified in averaging the sale prices of the two sale deds. Once it is found that the first sale ded was in regard to a comparable land and the second sale ded was not in regard to a comparable land, the second sale ded da ted 31 - 1 - 190 ought to have ben excluded from consideration.
20 . The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usualy the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, wil be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose pric es range in a narow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly diferent, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to disimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on acount of undervaluation or other price depresing reasons. Co nsequently, averaging canot be resorted to. We may refer to two decisions of this Court in this behalf.
In M. Vijayalakshmama Rao Bahadur v. Colector of Madras [(1969) 1 MLJ 45], a thre - Judge Bench of this Court observed that the proper method for evaluation of market value is by taking the highest of the exemplars and
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 143 of 171
not by averaging of diferent types of sale transactions. This Court held: (MLJ p. 46 - 47)
—It seems to us that there is substan Redy. After al when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to say that he should be given the highest value which similar land in the locality is s hown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into betwen a wiling purchaser and a wiling seler near about the time of the acquisition. It is not disputed that the transaction represented by Ext. R - 19 was a few months prior to the notificatio n under Section 4 that it was a bona fide transaction and that it was entered into betwen a wiling purchaser and a wiling seler. The land comprised in the sale ded is 1 grounds and was sold at Rs. 1961 per ground. The land covered by Ext. R - 27 was al so sold before the notification but after the land comprised in Ext. R - 19 was sold. It is true that this land was sold at Rs. 1096 per ground. This, however, is aparently because of two circumstances. One is that beterment levy at Rs. 50 per ground had to be paid by the vende and the other that the land comprised in it is very much more extensive, that is about 93 grounds or so. Whatever that may be, it sems to us to be only fair that where sale deds pertaining to diferent transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be prefered to the rest unles there are strong circumstance s justifying a diferent course. In any case we se no reason why an average of two sale deds should have ben taken in th is case.“
[Emphasis s uplied]
4 7 . The Apelant s ha ve relied upon the evidence as placed on record by PW - 7 [before the learned Trial Court] and AW - 1 [before this Court] to submit that the land is only half a kilometer away from Maharani Bagh and that the vilage Behlolpur Khadar is adjoining vilage Kilokari. The Location Plan [se Map in paragraph 5 2 . 2 of this judgment] which forms part of the record does show that while vilage Behlolpur Khadar exists on the boundary wal of vilage Kilokari, vilages Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu and are also adjacent to the vilage on the other side of the river while v ilage Kh i zrabad
borders to vilage Kilokari.
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 14 of 171
47 .1 The contention of the Respondent , on the other hand, has ben that the amounts as awarded to vilage Behlolpur Khadar and vilage Jasola could not be awarded for the vilages of Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Kh i zrabad and Garhi Mendu since the potentiality of the land being on the —Forward Bun and being ”Sailabi‘ in nature was entirely diferent. However, AW - 1 has deposed that the land is not submergible as they had ben cultivating the land and using it for agricultural purposes.
4 8 . The learned Reference Court in the Behlolpur Khadar Reference Court Judgm ent 27 had enhanced the compensation in respect of vilage Behlolpur Khadar based on the judgment in LAC No. 2 1 /97 captioned Bharat Singh v. Union of India 28 . The learned Reference Court found that the potential value of the land being in close proximity to developed areas and that it has al amenities that are reasonably capable of being put to use in the future . 48.1
Relying on the 17.03.198 Exemplar , the Apelant/land owner had in that case contended that the market value of the acquired land on 13.1.1959 was asesed at Rs. 26,0/ - per Bigha and keping in mind the step rise of prices around Delhi, the market value should have ben capitalized at the rate of 12% since then and over 30 years would amoun t to Rs. 7,23,248/ - per Bigha . The Respondent/Revenue had to the contrary contended that the market value sh o uld be enhanced by 3.6 times.
48.2
The learned Reference Court, however, did not acept either contention, finding the enhancement 3.6 times to be to low and 7.23 lakhs
27 Judgment dated 04.01.201 pased in LAC 75/208
28 Judgment dated 04.01.208 pased in LAC 2/197
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 145 of 171
per Bigha to be to high. Relying on the potentiality of the land and its close proximity to Maharani Bagh and Kalindi colon y which were developed in the late 1980‘s and given its potentia 2.5 lakhs per Bigha. Thus, it was directed that the enhanced compensation be awarded. The relevant extract is set out below:
—18. The notification under Section 23.06.1989. In the late eighties, land prices in Delhi had a spiral rise. The distance and fertility lost significance keping in view the potentiality of the
acquired land being put to the use of the planed development in the Capital city of India. The land in question lies in close proximity to Maharani Bagh and Kalindi Colony. In late eighties, the question of having amenities or being surounded by developed areas can hardly be an Isue In question. In the mater of Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru V. The Special Land Acquisition Oficer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore & Ors reported in AIR 1979 SC 869, the Apex Court has held that the proces of determination of market value in any case must depend largely on evaluation of any Imponderables and hence it must necesarily be to some extent a mater of conjecture or gues work.
Keping in view of the aforesaid factors in mind, more particularly the sales of the land in almost similar areas and around the sametime and the cited Judgments, though not a conclusive prof of evidence, It would be aford some basis, after taking into consideration that there is a general tendency to under - value the sales for the purpose of evading the stamp duty etc., as also the compensation awarded almost 30 years ago i.e. 1959 as Rs. 26,0/ - per bigha, I would quantify the market value of the la nd, keping Its potential of being put to beter use, at Rs. 2.5 lakh per bigha .“
[Emphasis suplied]
Proximity t o d eveloped c olonies, a gricultural a ctivities a nd p otentiality
49.
