Delhi High Court – Orders
Mahender Kaur & Ors vs Union Of India on 30 March, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~32 to 37, 39, 47, 48, 50 & 51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th March, 2026
Uploaded on: 2nd April, 2026
~32
+ W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & CM APPL. 19603/2026
MAHENDER KAUR & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
~33
+ W.P.(C) 4002/2026 & CM APPL. 19604/2026
KARNAIL SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
~34
+ W.P.(C) 4003/2026 & CM APPL. 19606/2026
GURMEET SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
~35
+ W.P.(C) 4014/2026 & CM APPL. 19648/2026
PREM KAUR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
~36
+ W.P.(C) 4018/2026 & CM APPL. 19653/2026
JEET KAUR & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
~37
+ W.P.(C) 4028/2026 & CM APPL. 19679/2026
AMARJEET SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
~39
+ W.P.(C) 4036/2026 & CM APPL. 19689/2026
KARNAIL SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
~47
+ W.P.(C) 4085/2026 & CM APPL. 20018/2026
GURBAKSH SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
~48
+ W.P.(C) 4086/2026 & CM APPL. 20019/2026
KARNAIL SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
~50
+ W.P.(C) 4121/2026 & CM APPL. 20130/2026
GURNAM SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
~51
+ W.P.(C) 4131/2026 & CM APPL. 20150/2026
NISHAN SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Appearance:
For the Petitioners:-
Mr. Vinay Kumar Khanna, Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Mr. Vibhav Chaturvedi,
Mr. Narveer Yadav, Mr. Siddhartha Sati & Ms. Ruchi Kumari, Advs.
For the Respondents:-
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Ms. Joohu Kumari,
Advs. for LAC.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
2. These are various writ petitions which have been filed by original
landowners/their legal heirs seeking fair market value in respect of acquired
lands falling in village Jaitpur.
3. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter, ‘the Act’) was issued on 2nd June, 1989 for acquisition of the land
to the extent of 729 bighas 10 biswas situated in village Jaitpur for public
purposes i.e., for the construction of ash pond of Badarpur Thermal Power
Station.
4. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act which
was issued on 10th July, 1989. Pursuant to the aforesaid notifications, Award
No. 2 of 1990-91 of village Jaitpur was passed on 26th April, 1990 by Land
Acquisition Collector, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the award’).
5. In the said award, the market value of the land in village Jaitpur was
determined at Rs.12,000/- per bigha, along with the following statutory
benefits:
i. Solatium @ 30% of the market value;
ii. Additional amount under Section 23(1) of the Act
@ 12% from the date of preliminary notification till
the date of possession;
iii. Interest @ 9% from the date of possession till the
date of announcement of award under Section 34 of
the Act.
6. Aggrieved by the award, the landowners had filed respective references
under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was referred to the Reference Court
on the adequacy of compensation. The Reference Court, vide separate
judgements had assessed the market value of land at Rs. 4,65,000/- per acre.
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
Relevant portion of the judgment of the Reference Court dated 31st August,
1991 pertaining to W.P.(C) 4001/2026 is as follows:
“[…]
7. The market value of land in question is here by
assessed @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre, and the petitioner
is accordingly, held to be entitled to receive
enhanced compensation @ Rs.4.65, lacs per. The
petitioner shall also be entitled to in addition to
market value of the land and amount calculated at
the rate of @ 12% p.a. on such market value for the
period commencing on and from the date of
publication of the notification under section 4 sub
section(I) in respect of the such land to the date of
the award of the Collector or the date of taking
possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The
petitioner shall further be entitled to an amount
equivalent to 30% of the market, value of the land in
consideration of the compulsory nutate of the
acquisition known as solatium. They should also be
entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for one year and
enhanced amount of compensation from the date of
profession of land and the thereafter interest, @
15% p.a., till the date of payment. However, the
amount paid if any shall be deducted, let a copy of
the judgement be sent to LAC for information and
for making arrangements to make deposit in court
within two months for today.”
7. Thereafter, a batch of Regular First Appeals were filed challenging the
judgements by the Reference Court, the lead matter being RFA No. 78/1992
titled ‘Richhpal Singh v. Union of India‘. In the said appeal, vide common
judgement dated 18th January, 2001, the Division Bench of this Court had
remanded the matter and observed as under:
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
“[…]The facts are apparent and need no further
elaboration Circumstances do suggest that the
claimants felt agitated by the action of the Collector
Land Acquisition in fixing market value at Rs
12,000/- Per bigha instead of and in place of Rs.
