Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Sh. S.S. Aggarwal & Ors on 14 July, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 16.04.2026
Date of decision: 14.07.2026
Uploaded on: 14.07.2026
+ LA.APP. 497/2023, CM APPL. 50843/2023
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Rihtang
Kumar, Mr. Anil Pandey, Mr.
Akshay Vaid and Mr. Shailender
Mishra, Advs. for UOI.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel for DDA.
versus
SH. S.S. AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Inder Singh, Adv. for R-1 to 4.
WITH
+ LA.APP. 496/2023, CM APPL. 50767/2023
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Rihtang
Kumar, Mr. Anil Pandey, Mr.
Akshay Vaid and Mr. Shailender
Mishra, Advs. for UOI.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel for DDA.
versus
OM PRAKASH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Inder Singh, Adv.
WITH
+ LA.APP. 546/2023
SHYAM SUNDER AGGARWAL AND ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Inder Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAC/ADM (SOUTH EAST) AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 1 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran
Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.
Mohd. Sueb Akhtar and Ms. Joohu
Kumari, Advs. for R-1/ UOI.
Mr. Atul Nagarajan and Mr. Uddhav
Tandon, Advs.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel for DDA.
AND
+ LA.APP. 547/2023
OM PRAKASH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Inder Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran
Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.
Mohd. Sueb Akhtar and Ms. Joohu
Kumari, Advs. for R-1/ UOI.
Mr. Atul Nagarajan and Mr. Uddhav
Tandon, Advs.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
JUDGMENT
SHAIL JAIN, J.
1. All these appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
impugn the judgment, order and decree dated 24.05.2023 of Additional
District Judge-01, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘the
Reference Court’), passed in LAC No. 3/20 (Old No. 01/96), being a
Reference under Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Acquisition Act,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 2 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
1894(hereinafter ‘the Act’) with respect to LAC Award No. 10/95-96
pertaining to land measuring 12 Bighas and 11 Biswas, comprised in Khasra
Nos. 112 (6-6) and 564/167 (6-5), in the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola,
New Delhi.
2. The other connected matter being the case of Om Prakash viz
LA.APP. 547/2023 therein the subject property/land is 8 Bighas and 5
Biswas falling in Khasra no. 133 situated in Revenue Estate of Village
Jasola.
3. LA.APP. 497/2023 and LA.APP. 496/2023 have been preferred by
the Union of India, seeking setting aside/reduction of the enhanced
compensation awarded by the Reference Court, while LA.APP. 546/2023
and LA.APP. 547/2023 have been preferred by Sh. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal
& Ors. and Sh. Om Prakash respectively i.e., by the assignees/claimants
seeking further enhancement of the compensation awarded.
4. By the Impugned Judgment the learned Reference Court enhanced the
market value of the acquired land from Rs.96,875/- per Bigha (Rs.96.80 per
sq. yard), which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector [hereinafter
referred to as “LAC”] to Rs.7390/- per sq. yards for the acquired land. The
learned Reference Court also granted 30% solatium on the value of the land.
In addition, it was directed that the Claimants are 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 annum from the date of
possession till the expiry of one year and thereafter @15% per annum.
5. Since the issues raised in the above captioned appeals are the same,
the above Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The
present Appeals were heard together with LA.APP. 497/2023 captioned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 3 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
Union of India v. S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. being argued as the lead matter
with the consent of the parties. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being
recorded from the lead matter captioned.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
6. The acquisition proceedings in the present case were initiated by the
issuance of Notifications dated 06.01.1995 under Sections 4 and 17 of the
Act in respect of land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola, New
Delhi, followed shortly thereafter by the Notification dated 10.01.1995 under
Section 6 of the Act, declaring the said land needed for the public purpose of
construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant under the planned development of
Delhi.
7. The land in question was originally recorded in the name of Sh. Budh
Singh S/o Sh. Doodha Ram. Upon his demise on 02.08.1994, the land stood
mutated in the names of his sons, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and
Sh. Pritam Singh. During the pendency of the acquisition proceedings and
prior to the passing of the Award, the original recorded owners of the subject
land vide three separate registered Assignment Deed(s), all dated
22.03.1995, executed before the Sub-Registrar-V, Mehrauli, Delhi assigned
all their right, title and interest in the compensation payable for the acquired
land to the Claimants/petitioners (the assignees), for a total consideration of
Rs. 5,40,000/-, paid by way of 18 separate cheques of Rs. 30,000/- each.
8. It is noteworthy to mention that the said assignment was brought to
the notice of the Land Acquisition Collector before disbursal of
compensation, and the assignees were accordingly recognised as the persons
entitled to receive compensation in place of the original owners.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 4 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
9. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No. 10/95-
96 dated 11.10.1995, assessing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.
96,875/- per bigha(Rs.96.80 per sq. yard), besides other statutory benefits
admissible under the Act.
10. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so awarded, the
assignees/claimants invoked their statutory right and filed a petition under
Section 18 of the Act, seeking a reference for enhancement of compensation.
The said reference was duly registered in 1996 as LAC No. 1/96 (with a
connected reference registered as LAC No. 2/96) before the court of the
learned Additional District Judge, Delhi (Reference Court).
11. Upon consideration of the evidence led before it, the Reference Court,
vide its judgment dated 29.09.1997, enhanced the market value of the
acquired land to Rs. 1,02,000/- per bigha(Rs.102 per sq. yard), placing
reliance primarily upon the sale deeds of March 1993 in respect of land in
Village Jasola itself, which had been tendered in evidence by the Union of
India.
12. Nevertheless, feeling aggrieved by the limited enhancement so
granted, the claimants carried the matter further in appeal to this Court by
way of RFA Nos. 114/1998 and 155/1998. This Court, vide its judgment
dated 21.02.2003, allowed the said appeals and substantially enhanced the
market value of the acquired land to Rs. 7,390/- per sq. yard, besides other
statutory benefits.
13. Being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 21.02.2003, the Union of
India and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) carried the matter to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 7301-7302/2003, Civil
Appeal No. 836/2004, and Civil Appeal Nos. 6264-6265/2011, all of which
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 5 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
were taken up and decided together vide judgment dated 02.08.2011 in DDA
v. S.S. Aggarwal & Ors., reported as 2011 (12) SCC 533. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, vide the said judgment, set aside both the judgment of this
Court dated 21.02.2003 and the judgment of the Reference Court dated
29.09.1997, remitting the matter to the Reference Court for fresh
determination, with certain specific directions.
14. The Supreme Court further observed that the assignees were alleged
to have kept the LAC, the Reference Court and the High Court in the dark
about the assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995, under which they had
purportedly purchased the right to receive compensation for a meagre sum
of Rs. 58/- per sq. yard, and that it was contended on behalf of the DDA that
the assignment deed(s), having been executed after the Section 4 notification,
were void as opposed to public policy under Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian
Contract Act and as defeating the object of Section 3 of the Delhi Lands
(Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. Holding that the said questions required
fresh adjudication, the Supreme Court set aside both the judgment dated
21.02.2003 of the High Court and the judgment dated 29.09.1997 of the
Reference Court.
15. The Supreme Court thereby, remitted the matter to the Reference
Court for fresh determination of the compensation payable to the landowners
and/or assignees, directing that the Reference Court shall:
(i) first decide the issue of locus standi of the assignees to claim
compensation;
(ii) if the assignees are held entitled to step into the shoes of the landowners,
consider the value of the land mentioned in the assignment deeds and decide
what compensation should be paid for the acquired land;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 6 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
(iii) afford both parties an opportunity to lead additional evidence in support
of their respective cases; and
(iv) permit the DDA to participate in the proceedings of the Reference Court
and raise all legally permissible objections to contest the claim of the
assignees. The relevant extract of the Supreme Court judgment is set out
below:
“20. In the result, the appeals are disposed of in the following
terms:
(i) The impugned judgment as also the one passed by the
Reference Court are set aside.
(ii) The matter is remitted to the Reference Court for fresh
determination of the compensation payable to the
landowners and/or the assignees. While doing so, the
Reference Court should first decide the issue of locus of the
assignees to claim compensation. If it is held that the
assignees are entitled to step into the shoes of the
landowners, then the Reference Court shall consider the
value of the land mentioned in the assignment deeds and
decide what compensation should be paid for the acquired
land.
(iii) The Reference Court shall give an opportunity to the
parties to lead additional evidence in support of their
respective cases.
(iv) In view of the law laid down in DDA v. Bhola Nath
Sharma [(2011) 2 SCC 54 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 344] , the
DDA shall be entitled to participate in the proceedings of the
Reference Court and raise objections against the claim made
by the assignees for payment of compensation. The DDA
shall also be entitled to raise all other legally permissible
objections to contest the claim of the assignees.”
16. Pursuant to the remand, the reference was registered afresh as LAC
No. 3/20 (Old No. 01/96), and the Reference Court framed the following
issues:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 7 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
“(1) Whether petitioner Sh. S.S. Aggarwal and others have
locus standi to file petition or claim compensation as
assignees (of landowners) in place of landowners? OPP;
(2) Whether the petitioners have stepped into the place of
landowners? OPP;
(3) What was the market value of land acquired on the date
of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on parties;
(4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of
market value of land, if so at what rate? OPP; and
(5) Relief.”
17. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the directions of the
Supreme Court, the Reference Court proceeded to record additional
evidence. The claimant examined six witnesses, including one of the
claimant as PW-1, the Record Keeper of the Office of the Sub-Registrar-V,
Mehrauli as PW-2, an official of the Land & Development Office as PW-3,
and officials from the Office of the LAC (South-East) and the Patwari of
Village Jasola as PW-4 to PW-6, who proved, inter alia, the assignment
deeds dated 22.03.1995, the LAC’s corrigendum and disbursement record,
the Notification dated 03.06.1966, the judgment dated 21.02.2003 in RFA
No. 114/1998, and the judgment dated 16.03.2005 in LAC No. 16/1999
(Kishan Lal’s case). UOI/DDA relied upon Award No. 10/95-96 but, despite
several opportunities, did not adduce evidence of comparable sale deeds, and
their evidence stood closed on 19.02.2019.
18. The Reference Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2023,
on Issues No. 1 and 2 (locus standi), held that the original recorded owners,
Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Pritam Singh, had, by
registered assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995, voluntarily and for
consideration transferred their rights to seek compensation to the petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 8 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
prior to passing of the Award dated 11.10.1995, and the said assignment was
duly brought to the notice of the LAC, who recorded statements of the
assignors and assignees and drew a corrigendum acknowledging the
assignment, and disbursed the original compensation to the assignees. It
further held that the assignors never sought cancellation of the assignment
deeds, and accordingly, the petitioners/assignees had validly stepped into the
shoes of the original landowners and possessed locus standi to claim
compensation.
19. On Issues No. 3 and 4 (market value and enhancement), the Reference
Court held that no contemporaneous sale deeds with respect to the acquired
land on the relevant date of notification (06.01.1995) were available and
therefore, applying progressive appreciation @ 12% p.a. from 1979 (per
Ram Chander’s case), the market value would work out to Rs. 13,118/- per
sq. yard, and applying cumulative appreciation @ 15% p.a., to approximately
Rs. 20,958/- per sq. yard, as on 06.01.1995, but, on the reasoning that such
escalation formulae are unsafe where the gap between the comparable
transaction and the date of notification exceeds 4 to 5 years, declined to adopt
either figure and instead, applying ‘reasonable guess work’ in the absence of
contemporaneous evidence (Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru Vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1979 SC 869), held that the rate of Rs.