The Respondent/DA has contended that the Awards recor ds that the acquired land is situated betwen two ”Forward Bunds‘ and the Yamuna river and thus, there is no construction on the land and only a few tres were found available. Emphasis has thus ben laid by the Respondents on the fact that the acquired land was ”Sailabi‘ in nature and betwen the two "Forward Bunds"
and thus had limited or no potentiality. The learned Reference Court found
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 146 of 171
that the land is not capable of any agricultural nor building construction activity and it canot be compared with other developed lands. Thus, it was contended that the land a s notified as undeveloped.
49.1
The Appellant‘s witness, AW - 1 in his evidence clarified that ”Sailab
meant an area in close proximity to River Yamuna. He further clarified that the Urdu word ”Sailabi‘ means flod. However, in adition, the witnes clarified that the land was neither in the river bed nor in the flod plain, since that part of the land had already ben de - notified under Section 48 of the LA Act on 25.05.195. AW - 1, Kailash Sharma, also d eposed that he is 50 years of age and during his lifetime he has never experience d any flod or water loging in respect of the land. He further deposed that he and his family had ben cultivating the land in question til it was acquired in the year 1985.
49.2
In addition, the Respondent‘s that the DLR Act was aplicable to the acquired lands which would lead a reduction in the building potentiality of the lands is also without any basis. The learned Reference Court in the Bed Ram Reference Court case has given a finding that the DLR Act was not aplicable to the acquired lands. This finding of the learned Reference Court has not ben chalenged by the Respondents.
50 . The Respondent s ha ve vociferously contended that the acquired land did not have any building potentiality as no building activities were permited in this area. Relying on the judgment in the Periyar case, it was contended that the acquired land does not have permision for building activity and that potentiality would mean the potentiality to raise buildings. It was further contended that since there was water loging in the land, no building activit y
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 147 of 171
was permited. In suport of its contentions, Respondent/DA has also reference d the Site Inspection Report dated 2.1.206.
50.1
The Respondent‘s witness, who i deposition has however admited to the proximity of the acquired lands with the developed colonies of Maharani Bagh and Kalindi colony and has also admited to the fact that multistorie d flats and DA flats have ben constructed in Sidharth Nagar and Sidharth Nagar Extension. The witnes has also deposed that Nangli Razapur is oposite to Akshardham and comonwealth Games Vilage and situated on the other side of the Nizamudin Bri dge.
51.
Concededly, however , the fact that agricultural activities were permited and were being caried out is clear even from the Inspection Report of the inspection undertaken by the learned Reference Court on 2.1.206. The Inspection Report sets out that the oficials present had stated that the land gets covered with water depending on the amount of discharge of water
from the Yamuna river . However, it does state that the land apears to be utilized for agricultural purposes. In adition, it confirms that some of the k hasras that were submerged or likely to be submerged had already ben de - notified and the others had ben acquired. The learned Reference Court has also clearly set out that the land on both sides apear s to be under cultivation. The relevant extract of this report is set out below:
—The spot inspection has ben conducted in terms of order dated 13.1.06 in the presence of oficials from DA (Sh. M. M. Rao. Director L.M), Sh. S. K. Singh (LAC South), Sh. Raj Shekhar (D.C. South), Sh. Atul Kumar (Ex. Enginer, Irigation & Flod Control Department) who are acompanied with other team of oficials from respective departments. Counsel for the petitioners as wel as respondents are also present .
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 148 of 171
The oficials led to embankment of River Yamuna in vilage Nanglirazapur via Marginal Bund Road through ”Pantoon Ro A rough sketch i. e. , Site plan by aproximation; prepared by oficials of DA to give a broad idea of the location of vilages has ben handed over. The same is Anexure 1 and clearly depicts the location of vilages Behlolpur Khadar, Nangli Razapur, Kilokari, Chakchila, Khizrabad , Jogabai, Okhla, Jasola and Madanpur Khadar.
A copy of site plan indicating the khasra no.'s of vilage Nanglirazapur has ben handed over by oficials of LAC South. The oficials explained at site that some of the Khasra no's which are sub - merged or likely to be sub - merged and are adjacent to water stream had ben de - notified while the others had ben acquired . The same are reflected in diferent shades in the site plan (Anexure I). The oficials informed that the acquired land extended upto 50 meters and may be more from the stream of water which was flowing curently. The land on both sides at the 'site spot ‘ apeared to be under cultivation . However, it is pertinent to note that oficials from Irigation and Flod Control Department informed that as and when the water level in river Yamuna croses a mark of 204.83, the land gets covered with water, depending an amount of discharge of water i n the river. It was also pointed out that owing to aforesaid reasons no development has ben permited from 'Marginal Bund Road til embankment of River Yamun a (As depicted in Anexure I ). It was observed that there was no substantial development except that land apears to be utilized near the site for agricultural purpose.
Thereafter the oficials led to show the aproximate location of land of vilage Kilokari, Behlolpur and Khizrabad from Ring Road and D.N.D.Road. The oficials showed that no activity/development on the land near to the embankment could be undertaken except for agricultural activity . The spot inspection comenced at about 2.40 p.m and has ben completed at about 4.45 p.m. “ [Emphasis suplied]
51.1
This also becomes clear from the photographs which were anexed along with the Inspection Report. These photographs evidence the cultivation of the land and reflect that agricultural activity on the land . They show dry
cultivated land with some bushes and shrubs as wel and that the lands apear to be irigated . Some of these photographs are reproduced below:
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 149 of 171
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 150 of 171
LA.AP. 59/207 & conected
Page 151 of 171