IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Adil Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
L.A. APP. Nos. 612, 749, 812, 821, 822, 912, 919, 920, 921, 1082 of 2008
Decided On : 04-05-2021
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18, 19 17(1), 4(1) and 54 - Notification - Acquisition of Land - Compensation - Appellant came up before the undersigned, when finding that the appeal itself was of the year 2008, it was deemed appropriate, that instead of application, appeal itself be taken up for hearing - On being informed that other appeals aforesaid, also preferred against same/similar judgment/orders and/or pertaining to acquisition of land of share of others in same property were also pending consideration, all appeals were ordered to be listed together for hearing.
Finding of the Court:
Pursuant to award of LAC, property owners were initially permitted to withdraw compensation determined at the rate of Rs. 18,480/- per sq. mtr. supra, to extent of 75% only but on pronouncement of the judgment/order aforesaid, were also permitted to withdraw remaining 25% of compensation except the share of Rs. 960/- determined to be of L&DO - Court unable to agree with the contention aforesaid of counsel for DMRC. Even in National Radio and Electronic Co. Ltd. supra, though Division Bench of this Court held that no judicial notice of prevalent rates of letting value could be taken but held that judicial notice of trend of general increase in rent could indeed be taken.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. All these appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, impugn the orders/judgments of the Additional District Judge (LAC), Delhi (hereinafter called the Reference Court) in References under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, with respect to LAC Award No. 13/2001-02 with respect to acquisition of property No. 8, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi.
2. The appeals were admitted for hearing.
3. On 7th August, 2018, CM No. 47184/2017 of the respondent no. 2 in L.A. APP. No. 812/2008, for substituting the security furnished for withdrawing the compensation deposited in the Court by the appellant therein viz. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (DMRC), came up before the undersigned, when finding that the appeal itself was of the year 2008, it was deemed appropriate, that instead of the application, the appeal itself be taken up for hearing. On being informed that other appeals aforesaid, also preferred against the same/similar judgment/order/s and/or pertaining to the acquisition of the land of the share of others in the same property were also pending consideration, all the appeals were ordered to be listed together for hearing.
4. The hearing commenced on 24th September, 2018 and continued till 29th January, 2019, when orders were reserved.
5. Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate for the appellant in L.A. APP. No. 612/2008, opened the arguments on behalf of the owners of the property acquired and which arguments were adopted by counsels for the other owners, in their appeals. Mr. Tarun Johri, Advocate on behalf of DMRC and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) were also heard in opposition to the arguments of Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate and in support of the appeals of DMRC.
6. Vide Notifications, dated 31st March, 2000 under Section 4(1) and Section 17(1) and dated 23rd May, 2000 under Section 6, of the Act, land ad-measuring 10,800 sq. mtrs. or 2.67 acres comprising property bearing Plot No. 2, Block No. 125, known as 8 Jantar Mantar, New Delhi-110001, was acquired for making traffic integration and intake shaft for underground Metro at Patel Chowk, Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) Station and vide Award No. 13/2001-02, the LAC awarded compensation at Rs. 18,480/- per sq. mtr. besides other statutory benefits and compensation with respect to structures etc. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the property owners filed petitions under Section 18 of the Act, for reference to be made for determination by the Court, of their objections to the compensation awarded. Reference under Section 19 of the Act was accordingly made to the Reference Court.
7. It was the claim of the property owners before the Reference Court, that (i) the LAC had assessed the market value of the acquired land, only on the basis of rates of land in residential areas in the vicinity of which the subject property was/is situated, as given in Schedule of Market Rates of land in Delhi; (ii) the Schedule of Market Rates of the land issued by the Ministry of Urban Development was merely an inter-office memo, only meant for charging stamp duty and the amount of unearned increase while granting permission for sale of perpetual leasehold rights in the land; the said Schedule of Market Rates did not represent the market value of the acquired land, which was situated in a posh locality, having prime location and unique advantages and benefits, besides potential of being developed into a Group Housing Complex, for which plans had been submitted for approval and sanctions granted; (iii) the property owners, as far back as in the year 1994-95, had deposited Rs. 5,37,66,993/- towards development charges for development of Group Housing Complex on the property; (iv) the final approval for constructing a Group Housing Complex at property bearing No. 5, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi situated on the same road as the subject property, had already been granted; (v) ha
Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa
Amit Gupta vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bhagwathula Samanna vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality
Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag
General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel
K. Narendra vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. (1999) 5 SCC 77
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun vs. Bipin Kumar
Land Acquisition Officer vs. B. Vijender Reddy
Madhusudan Kabra vs. State of Maharashtra
Major General Kapil Mehra vs. Union of India
Manu Narang vs. The Lt. Governor, Government National Capital Territory of Delhi
P. Ram Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad
Piyara Singh vs. State of Haryana
S. Kumar vs. G.R. Kathpalia (1999) 77 DLT 266
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Saradamani Kandappan vs. S. Rajalakshmi
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb
State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh
Thakur Kuldeep Singh vs. Union of India
U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow
Land Acquisition and Requisition - Determination of Market valued - Determining market value as on 31st March, 2000 of land ad-measuring 10,800 sq. mtrs. at property no. 8, Jantar Mantar Road, New De....
Market value for land compensation must be based on robust evidence, comparable sales, and regular valuation assessments without influence from disputes or unsupported assertions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 23 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990, and the interpretation of legal precedents to determine the m....
In land acquisition references, the court must independently assess market value based on evidence. Where direct vacant land sale instances are unavailable, valuations derived from adjusted built-up ....
Compensation for acquired land must be justified by substantial evidence and the Court may apply reasonable estimations in absence of direct evidence.
The withholding of relevant evidence, such as a sale deed, may lead to an adverse inference. The market value of acquired land can be determined based on relevant sale deeds, with an escalation of va....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.