7,390/- per sq. yard, earlier fixed for the very same Award No. 10/95-96 in
Kishan Lal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (LAC No. 16/1999, judgment
dated 16.03.2005), and at which compensation had already been disbursed
to the claimants therein without protest, represented the just and fair market
value of the acquired land as on 06.01.1995.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 9 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
20. Accordingly, the Reference Court held the petitioners entitled to
enhanced compensation @ Rs. 7,390/- per sq. yard, together with 30%
solatium under Section 23(2), additional amount @ 12% per annum under
Section 23(1A) from the date of the Section 4 notification to the date of
taking possession, and interest @ 9% per annum (and thereafter @ 15% per
annum) under Section 28 of the Act, besides other statutory benefits
admissible under Award No. 10/95-96.
21. Both, the Union of India as well as the assignees/claimants, are
dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2023, the Union of
India (LA.APP. 496/2023 & 497/2023), from the enhancement of
compensation from Rs. 96,875/- per bigha as awarded by the LAC to Rs.
7,390/- per sq. yard and the assignees/claimants (LA.APP. 546/2023 &
547/2023), from non-determination of compensation at the higher rate of Rs.
13,118/- to approximately Rs. 20,958/- per sq. yard, computed on the basis
of progressive/cumulative appreciation from the rate determined for Village
Jasola in Ram Chander’s case.
22. Hence, the present appeals.
SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES:
ON BEHALF OF UNION OF INDIA AND D.D.A. :
23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and the
Delhi Development Authority assailed the impugned judgment and award,
contending, at the outset, that the learned Reference Court erred in enhancing
the compensation awarded under Award No. 10/95-96. It was submitted that
the claimants had failed to discharge the burden cast upon them to establish
that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector did not
reflect the true market value of the acquired land. According to the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 10 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
counsel, no reliable or legally admissible evidence was produced to justify
any enhancement of compensation, and the findings of the Reference Court
on market value were founded upon conjecture and surmise rather than
cogent evidence.
24. It was further submitted that the learned Reference Court committed a
manifest error in mechanically adopting the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per square
yard as determined in Krishan Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (LAC
No. 16/1999). Elaborating upon the submission, learned counsel contended
that the determination in Kishan Lal(supra) was itself founded upon the
judgment dated 21.02.2003 rendered in RFA No. 114/1998, S.S. Aggarwal
v. Union of India & Ors., which subsequently came to be set aside by the
Supreme Court in DDA v. S.S. Aggarwal & Ors., reported as (2011) 12 SCC
533. It was argued that once the very foundation of the determination stood
removed, the Reference Court could not have relied upon the same rate
without undertaking an independent determination of market value on the
basis of the evidence available on record after remand. It was submitted that
the Reference Court was required to independently assess the comparability
and market value of the acquired land and could not have adopted the rate
determined in another case as a matter of course.
25. Learned counsel further contended that Award No. 10/95-96 itself was
founded upon contemporaneous sale transactions pertaining to Village
Jasola and, therefore, constituted the best available evidence of the prevailing
market value. It was submitted that, despite this, the claimants failed to
produce any comparable sale deeds or other reliable evidence pertaining to
the relevant period to establish a higher market value. Consequently, the
Reference Court had no valid basis to discard the determination made by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 11 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
Land Acquisition Collector or to enhance the compensation awarded
thereunder.
26. Learned counsel next referred to the observations and directions
issued by the Supreme Court while remanding the matter. It was submitted
that the assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995, which reflected a consideration
of Rs. 5,40,000/- for the entire landholding, translating to approximately Rs.
58/- per square yard, constituted a relevant and contemporaneous piece of
evidence and ought to have been accorded due weight while assessing the
market value of the acquired land.
27. Proceeding further, learned counsel submitted that the assignees
lacked the requisite locus standi to maintain the claim for compensation or
enhancement thereof. It was argued that after the issuance of the notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, transfers of land and rights
therein stood expressly prohibited under Section 3 of the Delhi Lands
(Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. Consequently, the assignment deeds
relied upon by the claimants were void and incapable of conferring any
enforceable right upon the assignees to seek compensation or enhancement
thereof.
28. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
argued that the assignment deeds were otherwise void as being opposed to
public policy. It was submitted that while the original landowners had
purportedly assigned their rights for a consideration working out to
approximately Rs. 58/- per square yard, the assignees subsequently sought
compensation at rates exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per square yard. Reliance was
placed upon the decisions in Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz
Jung, Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde, Central
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 12 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and
Jayamma v. Maria Bai to contend that transactions of such nature, being
contrary to public policy, were unenforceable in law.
29. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Reference Court
adopted a uniform rate of compensation without examining the specific
location, nature, utility and other distinguishing characteristics of the
acquired parcels. It was contended that the acquired land could not be treated
as homogeneous for the purpose of valuation and that the Court was required
to assess the individual characteristics of the acquired parcels before
determining compensation.
30. It was further argued that the acquired land continued to be
agricultural in nature as on the date of issuance of the notification under
Section 4 and had not undergone any change in its character. Accordingly, it
was submitted that the land could not have been valued on the basis of its
alleged urban characteristics or future developmental potential in the absence
of reliable evidence supporting such a conclusion.
31. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the acquisition in question had
been undertaken for a public purpose, namely the establishment of a Sewage
Treatment Plant, and that any unwarranted enhancement of compensation
would impose an avoidable burden upon the public exchequer. On the
aforesaid grounds, it was urged that the impugned judgment and award be
set aside and the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition
Collector be restored.
ON BEHALF OF ASSIGNEE(s)/CLAIMANTS:
32. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
assignees/claimants supported the finding of the Reference Court on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 13 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
issue of locus standi and submitted that the same is borne out from the
unrebutted documentary and oral evidence available on record.
33. Learned Senior Counsel addressed the Court first on the preliminary
issue of the validity of the assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995 and the
consequent locus standi of the assignees to prosecute these appeals and to
claim compensation, including enhanced compensation, in respect of the
acquired land.
34. It was submitted at the threshold that the assignment deeds were
executed prior to the making of Award No. 10/95-96 and were duly brought
to the notice of the Land Acquisition Collector before disbursement of
compensation. Learned Senior Counsel emphasised that separate statements
of the assignors and assignees were recorded by the Land Acquisition
Collector, a corrigendum acknowledging the assignment was issued by the
Collector, and the compensation under the original award was disbursed
directly to the assignees. It was pointed out that none of the assignors has at
any stage disputed, challenged, or sought to set aside the assignment deeds,
and the acquiring authority having itself acted upon the deeds and made
disbursement thereunder cannot now be permitted to turn around and impugn
their validity.
35. Finally on this issue, it was submitted that mere inadequacy of
consideration cannot by itself operate to invalidate a registered instrument,
particularly in a case where the executants of the deed have at no stage
disputed the transaction and where the acquiring authority has itself acted
upon the deed and disbursed compensation in favour of the assignees. It was
contended that the argument of the Union of India based on alleged
inadequacy of consideration is not available to a stranger to the transaction,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 14 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
and in any event does not displace the legal effect of a registered and
unimpeached deed.
36. Learned Senior Counsel next contended that the right transferred
under the assignment deeds was not a mere right to sue which is non-
assignable under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but the
substantive statutory right to receive and realise compensation, including
enhanced compensation, in respect of the acquired land. It was argued that
such a right is in the nature of an actionable claim and is freely assignable in
law. Reliance was placed upon the decisions in Laxmi Narain v. Union of
India, Sh. Chandan & Ors. v. Union of India, K.D. Sawhney & Ors. v.
Union of India and Mahavir Goel v. Union of India in support of the
proposition that the right to receive compensation under the Land
Acquisition Act is a transferable and heritable right and does not partake of
the character of a right to sue.
37. Developing the submission, learned Senior Counsel contended that
Section 3 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 has no
application to the present transaction. It was argued that Section 3 operates
only against the purported transfer of acquired land itself, and has no bearing
upon the independent assignment of a statutory right to compensation. The
assignment deeds did not purport to transfer the land or any proprietary
interest therein, as the land having already vested in the Government, but
operated only to transfer the personal statutory right to receive compensation
money. The challenge mounted by the Union of India was characterised as
proceeding on an erroneous conflation of the two distinct concepts of a
transfer of land and an assignment of a compensation claim.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 15 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
38. Turning to the question of market value, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the Reference Court, while correct in principle in rejecting the
valuation adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector and in recognising the
substantial development potential of the acquired land, fell into manifest
error in ultimately determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per
square yard. It was submitted that the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per square yard
represented the minimum compensation already payable for similarly
situated land covered by the same award having been determined in Kishan
Lal(supra) in respect of the same acquisition and the same village and
constituted only the floor below which compensation could not fall, and not
a ceiling upon further enhancement.
39. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the acquired land forms part
of Village Jasola, one of the most developed and urbanised revenue estates
in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It was pointed out that the entire
revenue estate stood fully urbanised as far back as 03.06.1966, and that,
therefore, on the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act on 06.01.1995, the acquired land could not have been
treated or valued as a purely agricultural holding.
40. It was further submitted that the acquired land is situated on the main
Mathura Road corridor and is surrounded by fully developed colonies,
institutions and civic infrastructure, including Sarita Vihar, Kalindi Kunj,
New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh, Ashram, Jamia Millia Islamia, Holy
Family Hospital, Apollo Hospital and other established urban
establishments. The availability of roads, electricity, water supply,
educational institutions, medical facilities and commercial establishments in
the immediate vicinity clearly establishes the immense residential,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 16 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
commercial and institutional potential of the acquired land. Reliance was
placed upon the decisions in Major General Kapil Mehra & Ors. v. Union
of India, LA. APP. 149/20007 and State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR
2001 SC 2532 to the effect that the potentiality of land is a relevant and
determinative factor in the assessment of market value, and that the actual
user of land on the date of notification cannot be treated as conclusive of its
true value.
41. The Reference Court itself recorded a categorical finding that the land
possessed substantial future potential and that the principle of valuation
could not be restricted to its agricultural use. Having accepted the existence
of such development potential, the Reference Court could not have
simultaneously adopted a rate which failed to reflect the true market value
of the land as on the date of notification. The contradiction is, in the
submission of the claimants, self-evident and renders the ultimate
determination unsustainable.
42. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the most reliable benchmark
available on record is the judgment of this Court in Ram Chander & Ors. v.
Union of India (RFA No. 416/1986), wherein the market value of land
situated in the same revenue estate, namely Village Jasola, was determined
at Rs. 2,240/- per square yard as on 15.06.1979. That determination has
attained finality and constitutes the best available exemplar for assessing the
market value of similarly situated land. It was argued that the Reference
Court was therefore in error in not treating the Ram Chander judgment as the
primary and most reliable comparable, and in not proceeding to determine
the market value on the basis of appreciation therefrom.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 17 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
43. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Reference Court itself, in
paragraph 53 of the impugned judgment, recorded a finding that by applying
progressive appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum from 15.06.1979 to
06.01.1995 a period of approximately fifteen and a half years the market
value would work out to Rs. 13,118/- per square yard. It was argued that
once the Reference Court arrived at such a figure on the basis of a judicially
recognised exemplar pertaining to the same village, there was no legal basis
to deny the claimants the benefit thereof. The subsequent abandonment of
this self-computed figure without any independent evidentiary basis is
characterised as an error apparent on the face of the record.
44. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, it was argued that the
Reference Court in paragraphs 81 and 84 of the impugned judgment also
examined the principle of cumulative appreciation at the rate of 15% per
annum and itself calculated that the market value would work out to
approximately Rs. 20,958/- per square yard as on the date of the Section 4
notification. It was submitted that the Reference Court thus accepted the
correctness of the mathematical exercise but inexplicably declined to apply
the same, solely on the ground that the period between the exemplar and the
acquisition was lengthy reasoning which is, it was argued, entirely without
legal foundation.
45. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned judgment
accordingly contains an inherent contradiction: on the one hand, the
Reference Court accepted that application of progressive appreciation would
yield a value of Rs. 13,118/- per square yard and that cumulative appreciation
would yield a value of approximately Rs. 20,958/- per square yard; on the
other hand, the Court abruptly discarded both figures and reverted to the rate
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 18 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
of Rs. 7,390/- per square yard without any independent evidentiary basis. It
was submitted that once the Court had before it a judicially recognised
exemplar pertaining to the same village and had itself computed the resultant
market value on two distinct methods, there was no justification for
abandoning that exercise midway and reverting to an inferior figure
determined in a separate set of proceedings.
46. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the reasoning adopted by the
Reference Court in discarding the appreciation-based figures is directly
contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Reliance
was placed upon ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, (2008) 14
SCC 745, Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2015) 15 SCC 200 and
Madhusudan Kabra v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 1 SCC 140 wherein it
has been consistently held that cumulative appreciation is a more realistic
and accurate method of determining market value where there is a substantial
time gap between the exemplar and the date of the acquisition notification,
and that it is impermissible to reject such a method on the sole ground of the
length of the intervening period.
47. Additionally, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, AIR 2012 SC 2721,
for the proposition that where more than one exemplar is available on record,
the landowner is entitled to the benefit of the highest comparable value that
the evidence legitimately supports. It was submitted that in the present case,
the Reference Court had before it a clearly superior exemplar in the Ram
Chander judgment relating to the same revenue estate, and the settled
principle entitled the claimants to the benefit of the higher value computed
therefrom.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 19 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
48. Learned Senior Counsel accordingly concluded the submissions on
behalf of the claimants/assignees as follows. First, the appeals preferred by
the Union of India challenging the validity of the assignment deeds and the
locus standi of the assignees deserve to be dismissed in their entirety, the
impugned judgment having correctly upheld the right of the assignees to
claim compensation. Second, the appeals preferred by the
claimants/assignees deserve to be allowed, and compensation ought to be
enhanced beyond the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per square yard determined by the
Reference Court. Third, the market value ought to be determined at not less
than Rs. 13,118/- per square yard on the basis of progressive appreciation
from the Ram Chander exemplar and, in the alternative, at approximately
Rs. 20,958/- per square yard on the basis of cumulative appreciation. Fourth,
since the claimants had restricted their claim before the Reference Court to
Rs. 10,000/- per square yard, it was submitted that compensation be fixed at
the said rate, together with all consequential statutory benefits under the
Land Acquisition Act including solatium, additional market value, and
interest.
QUESTIONS ARISING FOR DETERMINATION :
49. The decision in these connected appeals thus turns on :
(i) whether the assignees/Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in LA.APP. 497/2023
(and the corresponding claimants in LA.APP. 496/2023) possess locus
standi to claim/receive compensation under the assignment deeds dated
22.03.1995, having regard to Section 3 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions
on Transfer) Act, 1972 and Section 6(e) of Transfer of Property Act
1882; andSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 20 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
(ii) if so, what is the just market value of the acquired land as on
06.01.1995 whether the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per sq. yard adopted by the
Reference Court (being the rate fixed in Kishan Lal ‘s case for the same
Award No. 10/95-96), or the higher rate of Rs. 13,118/- to Rs. 20,958/-
per sq. yard claimed by the assignees on the basis of appreciation from
the rate fixed for Village Jasola in Ram Chander’s case, or the original
rate of Rs. 96,875/- per bigha as awarded by the LAC, represents the
correct measure of compensation.
DISCUSSION AND FINDING(S):
50. Having bestowed due consideration to the rival submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties, scrutinised the record of the case, and examined the
impugned award as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of the
parties, this Court proceeds to determine the issues framed herein. The
controversy essentially revolves around the locus and entitlement of the
assignees to pursue the claim for compensation on the basis of the registered
Assignment Deeds dated 22.03.1995; the legality and enforceability of the
said Assignment Deeds in light of the provisions of the Delhi Lands
(Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 and the objections founded thereon; and
the correctness of the market value adopted by the Reference Court while
determining compensation for the acquired land, which determination stands
assailed by both sides for opposite reasons.
51. Before entering upon the merits of each of the aforesaid questions, it
is necessary to observe at the threshold that the present appeals arise in an
unusual procedural setting. The matter comes before this Court not for the
first time but after a full round of litigation culminating in a remand by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 02.08.2011 in DDA v. S.S.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 21 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
Aggarwal & Ors. [(2011) 12 SCC 533], by which both the earlier judgment
of this Court dated 21.02.2003 and the judgment of the Reference Court
dated 29.09.1997 stood set aside, and the Reference Court was directed to
re-examine, on the basis of fresh evidence, the twin issues of the locus of the
assignees and the market value of the acquired land. It is, therefore,
imperative that the findings now recorded by this Court are not merely a
reassessment of the evidence led in the original reference proceedings but a
fresh and independent determination on the evidence adduced post-remand,
untethered by any pre-existing determination of either market value or locus.
52. This Court proposes to take up the issue of locus standi of the
assignees as the first and threshold question, for the reason that if the
Assignment Deeds dated 22.03.1995 are found to be void or otherwise
incapable of conferring any enforceable right upon the assignees to claim
compensation, the question of market value would not arise for their benefit
at all. Conversely, if the assignees are held to have validly stepped into the
shoes of the original landowners, this Court would then proceed to examine
whether the Reference Court adopted the correct measure of compensation,
and whether the evidence on record justifies the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per square
yard awarded thereunder, or warrants any revision thereof. The discussion
hereunder is structured accordingly.
ISSUE NO I: VALIDITY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED(S) AND
LOCUS STANDI OF THE ASSIGNEES
53. Before dwelling into the legality of assignment deed(s) what is more
significant to deal is whether at all the assignees and the assignors were
legally competent to execute the impugned deed(s). It is not a disputed
question of fact that the land in question in the present petition i.e. land ad-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 22 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
measuring 12 Bighas and 11 Biswas falling in Khasra no. 112 (6-6), 564/167
(6-5) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola was originally owned
by Sh. Budh Singh S/o Sh. Doodha Ram in terms of original Khatauni of
Village Jasola for the year 1982-83, which stands duly proved by PW-6 i.e.
Halka Patwari of Village Jasola as Ex. PW 6/1 .
54. Sh. Budh Singh, the original land owner reportedly expired on
02.08.1994 and the factum of his demise was duly recorded in Naksha Aalif
of Village Jasola. The land in question as mentioned above thereafter, stood
mutated in the name of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh.
Pritam Singh, all sons of Late Sh. Budh Singh. The factum of mutation got
duly recorded in the Khatauni of Village Jasola thereafter vide separate
noting of Naib Office Kanoongo dated 31.01.1995. The same was also
brought on record by PW-5 i.e. Kanoongo from the Office of LAC South-
East, which reflected Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Pritam
Singh as the owners of land in question.
55. The aforesaid documents thus, clearly reflect that prior to acquisition
of land in question by the Government, it was owned by Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Pritam Singh, all sons of Late Sh. Budh Singh.
Nonetheless, the ownership of previous land owners with respect to the
acquired land is not even disputed by the Union of India/DDA herein.
56. Now, coming to the principal question which falls for consideration
viz, whether the Assignment Deed dated 22.03.1995 rendered void by virtue
of Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972
and whether the said transaction is further hit by Section 6(e) of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 23 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
57. The counsel for U.O.I. contends that once notifications under Section
4 read with Section 17 of the Act were issued on 06.01.1995 and declaration
under Section 6 followed on 10.01.1995, no right emanating from the
acquired property could thereafter be transferred. It is also submitted that the
Assignment Deed(s), though ostensibly couched as an assignment of
compensation rights, is in substance a transfer of rights flowing from the
acquired land and consequently falls within the prohibition contained in
Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972.
58. The U.O.I. has further contended that what has been assigned is
merely the right to pursue compensation proceedings and enhancement
proceedings and, therefore, the transaction is hit by Section 6(e) of the
Transfer of Property Act as constituting transfer of a mere right to sue.
59. The aforesaid submissions require close scrutiny. Therefore, in order
to deal with such an issue it is apposite to refer to the factual matrix as well
as the statutory provisions dealing with the issue at hand.
60. At the outset, it is necessary to notice the undisputed chronology of
events. Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act was
issued on 06.01.1995. Thereafter, Declaration under Section 6 followed on
10.01.1995; pursuant to which possession of the acquired land was
admittedly taken by the Government on 22.02.1995. The Assignment
Deed(s) came to be executed thereafter on 22.03.1995 i.e after the date of
transferring the possession to the government.
61. The significance of these dates cannot be overstated as the controversy
before this Court is not one concerning a transfer effected after issuance of a
Section 4 notification but after vesting. Nor is it a case where a subsequent
purchaser seeks to assert title in the acquired land or challenge acquisition
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 24 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
proceedings. The Assignment Deed(s) came into existence after possession
had already been taken by the D.D.A. Consequently, by the date of execution
of the Assignment Deed(s), the assignors no longer possessed any subsisting
proprietary estate in the acquired land.
62. The legal consequence of taking possession under the Land
Acquisition Act is well settled. Upon possession being taken, the acquired
land vests absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances and the
erstwhile owner ceases to retain any transferable interest in the land. What
survives is the statutory entitlement to receive compensation and, where
permissible, enhanced compensation.
63. Examined in this backdrop, the Assignment Deed(s) leaves little room
for doubt. The deed(s) itself records that possession had already been taken
by the Government on 22.02.1995 and repeatedly refers to transfer of rights
relating to compensation, enhancement, references, revisions and appeals.
Significantly, it neither purports to transfer possession or ownership in the
acquired land nor reserves any proprietary interest therein. Read as a whole,
the instrument demonstrates that the parties proceeded on the footing that the
land had already vested in the State and that the only surviving right capable
of transfer was the entitlement to compensation.
64. The contention of the U.O.I. that compensation is merely a substitute
for land and, therefore, assignment of compensation rights must be treated
as transfer of the land itself, overlooks the settled distinction between
ownership of acquired land and the statutory right to receive compensation.
Once acquisition culminates in vesting and dispossession, the proprietary
relationship with the land stands extinguished and what survives is a
monetary entitlement created by statute. The assignees herein do not assert
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 25 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
title to the land, challenge the acquisition, dispute vesting, or seek restoration
of possession. Their claim is confined solely to compensation and its
enhancement. Indeed, after possession had been taken on 22.02.1995, the
assignors themselves retained no estate in the land capable of transfer;
consequently, what was assigned on 22.03.1995 could only be the
compensation entitlement.
65. The controversy must therefore be examined through the lens of the
authorities dealing specifically with assignment of compensation rights.
66. In Laxmi Narain v. Union of India & Anr., RFA No. 140/1972
decided on 24.11.1977, the Division Bench of this Court rejected the
contention that assignment of compensation rights amounted to transfer of a
mere right to sue and held:
“…….The claim for enhancement of compensation was
pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi when the
document dated December 8, 1971 was executed. Ram Devi
was competent to transfer her interest, whatever it may have
been to the appellants. She did so. On the Additional District
Judge pronouncing his award judgment, the appellants,
having already purchased the right to claim compensation,
filed and were competent to file the appeal. The case does not
fall under clause (e) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property
Act which says that mere right to sue cannot be transferred.