4.65 lakhs per acre. By the time the Collector made
and published his award Delhi Administration had
already come out with a Policy of fixing minimum
market value of the lands in entire Delhi @ Rs. 4.65
lakhs per acre. Claimants did not accept this
amount of Rs.4.65 lakhs per acre to be the fair
market value as on the date of publication of
notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. They did
make a mention of this fact in their petitions seeking
reference to the court saying that the Land
Acquisition Collector should not have announced
the award on 26.04.1990 at 4.00 PM. after the
policy of minimum price in Delhi was announced by
Lt. Governor on the same day. In any case Land
Acquisition Collector ought to have assessed the
market value at Rs.4.65 lakhs per acre. While
making this reference claimants further stated in
their reference application that fair market value of
the land as on the date of the notification under
Section 4 was not less than RS 1,000/- per sq. yard
and accordingly sought reference for determination
of the amount of compensation. It appears that
because of the agitation of the claimants the
Collector while forwarding references to the Court
incorporated a statement as an appendage to the
statement of facts that Administration had decided
to concede to the demands of the farmers to the
extent of Rs.4.65 lakhs per acre. Needless to add
that the demand of the farmers was not to the extent
of Rs. 4.65 lakhs per acre but it was to the extent of
Rs. 1,000/- per sq. yard.”
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 5 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
XXX
Consequently the appeals are allowed. Is each case
the impugned judgement of the reference court set
aside. As there has been no trial of the references by
the reference court inasmuch as no reply was filed
by the respondent no issues were framed and no
evidence was led. In these circumstances, there is
no option left except to direct remand of the
referring petitions for being decided in accordance
with law. Accordingly, the reference petitions are
remanded to the reference court for being decided
in accordance with law. Parties are directed to
appear before the District Judge on 26.02.2001 on
which date the District Judge will assign these
cases to one presiding officer who will ensure that
these cases are consolidated and decided by a
common judgment in accordance with law.
A certificate in accordance with Section 13 of the
Court Fees Act, 1870 will be issued to the appellants
in each cases enabling them to seek refund of the
amount of court fee paid on the memorandum of
appeals in accordance with law.”
8. Subsequently, the Reference Court, by a common judgment dated 28th
February, 2005 in LAC No. 14/2001 and connected matters had reassessed
the market value of the land at Rs. 4,65,000/- per acre. The relief granted by
the Reference Court is as under:
”
10. RELIEF: In view of findings on issue no. 1 &
1A above the petitioners are entitled to
compensation only @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre as per
the statement annexed with the reference petitions
conceding the demand for payment @ Rs. 4.65 lacs
per acre. The petitioners are accordingly entitled to
30% solatium on the market value of land fixed at
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 6 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
Rs.4.65 lacs per acre. Petitioners shall be further
entitled to additional amount of 12% on the market
value fixed in this case u/s 23-1(A) of the Act from
the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act to the date of
dis-possession or award whichever is earlier.
Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the
market value of the land fixed by this Court u/s 28
of the Act at 9% per annum from the date of award
or dis-possession whichever is earlier till the expiry
of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till
payment.
Petitioners are further entitled to interest on
solatium and additional amount in terms of
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court entitled Sunder vs
UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. While making
the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct
the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid
any duplication…”
9. The said judgement dated 28th February, 2005 has also been upheld by
this Court vide final judgment dated 27th April, 2006 in L.A.Appeal.No.
362/2005 and connected matters, wherein the Court has observed as under:
“11. The amount of compensation awarded by
the Collector @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre is in
accordance with the policy of the government and
in any case the reference court cannot interfere
with the order of the Collector to reduce the
compensation awarded by the Collector. The
amount awarded by the Collector can also be
justified with reference to the evidence led by the
claimants themselves before the Collector. During
the pendency of the proceedings before the
Collector, the Union of India had produced 9 sale
deeds which were registered during the year 1988
on the average of which the land was sold @
Rs.9,864.08 per bigha. The claimants (in the case ofW.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 7 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
Lakhan Singh) had also produced a sale deed dated
24.12.1983 wherein the land measuring about 1
bigha formed part of Khasra No. 107/3 was sold for
a sum of Rs. 49,000/- in Village Jatpur. Calculated
on this basis the value of the land would be Rs.
