The main legal point established is the admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC and the importance of such evidence in determining the land user and justifying the enhancement of compensation.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The aforesaid applications under Rule 27, Order 41 of the CPC have been filed for bringing on record additional evidence for the purposes of better appreciation of the facts regarding land user of the premises which have been acquired and compensation with respect to which has been awarded by taking the acquired land to be of commercial user.

2. The Land Acquisition Appeals Nos.327/2014 and 329/2014 have been preferred against the final judgment and award dated 21.03.2014 passed in LAC No.482/01/06.

3. For the expansion of Pul Bangash Metro Station, Roshnara Road, Delhi, 425 sq.meters of land from Khasra No.338 in Village Delhi Patti was notified on 27.04.2004. The emergency clause of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the “Act”) was invoked under Section 17 of the Act and the proceedings under Section 5A, requiring inviting of objections, were dispensed with vide order dated 17.02.2005. Thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made.

4. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 18.06.2006, assessed the market value of the land of the respondent/land owner at the rate of Rs.14,490/- per sq.meter after giving a finding that the property was a commercial property and the land user was commercial as per the joint survey report conducted by the beneficiary namely the appellant/DMRC.

5. The possession of the land was taken on 27.06.2006.

6. The appellant/applicant, being aggrieved by the said award but owing to the statutory bar under Section 50 of the Act restraining the appellant/applicant from seeking any reference under Section 18 of the Act, filed a writ petition bearing No.3093/2007 before Delhi High Court, assailing the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The writ petition referred to above was disposed of on 08.04.2010 with the following observations/directions:-

(i) The owners of the land concede that it will be open for the reference court to examine the question as to whether the compensation is payable on the basis of commercial rates or residential rates and in case it has to be paid on the basis of residential rates, they have no objection even to the reduction in compensation, if such a situation arises, on the basis of evidence on record notwithstanding Section 25 of the said Act.

(ii) The balance of compensation lying in the deposit in this court in W.P.(C) no.3093/2007 be released to respondents no.3 and 4 therein along with the accrued interest thereon up to the maturity of the FDR in December, 2009, and, if the FDR has been extended further then the same will be encashed with such loss interest as per the norms of the Bank. (this is at request of learned counsel for the owners), subject to security for restitution, including of immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court.

(iii) The reference court will now proceed expeditiously to decide the reference which has been adjourned sine die. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

7. M/s.Maruti Electricals and New Light Enterprises through its proprietor Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Respondent) applied for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector whereby the market value of the land at Rs.14,490/- per sq.meter.

8. The Reference Court, vide its judgment dated 21.03.2014 passed in LAC No.1/2013/06 enhanced the award to Rs.1,70,000/- per sq.meter as on the date of notification under Section 4 i.e. on 27.07.2004, apart from the further entitlement of the land owner for Rs.50.45 lakhs for the loss in business as well as solatium at the rate of 30% and an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 till the date of award or date of dispossession whichever was earlier. The Reference Court also awarded interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of di