What was transferred was not a right to sue but to obtain
compensation or enhancement thereof in accordance with the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act …. ”
67. The same principle was reaffirmed by another Division Bench of this
Court in Sh. Chandan & Ors. v. Union of India, CM No. 2096/1995 in RFA
No. 237/1992 decided on 07.11.1997, while relying upon the judgment of
Laxmi Narain (Supra). The Court observed:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 26 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
“…..Thus in case of an assignment, creation or devolution of
any interest during the pendency of litigation the person upon
whom such an interest has come or devolved can seek leave
of the Court for substitution. Right to receive compensation
accrued to the appellants when their lands were acquired
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. On award
being made, the compensation was received by them under
protest and they sought reference for enhancement.
Enhancement was allowed. For further enhancement the
instant appeal has been preferred. During the pendency of
appeal, the appellants admittedly have, for valuable
consideration transferred their rights in favour of the
applicants to receive and recover the enhanced amount of
compensation. Such a right, which is claimed is not at all
covered by clauses (a) and (e) of Section 6 of Transfer of
Property Act.
Clause (a) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act
prohibits transfer of the chance of an heir-apparent
succeeding to an estate, the chance of a relation obtaining a
legacy on death of kinsman, or any other mere possibility of
a like nature. The possibilities referred to in this clause are
bare or naked possibilities and not possibilities coupled with
an interest. Section 5 of the Act defines ‘transfer of property.
A transfer of property may take place not only in the present
but also in the future. Some interest in the property are future.
Right to receive compensation is statutory, which crystallized
on acquisition of property. Right to claim enhancement in
compensation is also statutorily conferred It is this right,
which has been assigned No doubt that enhancement in
compensation is a mere possibility but that possibility is
coupled with an interest to receive and realize the
compensation. Clause (e) of section 6 of the Act refers to a
mere right to sue, transfer of which is also prohibited. But
what has been transferred is not a bare right to sue but right
to receive and realize the enhanced compensation.”
68. The aforesaid principle was subsequently approved by a co-ordinate
bench of this court in EX. F.A. 25/2014 captioned as Sadhna Gupta v. Shish
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 27 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
Pal, wherein it was reiterated that an assignee acquires a substantive
monetary entitlement and not merely a right to institute proceedings.
Litigation is merely the mechanism through which the entitlement is
quantified and realised.
69. Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits transfer of a
mere right to sue and is intended to prevent trafficking in bare causes of
action. The provision does not prohibit transfer of an existing beneficial
interest merely because its quantification or enforcement may require
adjudication. Where litigation itself is the subject matter of transfer, the
prohibition applies; where litigation is only the means of enforcing an
already existing right, it does not.
70. In the present case, the acquisition had already been completed,
possession had already been taken and the right to compensation had already
accrued before execution of the Assignment Deed(s). The subject matter of
transfer was, therefore, not a lawsuit but a vested statutory entitlement
arising from compulsory acquisition. The proceedings before the Collector,
the Reference Court and the appellate forum merely determine the extent of
that entitlement. Consequently, the assignment falls outside the prohibition
contained in Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act.
71. The conclusion reached above also finds support from the overall
scheme of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. Sections 3
and 4 constitute the substantive prohibitory provisions. Section 6 provides
the consequence of contravention by prescribing penalties in respect of
prohibited transfers.
72. The scheme of the enactment is significant. To understand the scheme
better, it will be apposite to refer to the bare Sections :
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 28 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
“3. Prohibition on transfer of lands acquired by Central
Government.–No person shall purport to transfer by sale,
mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof
situated in the Union territory of Delhi, which has been
acquired by the Central Government under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984 (1 of 1984), or under any other law
providing for acquisition of land for a public purpose.
4. Regulation on transfer of lands in relation to which
acquisition proceedings have been initiated.–No person
shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the
competent authority, transfer or purport to transfer by sale,
mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof
situated in the Union territory of Delhi, which is proposed to
be acquired in connection with the Scheme and in relation to
which a declaration to the effect that such land or part thereof
is needed for a public purpose having been made by the
Central Government under section 6of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), the Central Government has not
withdrawn from the acquisition under section 48 of that Act.”
73. After referring to the bare provision what comes out is that the
legislative concern throughout is with transactions affecting the land itself.
The statute is directed against dealings in immovable property which may
impede, complicate or frustrate acquisition proceedings. The prohibition, the
regulatory mechanism and the penal consequences all revolve around one
common subject matter, namely the land under acquisition.
74. Neither Section 3 nor Section 4 refers to compensation. Neither
provision refers to award amounts, enhanced compensation or claims arising
after vesting. Equally, Section 6 does not contemplate penal consequences
in respect of assignment of compensation rights.
75. This omission assumes significance. The legislature was fully aware
that acquisition proceedings culminate not only in vesting of land but also in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 29 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
determination and payment of compensation. Had the legislature intended to
prohibit assignment of compensation rights, it could easily have employed
language sufficiently broad to encompass such transactions.
76. The Court cannot enlarge the statutory prohibition beyond the words
actually used. To accept the U.O.I. ‘s submission would require the Court to
read the expression “land” in Sections 3 and 4 as including compensation
rights arising after acquisition. Such an interpretation would amount to
rewriting the statute. The Court refrains to adopt such an approach.
77. Viewed cumulatively, the legal position becomes clear. By the date of
execution of the Assignment Deed(s), possession had already been taken and
vesting had occurred. No transferable estate in the land survived. The deed(s)
itself repeatedly confines the transaction to compensation rights and
enhancement claims. The Supreme Court authorities relied upon by the
Union of India/DDA deal with claims to land and challenges to acquisition
proceedings and are therefore distinguishable. On the other hand, the
decisions of this Court in Laxmi Narain(supra), Chandan(supra) and
Sadhna Gupta(supra) recognise that compensation rights constitute
assignable beneficial interests and are not hit by Section 6(e) of the Transfer
of Property Act.
78. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Assignment
Deed(s) dated 22.03.1995 does not amount to a transfer of land within the
meaning of Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer)
Act, 1972. Properly construed, it represents an assignment of compensation
rights surviving after vesting of the acquired property in the State. Such
assignment is neither prohibited by the 1972 Act nor rendered void by
Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 30 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
79. In view of the discussion made herein above, the objection raised by
the U.O.I. must, therefore, fail.
AS TO INADEQUACY OF CONSIDERATION OF ASSIGNMENT
DEED(s) :
80. The Union of India/DDA have also argued the assignment deed(s)
dated 22.03.1995 reflected a consideration of Rs. 5,40,000/- for the entire
landholding, which worked out to approximately Rs. 58/- per square yard,
and such contemporaneous evidence ought to have been accorded due weight
while assessing the market value of the acquired land as such consideration
reflected in the Assignment Deed(s) was inadequate.
81. This contention deserves outright rejection. At the outset, it must be
noticed that the persons most competent to challenge the validity of the
Assignment Deed(s) are the assignors themselves, being its executants.
Significantly, none of them has ever questioned the transaction by seeking
cancellation, declaration of nullity, or any other relief. No allegation of fraud,
coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, lack of free consent, or
absence of consideration has been raised by any executant. On the contrary,
the record demonstrates their express acknowledgment of the transaction.
The assignors appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector and made
categorical statements regarding the execution of the Assignment Deed(s)
and the rights created thereunder in favour of the assignees. These
statements, forming part of the acquisition record and exhibited as Ex. PW-
1, constitute contemporaneous evidence affirming the assignment and the
consequential rights of the assignees.
82. Equally significant is the fact that the Assignment Deed(s) is a
registered instrument. It is a settled principle of law that a registered
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 31 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
document carries a presumption of valid execution and genuineness, the
burden lying upon the person challenging it to rebut such presumption.
UOI/DDA have failed to discharge this burden. The presumption of validity
becomes even stronger where the executants themselves not only refrain
from disputing the transaction but affirmatively acknowledge and act upon
it before a statutory authority.
83. The challenge becomes further untenable when founded upon the
alleged inadequacy of consideration. The adequacy of consideration
ordinarily lies within the exclusive domain of the contracting parties and
does not render a transaction invalid unless it is shown to be vitiated by fraud,
coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, or total absence of
consideration. In view of Explanation 2 to Section 25 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872, mere inadequacy of consideration does not invalidate a
transaction. Indeed, as held by the Supreme Court in Hemalatha (D) by LRs
v. Tukaram (D) by LRs & Ors., it is only where consideration is altogether
absent that a conveyance may be rendered void.
84. The Supreme Court has further recognised that where the executant
accepts and acts upon a transaction, a third party ordinarily cannot seek to
invalidate the instrument on grounds relating to consideration. In the present
case, none of the executants has disputed the consideration, sought rescission
of the transaction, or alleged that the deed(s) was executed otherwise than
voluntarily. UOI/DDA, being strangers to the transaction, cannot be
permitted to impeach the validity of the Assignment Deed(s) on grounds
which are not even asserted by the parties thereto. The contention, therefore,
deserves to be rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 32 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
OBSERVATION OF THE SUPREME COURT:
85. It was also the contention of UOI/DDA that neither assignee(s) were
present before the LAC nor were assignment deed(s) produced before any
fora including LAC, Reference Court or the High Court back then, the fact
which also finds mention in the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
86. The principal contention raised by DDA and the Union of India in
Delhi Development Authority v. S.S. Aggarwal supra was not merely the
existence of the assignment deed(s) but the manner in which the assignees
had conducted the proceedings. It was contended that the assignment deed(s)
had not been disclosed before the Land Acquisition Collector or the
Reference Court at the appropriate stage and that the assignees sought to
assert rights thereunder belatedly. Proceeding on that premise, the Supreme
Court observed that the acquiring authorities had been deprived of an
opportunity to contest the entitlement of the assignees and that such
entitlement required proper adjudication before enhancement of
compensation could be granted.
87. The Supreme Court noticed that, despite execution of the assignment
deed(s), the assignees neither sought substitution before the Land
Acquisition Collector nor disclosed the true factual position before the
Reference Court. It was in that context that the Court made the following
observations:
16. We have considered the respective submissions in the
backdrop of the fact that even though in terms of the assignment
deeds, S.S. Aggarwal and others became entitled to seek
substitution before the Land Acquisition Collector, they neither
sought impleadment in the award proceedings nor produced the
assignment deeds to show that the landowners had transferred
the right to receive compensation. The learned Senior CounselSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 33 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
appearing for the assignees could not offer any tangible
explanation as to why his clients chose to keep the Land
Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court and the High Court
in dark about the execution of the assignment deeds by the
landowners. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that they
had done so deliberately and the only possible reason for this
could be to avoid a proper scrutiny by the Land Acquisition
Collector and the two judicial forums about their entitlement to
receive compensation at a rate higher than Rs 58 per square
yard paid to the landowners. If the assignment deeds had been
produced before the Land Acquisition Collector or the
Reference Court, either of them could have held an inquiry and
given an opportunity to the landowners and/or the assignees to
explain the position. By withholding the assignment deeds, the
assignees succeeded in avoiding a proper scrutiny of their
claim for compensation at the hands of the Land Acquisition
Collector, the Reference Court and the High Court.
(Emphasis applied)
88. However, the factual foundation on which the aforesaid observations
proceeded is absent in the present case. A careful examination of the original
record reveals that the assignment deed(s) were never concealed from the
acquiring authorities. On the contrary, the acquisition record contains the
relevant assignment deed(s), corrigendum, affidavits, indemnity bonds and
surety bonds, all of which disclose the existence of the assignees and the
assignment transactions. The compensation records maintained by the Land
Acquisition Collector also specifically record the names of the assignees,
demonstrating that their identity and claim were within the knowledge of the
authorities.