2,03,840/- per acre as in the year 1983. Even if a
reasonable increase is given for the period 1983 to
1989 (the year of notification of the land in
question) still the reasonable fair market value of
the land would fall below the amount awarded by
the Collector. We are of the considered view that
the compensation awarded by the Collector to the
claimants and as affirmed by the Reference Court
is the fair, reasonable market value of the land on
the date of the notification. The reference court
has neither fallen in error of law or appreciation
of evidence in determining the market value of the
land in question. In our opinion, the present
appeals and even the reference petition filed by the
claimants before the reference court is a case of
‘no evidence’ in support of their claims. The
claimants have miserably failed to discharge their
onus before the Reference Court, thus, we find no
merit in these writ petitions. The same are
accordingly dismissed, while leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.”
10. Pertinently, the said judgment dated 27th April, 2006 has not been
challenged by the Petitioners, so the same has acquired finality and the final
amount of compensation came to be fixed at Rs. 4,65,000/- per acre.
11. In the meantime, in respect of lands notified for acquisition in the area
of Jasola, a judgment came to be passed in RFA 416/1986 titled ‘Ram
Chander and Ors. v. Union of India‘ and connected matters, wherein the
market value of the land was fixed at Rs. 2,240/- per square yard, along with
statutory benefits. The relevant portion of the said judgment dated 19th
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 8 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
October, 2001 is set out below:
“[…]
In view of the above, the appeals are allowed with
proportionate costs holding the claimants entitled
to compensation at the rate of Rs. 2240/- per sq.
yard. Over and above the amount of compensation,
the appellants will be paid solatium at the rate of
30% and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period
of one year from the date of Collector taking
possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till
date of payment. Interest will also be paid to the
claimants/appellants on solatium in view of the
decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.
6271/98 (Sunder v. Union of India) and other
connected appeals decided on 19.09.2001.”
12. The aforesaid judgment dated 19th October, 2001 of the Division Bench
was upheld by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 20th April, 2022 titled
Sh. Ram Chander (Dead) Through LRs v. Union of India, [2022] 17 SCR
614.
13. On the basis of the judgment in Sh. Ram Chander (Dead) Through
LRs (Supra), the submission of Mr. Vinay Kumar Khanna, ld. Counsel for
the Petitioners is that since Jaitpur and Jasola are situated in close
geographical proximity to each other, the compensation amount for the
acquired lands cannot be different. It is his submission that the Petitioners are
entitled to enhanced compensation.
14. Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners has also placed reliance upon
the decision of Supreme Court in Andanayya & Ors. v. Deputy Chief
Engineer & Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 482, wherein the Supreme Court had
observed that re-determination of compensation can be sought, even if an
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 9 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
earlier reference was filed before the Reference Court. In this regard, ld.
Counsel has relied upon paragraph 27 of the said judgement.
15. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, ld. Counsel for LAC
submits that in Andanayya & Ors.(Supra), initially, the acquisition of land
was challenged, the compensation amount was fixed, the matter was
remanded and compensation was determined a second time.
16. Additionally, ld. Standing Counsel for LAC also submits that the
determination of compensation at Rs. 4,65,000/- per acre in the present case,
was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the same
cannot be sought to be reopened in a tangential manner by relying upon a
determination of compensation in respect of acquired land in Jasola.
17. Further, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, ld. Counsel for LAC also submits
that the decision in Andanayya (supra) is distinguishable from the present
case, as the said case was concerned with Section 28-A of the Act and the
facts are different from the present case.
18. The Court has considered the matter. Insofar as the Petitioners are
concerned, the initial determination of compensation was Rs. 12,000/- per
bigha along with certain statutory benefits. This was challenged before the
Reference Court and the same came to be enhanced to Rs. 4,65,000/- per acre,
along with statutory benefits.
19. This second determination of compensation was made way back in
1992 and reaffirmed in 2005, and thereafter upheld in 2006. More than twenty
years have passed since the compensation amount was determined and, in
fact, the said amount may have been released to most of the landowners. At
this stage, after twenty years, it would be impermissible for the Petitioners to
seek re-determination of compensation on the basis of the decision in
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 10 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
Andanayya (supra).
20. In Andanayya (supra), the facts itself record that the initial
determination of compensation was pending in a challenge by one set of
landowners and thereafter the second set of landowners had sought
enhancement of compensation by a separate application under Section 28-A
of the Act.
