ORDER

Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant – Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). Mr. C. Solomon, learned Counsel appears for the Union of India. Representing the interest of the land owners, submissions are made by Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Amit Sibal, and Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Ajoy Bhushan Kali, learned counsel. Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.10.03 19:16:09 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified 3. Application for condonation of delay in filing substitution application is allowed, abatement is set aside and substitution is allowed in SLP(C) Nos.19205-19206/2021. 4. Under the impugned judgment the High Court had decided the appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “LA Act”) challenging the judgment of the Reference Court under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act with respect to the LAC Award No.13/2001-02.  The acquisition related to the property bearing No.8 at Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi. 5. The above property was the subject matter of the Notification dated 31.03.2000 issued under Section 4(1) and Section 17(1), and the Section 6 notification dated 23.05.2000. The acquired area measured 10,800 sq. mtrs. or 2.67 acres in Plot No.2, Block No. 125 otherwise identified as 8, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi. The acquisition was made for traffic integration and the intake shaft for the underground Metro Rail at Patel Chowk. 6. Following the acquisition, the LAO passed an Award which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “The onus to prove this issue is upon the petitioner. The petitioner has averred in the reference petition that there was a dispute to the apportionment and rights in respect of the claim of some po1tion of the compensation which was referred to the. Ld. ADJ, Delhi and the, said dispute was decided vide order dt. 29.05.2001 by the Ld. ADJ,. Delhi. The petitioner along with other co-owners of the said property were awarded further sum of Rs.5, 18,91,840/- as compensation of the property in question. It is further averred in the reference petition that the said order has been duly executed and the money has been disbursed to the petitioner and the other coowners of the abovementioned property as per their respective shares. The petitioner has also tiled copy of the said judgment dt. 29.05.2001 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.96/2000 titled. UQI Vs Adil Singh & Ors. whereby L&DO has been held entitled to compensation at Rs.960/- and rest of the compensation has been awarded to the petitioner herein and the co-sharers. The respondents have neither led any evidence nor proved any document in rebuttal. Even otherwise, the counsel for the parties have not apprised to this court, if any appeal against the judgment passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the reference u/sec. 30-31 of the LA Act, is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, I hold that the petitioner has got the right, title and interest as per his share in the property in question. This issue is answered accordingly.” 7. A reference was then made under Section 18 of the LA Act and the Reference Court after considering the prime location of the acquired property and the sale exemplars placed on record, increased the rate of the acquisition to Rs.56,908/- per sq. mtr. from the earlier Rs.18,480/- per sq. mtr. as was determined in the Award. The Reference Court however ordered for a 25% deduction as development charges, from the payable market value as per the revised rate in its order dated 14.05.2008. 8. The order of the Reference Court was challenged through cross appeals filed by both sides. The High Court in those appeals observed that the acquired property is comparable to the property at No.11, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The Court then considered the objection of the counsel for the DMRC on the price fetch