89. The position is further reinforced by the findings recorded in the
impugned order. The original landowners appeared before the Land
Acquisition Collector, acknowledged execution of the assignment deed(s)
and accepted the rights created thereunder in favour of the assignees. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 34 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
Reference Court specifically noted that, on the basis of such statements and
the compensation record, a corrigendum was issued by the Land Acquisition
Collector and the statement under Section 19 of the Act was forwarded in
the names of the assignees. The relevant para of the Impugned Order is
extracted herein below:
“15. ………………………..PW-1 deposed that all the
recorded owners appeared before the LAC and recorded
their statements accepting the execution of assignment deeds.
Based upon the statements of the parties and upon the
payment of original compensation, a corrigendum was drawn
by the LAC in the Award for their record. PW-1 deposed that
the assignment deeds were executed by the recorded owners
in favour of petitioners voluntarily and without any coercion,
undue influence and misrepresentation. Consequently,
statement under Section 19 of the Act was duly forwarded by
the LAC in the name of petitioners and thus, petitioners are
entitled to receive enhanced compensation which may be
determined by this Court.”
90. Viewed thus, the allegation that the acquiring authorities were
unaware of the assignment deed(s) or were deprived of an opportunity to
examine the entitlement of the assignees is contrary to the record. The
contemporaneous documents maintained by the Land Acquisition Collector
demonstrate that the assignment transactions were disclosed, acknowledged
and acted upon during the acquisition proceedings themselves. In such
circumstances, it cannot be contended that the authorities were taken by
surprise or that the assignees obtained any advantage through suppression of
material facts.
91. The present case, therefore, far from establishing concealment, the
record unequivocally demonstrates that the assignment deed(s) and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 35 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
identity of the assignees were within the knowledge of the acquiring
authorities from the inception. The allegation of suppression is,
consequently, devoid of merit and stands conclusively rebutted by the
documentary record itself.
92. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the
conclusion reached by the Reference Court that the Assignment Deed(s)
dated 22.03.1995 are valid, enforceable and operate only as assignment of
compensation rights. Consequently, the assignees validly stepped into the
shoes of the original landowners and possess locus standi to maintain the
present proceedings.
ISSUE NO. II : AMOUNT OF
COMPENSATION/DETERMINATION OF
MARKET VALUE
“If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its
development” ~ Aristotle
93. The imperative to understand a matter’s historical trajectory,
particularly its point of inception, is a foundational principle not only in
philosophy and historiography but also in the administration of justice.
In legal adjudication, the past is often the key to unlocking the complexities
of the present.
94. Legal certainty for a controversy spanning three decades necessitates
an inquiry into its genesis. As the echoes of the 1995 acquisition continue to
inform the present dispute, this Court must return to the inception of the
transaction to render a just conclusion. With this principle in mind, the Court
now proceeds to examine the historical development and the sequence of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 36 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
events that commenced with the initial acquisition notification in the village
Jasola.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF VILLAGE JASOLA :
95. The Revenue Estate of Village Jasola carries within it a long and
unbroken history of planned acquisition, each successive wave of which has
left in its wake a more developed and more integrated urban landscape. The
story of this Revenue Estate, insofar as it bears upon the question of the
character and potential of the subject land as on the date of acquisition, is
best understood in its chronological sweep.
96. The earliest engagement of the GNCTD with this Revenue Estate
dates to 13.11.1959, when a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the
Act, initiating the first round of acquisition for the planned development of
Delhi. That beginning was followed, in quick succession, by two further
notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act on 24.10.1961 and 06.04.1964
respectively, by which additional parcels within the same Revenue Estate
were progressively brought under the fold of acquisition. The process,
however, did not end there. A further notification under Section 4 of the Act
was issued on 05.06.1979, drawing yet more land within the ambit of Union
Territory(UT) acquisition. Viewed in its entirety, the pattern of successive
acquisitions from 1959 through 1979 is itself eloquent testimony to the
strategic importance that the UT consistently attached to this Revenue Estate
and to the pace at which the area was being transformed.
97. Running alongside this history of acquisition was a parallel process of
formal urbanisation and planned development. The Revenue Estates of
Village Jasola and the adjoining Village Bahapur contiguous to each other
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 37 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
and closely interlinked in terms of their development trajectory were together
declared urbanised by Notification No. F-2(49)/65-LSG dated 28.05.1966,
issued under Section 507(A) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957
and published on 03.06.1966. Village Jasola finds express mention at Serial
No. 19 of the South Delhi Zone in the said notification. This formal
declaration of urbanisation, significant in itself, was followed barely a
decade later by an equally consequential step in 1974, the area was declared
a Development Area by a notification issued under the provisions of the
Delhi Development Act, thereby conferring upon it the dual status of an
urbanised and a planned development zone and placing it squarely within the
ambit of the organised developmental framework of the National Capital.
98. The cumulative effect of these successive acquisitions and formal
declarations was transformative. The land acquired from Village Jasola over
the course of the preceding three and a half decades had, well before the date
of the present acquisition, been developed into a constellation of well-
established residential, institutional and industrial localities. Sukhdev Vihar,
Ishwar Nagar, Jasola DDA Flats, Jasola Colony, Harkesh Nagar, Sarita
Vihar, part of the Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, Okhla Industrial Area
Part II and Friends Colony all of these had taken shape on the acquired lands
of Village Jasola. The Apollo Hospital, had similarly come up in this very
area, further underscoring the stature and connectivity of the locality. The
adjoining Revenue Estate of Village Bahapur had kept pace with this
transformation, with the well-known residential and thriving commercial
locality of Kalkaji and the nationally recognised business district of Nehru
Place having developed on its acquired lands.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 38 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
99. Against this backdrop, the character of the Revenue Estate of Village
Jasola as on the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the
Act on 06.01.1995 admits of little doubt. By that date, the area was not
merely urbanised in the formal or technical sense it had been so declared
nearly three decades earlier, in 1966 but was, in every meaningful and
practical sense, a fully developed and seamlessly integrated part of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi. Since its declaration as a Development
Area in 1974, all requisite civic infrastructure had been extended to the
locality: electricity, water supply, sewerage systems, metalled roads, hospital
facilities and telecommunication connections were all in place. The residual
parcels of land still remaining within the Revenue Estate including the
subject land consequently carried with them a very substantial potential for
further residential, commercial and industrial exploitation, situated as they
were amidst an already thriving urban environment and enjoying the full
benefit of the infrastructure and amenities that had been put in place over the
preceding decades. It is noteworthy that the Land Acquisition Collector
himself, in Award No. 10/95-96, expressly took cognizance of these very
facts, recording that the land under acquisition had been urbanised in 1966
and declared a Development Area in 1974 an acknowledgment that places
the developed and urbanised character of the subject land at the relevant date
entirely beyond controversy.
NATURE AND POTENTIALITY OF THE ACQUIRED LAND:
100. On a perusal of the material placed on record it is reflected that LAC
while awarding the compensation of ₹96 per yard(approx.), relied heavily on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 39 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
the contention of the U.O.I. that the disputed land was agricultural and
therefore, must be valued as agricultural land.
101. Contradicting the very contention, Ld. Senior counsel representing the
claimants relied upon the judgement of this Court rendered in Major General
Kapil Mehra & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., in LA APP No. 149/2007
contending that no doubt, one of the parameters for fixing the market value
of the acquired land is potentiality of the land, but the Courts should not go
by the actual use to which the land was being put at the time of notification
under Section 4 of the Act. It is argued that what is relevant for the Court is
to see the better use to which the land is reasonably capable of being put in
the immediate or near future.
102. It is well settled that while determining market value, what is relevant
is not merely the use to which the land was being put on the date of
acquisition but its most advantageous and potential use.
103. Therefore, such contention of the claimant is accepted by this court as
is also a settled principle of acquisition jurisprudence that, while determining
market value, the Court is not confined to the use to which the land was
actually being put on the date of acquisition. What is required to be assessed
is the highest and best use to which the land is reasonably capable of being
put, having regard to its location, surrounding development, existing
advantages and future potential. In Administrator General of West Bengal
v. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150, the Supreme Court held that
market value must be assessed with due regard not merely to the existing use
of the land but also to its potential possibilities. The same principle was
reiterated in Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1991)
4 SCC 195, where the Court explained that potentiality denotes the capacity
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 40 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
of the land to develop into a more advantageous use in the reasonably
foreseeable future. Similar views were expressed in Viluben Jhalejar
Contractor v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, Lal Chand v. Union of
India, (2009) 15 SCC 769, Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda, (2010)
5 SCC 708 and Major General Kapil Mehra v. Union of India, (2015) 2
SCC 262. Therefore, the true test is not the purpose for which the land
happened to be utilized on the date of acquisition, but the most beneficial
and advantageous use to which it was reasonably capable of being put by a
willing purchaser in the open market.
104. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgment of
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2
SCC 568 which was rendered after relying upon the authorities mentioned
herein above. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
“5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the
potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into
consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for
changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well
settled that market value of a property has to be determined
having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing
advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its
most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has
potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending
upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is
reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential,
commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing
amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further
extension, whether near about town is developing or has
prospect of development have to be taken into consideration.
See Collector v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur [(1979) 1 SCC 236 :
AIR 1979 SC 472] , Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt.
[AIR 1967 SC 465] and Administrator General, W.B. v.
Collector Varanasi [(1988) 2 SCC 150 : AIR 1988 SC 943] .
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 41 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
It has been held in Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition
Officer [(1984) 2 SCC 324 : AIR 1984 SC 892] and Suresh
Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust [(1989) 2 SCC 329 : AIR
1989 SC 1222] that failing to consider potential value of the
acquired land is an error of principle.”
(Emphasis applied)
105. For the purposes of assessing the developmental potential and
advantageous characteristics of the acquired land while determining fair
market value, reliance may also be placed upon the decision of this Court in
Anar Singh v. Union of India, 1984 SCC OnLine Del 83. In the said
judgment, while considering acquisition of land situated in Village Jasola,
this Court identified and examined the relevant indicia bearing upon the
potentiality of the land, including its location, surrounding development,
proximity to urbanised areas and future prospects of utilisation. The
principles enunciated therein constitute a relevant guide in evaluating the
true market potential of the land in question and, consequently, in
determining just and fair compensation payable to the claimants. The
relevant extract reads as under:
“3. These cases are no doubt concerning the land of village
Bahapur. Village Bahapur as we have seen, adjoins village
Jasola on both sides. If the prices of the land in village
Bahapur were rising, it is not possible to say that there was
no increase in the value of the land in village Jasola. In R.N.
Tikku’s case, the Division Bench has observed that during
those days of 1959 the prices were rising and there was an
increase of Rs. 4 per year. They said, “one can therefore
safely say that the rate of escalation was Re. 1 per square
yard for every three months”. We cannot assent to this broad
generalisation. But we can say this that there had been an
upward trend in market values generally is not onlySignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 42 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
indisputable as a matter of opinion, but is affirmatively
supported by satisfactory proof.
5. The learned additional district judge fixed the value of the
land at Rs. 4900 per bigha on the hypothesis that the land had
no potential. In our opinion he was in error. After all we have
to take potentiality into consideration and potentiality means
such uses to which land can be put in the near reasonable
future. It is the duty of the valuer “to take into consideration
every intrinsic quality and every intrinsic circumstances
which tends to push the value either up or down, just because
it is relevant to the valuation and ought therefore to be cast
into the scales of the balance before he looks to see the
resultant figure on the dial at which the pointer finally rests”,
[per Scott L.J. in Robinson Brothers (Brewers) Ltd. v.