21. The relevant paragraphs setting out the factual matrix in Andanayya
(supra) are set out below:
“[…]
2. The appellants in the present appeals are the
landowners who have lost their land in the
acquisition proceedings. They are aggrieved by the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court of Karnataka, wherein the second
application filed by them before the Collector,
seeking re-determination of compensation, has been
rejected. The appellants had earlier sought re-
determination of compensation on the basis of the
award of the Reference Court and now seek further
re-determination on parity with similarly placed
landowners, in whose favor the High Court was
pleased to pass an enhanced award.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India (ASG), as well as the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
Documents filed, judgments relied upon, and the
written submissions have been perused and duly
taken on record.
4. Lands situated at Mavanoor Village, Hubballi
Taluk, were acquired for the construction of theW.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 11 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
Hubballi-Ankola Broad Gauge Line. On
18.04.2002, a preliminary notification was issued
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). On
31.03.2003, respondent No. 2, who is the Land
Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the
LAO”), passed an award under Section 11 of the Act,
fixing compensation at Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Being
dissatisfied with the amount awarded, some
landowners sought a reference under Section 18 of
the Act. The Reference Court awarded an enhanced
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre as compensation, vide
judgment dated 17.11.2006.
5. The appellants, who did not seek a reference,
filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act
on 01.02.2007, within 90 days from the date of the
award of the Reference Court, seeking re-
determination of their compensation based upon
the award of the Reference Court in LAC Nos. 1-
5/2003. During the pendency of the said
application, appeals were filed before the High
Court by some of the landowners, as well as by
respondent No. 2, seeking enhancement and
reduction of compensation, respectively. After the
appeals filed by respondent No. 2 were dismissed
by the High Court, vide order dated 06.08.2012, the
first application filed by the appellants under
Section 28-A of the Act was allowed on 02.04.2013,
and their compensation was re-determined on the
basis of the award of the Reference Court, even
though the appeals filed by the landowners were
still pending and came to be allowed by the High
Court only on 22.07.2013, further enhancing the
compensation to Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre.
6. Upon receipt of knowledge of the award passed
by the High Court, the appellants filed anotherW.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 12 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
application under Section 28-A of the Act on
25.11.2013, seeking re-determination of
compensation on the basis of the enhanced award
passed by the High Court in MFA No. 3289/2007
and MFA No. 3291/2007 dated 22.07.2013,
presumably within the period of limitation, which
is to be computed by excluding the time requisite
for obtaining a copy of the award. In any case, the
issue of limitation in filing the said application is not
a matter of concern, before us, in the present
appeals.
7. The second application made under Section 28-
A of the Act was rejected by respondent No. 2, vide
order dated 30.11.2013, on the ground that the
appellants had already accepted the earlier
compensation on 02.04.2013, as enhanced by the
Reference Court and, that, they did not bring the
pendency of the appeals before the High Court
challenging the award of the Reference Court to
the notice of the competent authority, even though
one set of appeals was filed by respondent No. 2
itself. It is also observed that in the said order
passed by respondent No. 2, there is no indication of
any delay on the part of the appellants in filing the
second application, particularly, in light of the
proviso to Section 28-A(1) of the Act. ”
22. The decision in Andanayya (supra) has to be looked at in the context
where the re-determination of compensation was actually pending before the
competent authority and the appeals which were filed were also pending
before the High Court.
23. Under these circumstances, the facts in Andanayya (supra) and the
present cases are completely distinguishable. In the present cases, the re-
determination of compensation at Rs. 4,65,000/- per acre along with other
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 13 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
statutory benefits has already attained finality vide the judgement dated 27th
April, 2006, and the same cannot be sought to be re-opened in this manner,
on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Andanayya (supra).
24. Moreover, the judgement in Sh. Ram Chander (Dead) Through LRs
(Supra) relating to land acquired in Jasola, and in the present cases, are on
different facts. There cannot be any underlying commonality that can be
claimed for re-determination of compensation in respect of the present land
in village Jaitpur and the land which was acquired in the Jasola area.
25. Under these circumstances, if such a re-opening of compensation for
acquired land is allowed in this manner, there would never be any finality to
determination of compensation and this could lead to enormous uncertainty,
especially when lands are acquired for public purposes.
26. It is accordingly held that the petitions are without merit and are
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MARCH 30, 2026/b/sm
W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & connected matters Page 14 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2026 at 20:59:09
[ad_1]
Source link