Houghton, (1937) 2 KB 445 (5) at p. 469]. Potentiality of the
land in question is one intrinsic quality which we must take
into account. As the Privy Council has said:
“For it has been established by numerous authorities that the
land is no to be valued merely by reference to the use to which
it is being put at the time at which its value has to be
determined [that time under the Indian Act being the date of
the notification under Section 4(1)] but also by reference to
the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the
future. No authority indeed is required for this proposition. It
is self-evident.”
(Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, ILR 1939 Mad 532 (544) (6).”
(Emphasis applied)
106. The material placed on record demonstrates that the land in question
is situated on the main Mathura Road at Sarita Vihar towards Kalindi Kunj
and Apollo Hospital being surrounded by posh and developed colonies such
as Sarita Vihar, Sukhdev Vihar, Jasola, Harkesh Nagar, Mohan Cooperative
Industrial Area, New Friends Colony, Okhla Industrial Area, Part-II etc. It is
further argued that the adjoining revenue estate is Bahapur and on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 43 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
acquired land of Village Bahapur posh colonies and business centres are
located like Kalkaji and Nehru Place. It is argued that post urbanization in
the year 1966, lots of development activities had taken place at the land in
question and all the civic amenities like electricity, water, sewerage, roads,
hospitals and telephone connections were available. On the contrary counsel
for UOI had submitted that the land was agricultural land and therefore, the
amount awarded by the LAC was sufficient considering the nature and
potentiality of the land at present.
Thus, the contention of the U.O.I. that the land was agricultural and must be
valued as agricultural land deserves rejection.
SALE DEED(s) RELIED UPON BY U.O.I. :
107. The sale transactions relied upon by the Union of India also do not
inspire confidence and cannot furnish a reliable basis for determination of
market value. A bare comparison with the judicially determined market
value pertaining to the same village demonstrates the inherent improbability
of the values reflected therein.
108. It is pertinent to note that for acquisition pursuant to the notification
dated 27.10.1986 pertaining to Village Jasola, the market value has already
been judicially determined at the rate of ₹3,808/- per square yard. The said
determination pertains to a point of time nearly seven years prior to the sale
transactions now relied upon by the Union of India.
109. Against this backdrop, the sale deed(s) produced by the Union of
India, allegedly executed in or around the year 1993, reflect rates ranging
between ₹85/- and ₹100/- per square yard. Such values are not merely
lower than the judicially determined market value; they are a minuscule
fraction thereof. The disparity is so glaring and disproportionate that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 44 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
transactions cease to possess any evidentiary value as indicators of prevailing
market conditions.
110. No prudent owner of land situated in a revenue estate which had
already witnessed substantial urbanisation and development would agree to
transfer land at values constituting only a small fraction of the market value
judicially recognised several years earlier. In the ordinary course of human
conduct and commercial dealings, land values do not regress to such an
extent, particularly in an area undergoing rapid urban expansion. The rates
reflected in the sale deed(s) are therefore wholly inconsistent with the
surrounding circumstances and the established price trend of the locality.
111. The possibility that such transactions were influenced by special
circumstances, were not truly representative of open-market dealings, or did
not reflect the real consideration exchanged between the parties, cannot be
ruled out. Whatever be the explanation, the rates disclosed therein are so
abnormally low that they fail the test of a bona fide and arm’s-length
transaction capable of reflecting the true market value of the acquired land.
Undervalued documents of this character are entitled to no evidentiary
weight and are liable to be excluded from consideration under the principle
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Chand v. Union of India, AIR 2010
SC 170, which holds that documents shown to depict values far below those
established by credible evidence must be treated as unreliable and excluded.
The relevant paragraphs are extracted under:
“What is the utility or relevance of undervalued sale deeds
in determining market price?
76. This takes us to the value of “undervalued” sale deeds.
When the respondents rely upon certain sale deeds to justifySignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 45 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
the value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector or to
show that the market value was less than what is claimed by
the claimants, and if the claimants produce satisfactory
evidence (which may be either with reference to
contemporaneous sale deeds or awards made in respect of
acquisition of comparable land or by other acceptable
evidence) to show that the market value was much higher, the
sale deed relied upon by the respondents showing a lesser
value may be inferred to be undervalued, or not showing the
true value. Such deeds have to be excluded from
consideration as being unreliable evidence. A document
which is found to be undervalued cannot be used as evidence.
79. There is no legal basis to proceed on a general
assumption that parties, without exception, fail to reflect the
true consideration in the sale deeds, that there is always
undervaluation or suppression of the true price and that
consequently, all sale deeds reflect a depressed value and not
the real market value and therefore, some percentage should
be added to arrive at the real value. Such a course also
amounts to branding all vendors and purchasers as dishonest
persons without any evidence and without hearing them. It
ignores the fact that the Government has fixed minimum
guideline values and whenever a registering authority is of
the view that a sale deed is undervalued, proceedings are
initiated for determination of the true market value. It also
ignores the fact that a large number of sale deeds are
accepted by the registering authorities as disclosing the
current market value. Be that as it may.”
(emphasis applied)
112. Accordingly, this Court is unable to treat the sale deed(s) relied upon
by the Union of India as safe or dependable exemplars. The transactions do
not constitute reliable indicators of market value and are liable to be excluded
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 46 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
from consideration while determining compensation payable for the
acquired land.
113. This brings the Court to the question of just and equitable quantum of
compensation. The task before the Court is to determine the market value of
the acquired land and the compensation payable thereon in a manner that
balances the rights of the landowners with the interests of the acquiring
authority, in accordance with the settled principles governing land
acquisition jurisprudence. In this regard it was contended by Ld. Senior
counsel for the claimants that considerable assistance could be drawn from
the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Chander
& Ors. v. Union of India, RFA No. 416/1986, decided on 19.10.2001,
wherein the market value of land situated in Village Jasola, acquired
pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
on 15.06.1979, was determined at the rate of Rs.2,240/- per square yard. It
was submitted that while arriving at the aforesaid determination, the Division
Bench had placed reliance upon the decision in Union of India v. Bhola
Nath Sharma (Dead) through LRs. & Anr., SLP (Civil) No.1608/1999,
pertaining to Village Bahapur, wherein the market value had attained finality
at Rs.2,000/- per square yard as on 30.06.1978. Learned counsel for the
claimants further pointed out that the Review Petition preferred by the Union
of India against the said decision came to be dismissed on 13.10.1999.
114. Proceeding on the aforesaid premise, learned counsel submitted that if
the principles enunciated in Bedi Ram v. Union of India & Anr., 93 (2001)
DLT 150, relating to annual appreciation in land values, were applied to the
rate determined in Ram Chander (supra), the market value of the acquired
land as on 06.01.1995 would work out to approximately Rs.13,118/- per
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 47 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
square yard. It was nevertheless urged that the claimants had restricted their
claim to a market value of Rs.10,000/- per square yard.
115. Reliance was also placed upon another judgment dated 02.08.2011
passed by the learned Reference Court in LAC No.75/2011, titled
Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., pertaining to acquisition of land
in Village Jasola under notification dated 12.05.1986. It was submitted that
the learned Reference Court therein had assessed the market value at
Rs.3,808/- per square yard as on 12.05.1986.
WHETHER ESCALATION CAN BE APPLIED FOR LONG
PERIOD :
116. As regards the submissions advanced on behalf of the claimants
seeking determination of market value on the basis of the awards relating to
the notifications dated 15.06.1979 and 12.05.1986, the same merit careful
consideration. There can be little dispute that the decisions rendered in Ram
Chander (supra) and Dharamvir Singh (supra) constitute relevant
indicators while assessing the developmental potential and market trends
pertaining to lands situated in Village Jasola. The fact that compensation was
judicially determined at the rate of Rs.2,240/- per square yard as on
15.06.1979 and thereafter at Rs.3,808/- per square yard as on 12.05.1986
undoubtedly reflects the increasing demand, development potential and
commercial attractiveness of lands situated in the said village. These
determinations lend considerable support to the contention that the acquired
land possessed substantial future prospects and could not be treated as land
devoid of developmental potential merely on account of its existing user at
the time of acquisition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 48 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
117. The learned Senior Counsel has furthermore vehemently contended
that the market value determined under the earlier notifications ought to be
subjected to annual escalation at the rate of 15%, or in the alternative 12%,
in accordance with the principles adopted in several decisions of the
Supreme Court and this Court. According to the claimants, such escalation
would justify a market value substantially in excess of the amount awarded
by the Reference Court.
118. The aforesaid submission, however, cannot be accepted in its entirety.
A careful examination of the authorities relied upon by the claimants reveals
that the principle of granting annual appreciation at rates ranging between
12% and 15% has generally been applied where the time gap between the
exemplar transaction or earlier acquisition and the acquisition under
consideration was relatively short, ordinarily extending to three, four or five
years at best. The rationale underlying such an approach is that market
conditions during a limited period can reasonably be projected forward with
a fair degree of certainty.
119. The present case at hand stands on an entirely different footing from
the authorities relied upon by the claimants. The notification which was the
subject matter in Ram Chander pertains to the year 1979, whereas the
acquisition in question is governed by a notification issued on 06.01.1995,
resulting in a time gap of nearly sixteen years. Even the notification
considered in Dharamvir Singh pertains to the year 1986, which is separated
from the present acquisition by approximately nine years. Considering such
mechanical application of annual appreciation at the rate of 12% or 15% over
such an extended period would somewhat amount to indulging in speculation
rather than arriving at a realistic assessment of market value.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 49 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
120. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against such an
approach. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel(supra), the Court
categorically held that the method of granting annual escalation is reasonably
safe only where the relied-upon exemplar or acquisition precedes the
acquisition under consideration by a few years, ordinarily not exceeding four
to five years. The Supreme Court further observed that beyond such period,
fluctuations in market conditions, changes in developmental patterns,
periods of stagnation and sudden spurts in land prices render any uniform
rate of annual increase unsafe and unreliable as a determinative tool for
valuation. Similar caution has been reiterated in subsequent decisions,
wherein the Courts have declined to apply standard rates of escalation over
long intervals of time and have instead insisted upon independent evidence
reflective of the prevailing market conditions.The relevant extract of ONGC
Ltd(supra) reads as under:
“15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining
the market value by providing appropriate escalation over
the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as
evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there
is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or
acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The
said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on sale
transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by
only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that
it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land.
What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few
years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the
gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value
of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase
method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or
1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course
of years, the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergoSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 50 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of
varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in
prices affecting the very standard of increase.
(emphasis applied)
121. The Supreme Court did not just lay down the principle but also applied
the same and fixed the rate of escalation at 7.5% considering the nature of
the land. It held and is quoted :
“17. In this case, the acquisition was in a rural area. There
was no evidence of any out of the ordinary developments or
increases in prices in the area. We are of the view that
providing an escalation of 7.5% per annum over the 1987
price under Ext. 15, would be sufficient and appropriate to
arrive at the market value of acquired lands.
What should be the market value of the acquired land?
21. By applying a cumulative rate of escalation of 7.5% over
the market price of Rs 10 per square metre in 1987, we find
that the market value in the year 1992 was Rs 14.35. The
Reference Court and the High Court had deducted Rs 2
towards distance factor. As the lands are similarly situated
and are in adjoining villages, it will be sufficient to deduct Rs
1.35 per square metre instead of Rs 2. We accordingly
determine the market value as Rs 13 per square metre.”
122. In view of the aforesaid settled position, this Court is unable to accept
the proposition that the market value determined under the notifications of
1979 or 1986 can be mechanically escalated at the rate of 12% or 15% per
annum till the date of the present notification. While the judgments in Ram
Chander and Dharamvir Singh undoubtedly furnish valuable guidance
regarding the potentiality and upward trajectory of land values in Village
Jasola, they cannot by themselves justify the application of compounded
annual appreciation over a period extending to nearly a decade or more. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 51 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
market value, therefore, must be determined on the basis of a holistic
evaluation of all admissible evidence available on record rather than by
adopting a purely mathematical formula of escalation.
123. The aforesaid principle has recently been reiterated and applied by the
Supreme Court in Central Warehousing Corporation v. Thakur Dwara
Kalan Ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala, (2024) 13 SCC 805. In that case, the
Supreme Court was concerned with determination of compensation where
the time gap between the exemplar and the acquisition under consideration
was approximately eleven years. The High Court had granted cumulative
annual appreciation at the rate of 15% while assessing market value. The
Supreme Court, after considering the earlier authorities on the subject,
including ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel(supra), found such
an approach to be legally unsustainable.
124. The Supreme Court observed that the rate of annual increase cannot
be applied in a uniform manner irrespective of the length of the intervening
period and that the duration between the exemplar and the acquisition
constitutes a crucial factor in determining the appropriate rate of
appreciation. Noticing that the time gap in that case was eleven years, the
Court categorically held that while a rate of 10% or 12% may be justified
where the interval is relatively short, ordinarily ranging between three to five
years, application of a 15% cumulative annual increase over a period of
eleven years would result in an unrealistic and inflated determination of
market value.
125. Consequently, the Supreme Court reduced the rate of annual
appreciation from 15% to 8% and held that the compensation ought to be
determined by applying cumulative annual escalation at the reduced rate.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 52 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
The Court specifically observed that “in no case 15% would be justified for
a period of 11 years” and further held that the High Court had fallen into
error in enhancing compensation by applying cumulative annual increase at
the rate of 15%. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“24. From the above, we notice that the consistent view taken
by this Court for awarding annual increase to determine the
just compensation varies from case to case and the period to
be applied is a major factor to be considered. In the present
case, the period is 11 years which is pretty large as compared
to the time period considered in the cases referred to above.
25. Taking an overall view in the matter and the consistent
view of this Court, the fair and reasonable compensation in
the present case would be best determined if we apply 8%
annual increase with cumulative effect. This is for the reason
that the gap is huge i.e. 11 years. For shorter period of 3-5
years, it could have been 10% or 12%. But in no case 15%
would be justified for a period of 11 years as awarded by the
High Court in the impugned order [Dwara Kalan Ul-Maruf
Baraglan Wala v. State of Haryana, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H
19818] . In the present case, given the 11 years’ gap, 8%
would be considered just and proper.
26. On rough assessment, the compensation would be
equivalent to compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
The High Court fell in error in enhancing the compensation
by applying the cumulative annual increase of 15%.”
(Emphasis applied)
126. The ratio of the aforesaid decision lends considerable support to the
view that where the time gap between the base exemplar and the acquisition
in question extends to nearly a decade or more, the Court must exercise
considerable caution before adopting standard rates of annual escalation. The
decision clearly demonstrates that higher rates of appreciation, such as 12%
or 15% per annum, which may be appropriate for shorter durations, cannot
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 53 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
be mechanically extended over long periods of time. In the present case,
where the claimants seek escalation on the basis of notifications issued in the
years 1979 and 1986 for determining market value as on 06.01.1995, the
temporal gap is substantially larger than the period ordinarily considered safe
by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the methodology canvassed by the
claimants of applying annual escalation at the rate of 12% or 15% over such
an extended duration cannot be accepted as a sound basis for determination
of market value.
127. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds no justification for adopting the rate of annual escalation at 12%
or 15% as canvassed by the claimants. The acquisitions relied upon by the
claimants are separated from the present notification dated 06.01.1995 by
substantial periods of approximately nine years and sixteen years
respectively. Such long intervals would render the application of higher rates
of escalation speculative and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and reaffirmed in
Central Warehousing Corporation v. Thakur Dwara Kalan Ul-Maruf
Baraglan Wala. Significantly, if the market value determined in Dharamvir
Singh at Rs.3,808/- per square yard as on 12.05.1986 is subjected to
cumulative appreciation at the rate of 8% per annum, the resultant figure as
on 06.01.1995 works out to approximately Rs.7,410/- per square yard.
Likewise, even if the market value determined in Ram Chander at Rs.2,240/-
per square yard as on 15.06.1979 is escalated by adopting a conservative rate
of 7.5% per annum, the resultant figure comes to approximately Rs.6,902/-
per square yard.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 54 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
128. Both figures are broadly comparable to, and substantially support, the
market value of Rs.7,390/- per square yard already awarded by the learned
Reference Court. The compensation so awarded, therefore, cannot be said to
be either excessive or arbitrary; rather, it appears to represent a fair and
reasonable estimation of the market value of the acquired land as on the date
of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
129. Before examining the determination made by the learned Reference
Court, it is necessary to bear in mind that the ascertainment of market value
under the Land Acquisition Act is fundamentally an evidentiary exercise.
The Court is required to arrive at the most accurate estimate of market value
that the available material permits, by applying settled principles governing
valuation. Where reliable material exists on record from which market value
can reasonably be deduced, the determination must rest upon such material
and the inferences legitimately flowing therefrom. It is in this backdrop that
the correctness of the approach adopted by the learned Reference Court falls
for consideration.
KISHAN LAL ‘S AWARD:
130. Now adverting to the contention raised by UOI/DDA that Reference
Court has wrongly placed reliance upon the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per square
yard adopted in Kishan Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (LAC No.
16/1999).
131. Learned counsel for Union of India has assailed the impugned order
on the ground that the compensation awarded therein traces its source to the
Award in Kishan Lal(supra), which in turn placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in S.S. Aggarwal(supra). Since S.S. Aggarwal was
subsequently set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is contended that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 55 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
foundation of Kishan Lal(supra) stood removed, and consequently the
Reference Court erred in placing reliance upon Kishan Lal(supra) for
enhancing the compensation in the present case.
132. On a careful examination of S.S. Aggarwal and the judgment of the
Supreme Court by which it was set aside i.e. D.D.A. v. S.S.
Aggarwal(supra), what emerges is that the enhancement of compensation
granted by this Court in S.S. Aggarwal was the result of a detailed and
reasoned determination. The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, did
not at all advert to or disturb that reasoning. Its interference was confined
strictly to procedural questions namely, whether the application for
amendment of the memo of parties ought to have been allowed after the
appeal had already been decided, and whether the assignees were entitled to
compensation at all, having failed to produce the assignment deed(s) before
the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court, or this Court. The
Supreme Court’s scrutiny did not extend to, much less overturn, the
reasoning by which this Court had computed and granted compensation in
reasoning that was subsequently adopted in Kishan Lal(supra).
133. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P)
Ltd., (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) while relying upon Madhav Rao Scindia v.
Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 85 propounded that a judgment must be read
as a whole and takes its colour from the questions that were actually in issue
before the court; it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or
a sentence from a judgment, divorced from the context of the question under
consideration, and treat it as the complete law declared by the court.
134. The same judgment goes on to hold that where reassessment
proceedings interfere with one part of an order on a distinct ground, the part
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 56 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
that was never put in issue retains its operative force and its character once
it has acquired finality. Applying this principle here, since the Supreme
Court in S.S. Aggarwal confined itself to the procedural infirmities noted
above and did not touch upon the merits of the compensation awarded, it
cannot be held that the reasoning underlying the grant of compensation in
S.S. Aggarwal stands overruled. It follows the reasoning in Kishan
Lal(supra), insofar as it adopted the principles laid down in S.S. Aggarwal
for determining the quantum of compensation, is equally unaffected
particularly since Kishan Lal(supra) was never independently assailed by
any party and has attained finality.
135. The distinction sought to be drawn by the UOI/DDA in fact conflates
two separate concepts viz the overruling of a principle and the reversal of a
judgment. The Supreme Court has clarified that mere overruling of the
principle on which an earlier judgment proceeded, by a subsequent judgment
of a higher forum, does not have the effect of uprooting the final adjudication
already reached between the parties; the judgment in question must itself be
assailed and got rid of in a manner known to or recognised by law.
136. Support in this regard can be taken from Neelima Srivastava v. State
of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 610, Civil Appeal No. 4840 of 2021. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
“28. The Division Bench of the High Court has erroneously
understood the dictum of this Court in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
753] . The Constitution Bench has nowhere directed that
service matters that stand concluded inter partes, ought to be
reopened. On the contrary, in para 54 of the said decision, the
Constitution Bench clarified as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 57 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
“54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run
counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in
which directions running counter to what we have held
herein, will stand denuded of their status as
precedents.”
29. It becomes absolutely clear from the above clarification
that earlier decisions running counter to the principles settled
in the decision of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] will not be treated
as precedents. It cannot mean that the judgment of a competent
court delivered prior to the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
753] and which has attained finality and is binding inter se
between the parties need not be implemented. Mere overruling
of the principles, on which the earlier judgment was passed,
by a subsequent judgment of higher forum will not have the
effect of uprooting the final adjudication between the parties
and set it at naught. There is a distinction between overruling
a principle and reversal of the judgment. The judgment in
question itself has to be assailed and got rid of in a manner
known to or recognised by law. Mere overruling of the
principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute the binding
effect of the decision inter partes.
137. Had the reasoning in Kishan Lal(supra) been wholly and inseparably
founded upon S.S. Aggarwal, such that the latter constituted its sole
underpinning on the very point that was reversed, the position might have
been different. That, however, is not the case here, for what was set aside in
S.S. Aggarwal was not the reasoning on compensation but the procedural
course adopted by the High Court in entertaining the claim. The setting aside
of S.S. Aggarwal may well diminish the precedential weight that Kishan
Lal(supra) would otherwise carry as authority in other matters, but it does
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 58 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
not, without more, efface Kishan Lal(supra) itself or strip it of its binding
character between the parties to that proceeding.
138. This very principle has been applied by the Allahabad High Court in
the specific context of land acquisition, where it was held that the overruling
of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014)
3 SCC 183 by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 401 took away only the precedential value of the
former and did not reopen a lis already concluded between the parties on its
strength Vinay Kumar Singh v. Suresh Chandra, Principal Secretary,
Irrigation Department & Ors., Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2555 of
2017 (Allahabad High Court). The same reasoning applies with full force to
the case at hand.
139. The submission of U.O.I. also overlooks another equally well-settled
principle governing the precedential value of judicial decisions, namely, the
‘Doctrine of sub silentio’.
140. A decision is an authority only for what it actually decides and not for
what may logically or remotely follow from it. Where a particular point of
law was neither raised, argued nor consciously determined, any supposed
conclusion on that point is said to pass sub silentio and does not constitute a
binding declaration of law. The doctrine is founded on the elementary
principle that a precedent derives its binding force from a conscious
adjudication of an issue and not from assumptions or implications that may
be drawn from the result ultimately reached.
141. Examined in this light, the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.D.A.
v. S.S. Aggarwal cannot be construed as having pronounced upon the
correctness of the compensation determined by this Court in S.S. Aggarwal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 59 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
A reading of the judgment shows that the Supreme Court confined its
scrutiny to the procedural questions arising in the appeal, namely, whether
amendment of the memo of parties could have been permitted after disposal
of the appeal and whether the assignees could claim compensation without
having produced the assignment deeds before the Land Acquisition
Collector, the Reference Court or the High Court. These were the questions
that engaged the attention of the Supreme Court and upon which the appeal
was ultimately decided.
142. The methodology adopted by this Court for determination of market
value, the evidentiary basis of the enhancement granted, and the principles
governing assessment of compensation were neither put in issue before the
Supreme Court nor subjected to examination. Consequently, the judgment
cannot be read as an authority for the proposition that the compensation
reasoning contained in S.S. Aggarwal stood disapproved or overruled. To
attribute such a consequence to the judgment would amount to reading into
it a determination on an issue which was never considered.
143. The principle stated in CIT v. Sun Engineering Work(supra), relying
upon Madhav Rao Scindia(supra) assumes particular relevance in this
context. A judgment must be read in the light of the questions which actually
arose for determination and not as though every conceivable issue connected
with the case stood decided. The ratio of a decision cannot be expanded
beyond the controversy that was actually adjudicated.
144. Therefore, even assuming that D.D.A. v. S.S. Aggarwal(supra)
resulted in reversal of the ultimate relief granted therein, it does not follow
that every observation, finding or line of reasoning contained in the judgment
of this Court stood erased for all purposes. At the highest, the Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 60 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
Court’s judgment deprived S.S. Aggarwal of precedential force on the issues
actually decided by it. It cannot be treated as having silently invalidated the
reasoning relating to determination of compensation when that issue was
never the subject matter of adjudication before it.
145. Therefore, until the award in Kishan Lal(supra) is independently
reviewed, appealed against, or otherwise declared unsustainable in
appropriate proceedings, it continues to subsist and retain finality inter
partes. The Reference Court was therefore at least entitled if not bound to
treat Kishan Lal(supra) as a subsisting and binding adjudication, more so
since it was never put in issue by the acquiring authority at any stage. In these
circumstances, unless and until Kishan Lal(supra) is independently set
aside, no fault can be found with the Reference Court for having placed
reliance upon it as a subsisting and unchallenged judicial determination.
PARITY OF KISHAN LAL AND DETERMINATION OF MARKET
VALUE:
146. The foregoing analysis of the precedential scope of the Supreme
Court’s judgment in DDA v. S.S. Aggarwal [(2011) 12 SCC 533] leads this
Court to the irresistible conclusion that the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per square
yard, as determined by the Reference Court in Kishan Lal & Ors. v. Union
of India & Anr. (LAC No. 16/1999, judgment dated 16.03.2005), remains a
subsisting and valid judicial determination in respect of the same Award No.
10/95-96 pertaining to the same Revenue Estate of Village Jasola and the
same date of Section 4 notification, namely 06.01.1995. Neither the Union
of India nor the DDA challenged the said judgment in any appellate or
revisional proceedings. The compensation so determined was disbursed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 61 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
the acquiring authority to the claimants thereunder without demur, protest or
reservation, as borne out by the execution proceedings in Ex. No. 20/14
placed on record as Ex. PW 1/22 and Ex. PW 1/23 (colly). Kishan
Lal(supra) , as a judicial determination, accordingly stands on its own
foundation and does not stand or fall with the procedural outcome of S.S.
Aggarwal(supra).
147. The principle of parity, which the claimants urge this Court to apply,
is well-embedded in land acquisition jurisprudence. Where two sets of
claimants hold land under the same acquisition award, pertaining to the same
revenue estate and the same date of notification, and where the market value
for one set has been judicially determined and that determination has attained
finality without challenge, it would be manifestly unjust to award the other
set a lower rate in the absence of material distinguishing circumstances.
148. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of
India & Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 627 and Delhi Development Authority v
Rajendra Singh & Ors. (2009) 8 SCC 582, wherein it was held that there
should be no discrimination while determining and awarding compensation
between landowners when land is of similar nature.
149. The subject land in the present proceedings and the land involved in
Kishan Lal(supra) bear the following common characteristics: both parcels
are comprised within the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola; both fall under
the same Award No. 10/95-96; both are governed by the same Section 4
notification dated 06.01.1995; and both were intended for the same public
purpose, namely the construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant under the
planned development of Delhi. In these circumstances, there is no rational
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 62 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
basis for treating the market value of the subject land as different from that
determined for comparably situated land under the same award.
150. This Court finds further reinforcement in the position that the acquiring
authority viz the Union of India and the DDA having itself disbursed
compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per square yard to the claimants in
the case of Kishan Lal(supra), without challenge and without reservation, is
estopped from contending before this Court that the said rate is erroneous,
excessive or unsupported. A public authority which has unconditionally
acted upon a judicial determination by disbursing public monies thereunder
cannot thereafter be permitted to turn around and disavow the very
determination upon which it has acted. This principle, which partakes of the
character of quasi-estoppel or approbation and reprobation, provides an
independent and self-sufficient reason to uphold the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per
square yard as the floor below which compensation for the subject land
cannot fall.
151. The contention of learned counsel for the Union of India that the
foundation of Kishan Lal(supra) stood removed by the reversal of S.S.
Aggarwal(supra) has been considered at length and must fail for three
distinct and cumulative reasons. First, as this Court has demonstrated in the
preceding paragraphs, the reversal in S.S. Aggarwal was strictly confined to
procedural issues arising from the non-disclosure of assignment deeds and
the consequent amendment of the memo of parties, the compensation
reasoning and the methodology of valuation were never placed in issue
before the Supreme Court and accordingly passed sub silentio. Second, even
if it were assumed that the reversal of S.S. Aggarwal diminished Kishan
Lal(supra)’s precedential value in other proceedings, it did not efface the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 63 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
operative finality of Kishan Lal(supra) as an inter partes determination a
distinction clearly drawn by the Supreme Court in Neelima Srivastava
(supra) and affirmed in the land acquisition context by the Allahabad High
Court in Vinay Kumar Singh v. Suresh Chandra & Ors. Third, the acquiring
authority’s subsequent voluntary disbursement of compensation under
Kishan Lal(supra) made with full knowledge of the Supreme Court’s order
in DDA v. S.S. Aggarwal dated 02.08.2011 operates as an independent
affirmation of the rate, rendering the present challenge both legally untenable
and factually inconsistent.
ASSESSMENT OF THE RATE OF RS. 7,390/- PER SQUARE YARD
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD:
152. This Court has independently examined whether the rate of Rs. 7,390/-
per square yard can be said to reflect the fair market value of the acquired
land as on 06.01.1995, having regard to the entire evidence on record
including the evidence adduced post-remand.
153. The acquired land forms part of the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola,
which was formally declared urbanised on 03.06.1966 vide Notification No.
F-2(49)/65-LSG issued under Section 507-A of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 nearly three decades before the date of the Section 4
notification. The area was further declared a Development Area under the
provisions of the Delhi Development Act in 1974. By the date of acquisition,
the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola had witnessed four successive rounds
of government acquisition spanning from 1959 to 1979, each of which had
resulted in the development of established residential, institutional and
industrial localities: Sukhdev Vihar, Ishwar Nagar, Jasola DDA Flats,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 64 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
Harkesh Nagar, Sarita Vihar, part of Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area,
Okhla Industrial Area Part-II and New Friends Colony had all come up on
the acquired lands of this Revenue Estate. The Land Acquisition Collector
himself expressly acknowledged in Award No. 10/95-96 that the acquired
land had been urbanised in 1966 and declared a Development Area in 1974.
The acquired land’s location on the main Mathura Road corridor, its
proximity to Apollo Hospital, Holy Family Hospital, Jamia Millia Islamia
and the established commercial districts of Nehru Place and Kalkaji all of
which were confirmed by the evidence led by the claimants leaves no room
for doubt that the land possessed very substantial residential, commercial and
institutional potential as on the date of the notification.
154. The most significant judicial exemplar available on record for the
Revenue Estate of Village Jasola is the final determination of market value
in Ram Chander(supra), wherein the market value of land in Village Jasola
as on 15.06.1979 was settled at Rs. 2,240/- per square yard a determination
subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2928/2022
decided on 20.04.2022. Applying progressive appreciation at 12% per
annum from 15.06.1979 to 06.01.1995 a methodology countenanced by this
Court in Bedi Ram v. Union of India & Anr., 93 (2001) DLT 150 the market
value as on the date of notification would compute to approximately Rs.
13,118/- per square yard. Applying cumulative appreciation at 15% per
annum, consistently with the methodology approved by the Supreme Court
in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.(supra), and
Madhusudan Kabra & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra,(supra), the figure
would further escalate to approximately Rs. 20,958/- per square yard.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 65 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
155. The Reference Court, confronted with these mathematical
computations, correctly applied the caution prescribed in ONGC Ltd. v.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel,(supra), noting that the escalation method
becomes progressively unsafe where the gap between the relied-upon
exemplar and the date of acquisition exceeds four to five years.
In the present case, the gap between the Ram Chander determination (1979)
and the date of notification (1995) amounts to approximately fifteen and a
half years, a period sufficiently long to render a mechanical application of
the escalation formula hazardous. The learned Reference Court accordingly
exercised reasonable judicial discretion in not mechanically adopting either
the progressive or the cumulative appreciation figure and instead anchoring
the determination to the rate already judicially fixed for the same award in
Kishan Lal(supra).
156. Critically, the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per square yard, far from being
arbitrary, receives robust support from the other evidence on record. The
schedule of market rates for Delhi dated 11.02.1992 proved as Ex. PW 1/15
recorded the minimum land rate for residential plots in Kalkaji, which falls
within the similarly situated Revenue Estate of Village Bahapur, at Rs.
8,400/- per square metre (equivalent to approximately Rs. 7,245/- per square
yard) as on 11.02.1992. Notably, the Arbitration Award dated 13.03.1993
(Mark-C/PW-1) determined the market value of land in Village Bahapur as
on 24.01.1983 at Rs. 2,157/- per square yard a figure commensurate with the
Ram Chander determination for Village Jasola thereby independently
corroborating the trajectory of land values in this area. In the case of Anar
Singh v. Union of India, it was specifically observed that the potential value,
location and situation of both Village Bahapur and Village Jasola are similar,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 66 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
given their adjacency and close interconnection. When the market rate
schedule for Kalkaji located in Village Bahapur itself points to a minimum
rate of approximately Rs. 7,245/- per square yard as early as February 1992,
the determination of Rs. 7,390/- per square yard as market value for the
similarly situated Village Jasola land as on January 1995 appears, if
anything, conservative and well within the range of values credibly
supported by the evidence.
157. The sale deed(s) relied upon by the Union of India for the proposition
that the prevailing market value in Village Jasola in 1993 was only
approximately Rs. 85/- per square yard deserve no weight for two
independent reasons. First, as correctly observed by the Reference Court,
these documents are mere photocopies and not certified copies, and are
accordingly inadmissible in evidence under Section 51-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition
Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530.
Second, and more fundamentally, these sale deed(s) were executed on
22.03.1993 with respect to land parcels that were already subject to ongoing
acquisition proceedings and therefore cannot represent genuine open-market
transactions negotiated between a willing seller and a willing buyer at arm’s
length.
158. Considering the view of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the rate of Rs.
96,875/- per bigha (approximately Rs. 96.80 per square yard) awarded by the
Land Acquisition Collector is accordingly also untenable, being based upon
sale deed(s) of land already under acquisition and bearing no relationship to
the true market potential of the subject land as on the date of notification.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 67 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
159. While this Court has given careful consideration to the submission of
learned Senior Counsel for the assignee-claimants that the rate of Rs. 7,390/-
per square yard should be treated as a floor and not a ceiling, and that
compensation ought to be fixed at not less than Rs. 10,000/- per square yard
on the basis of appreciation from the Ram Chander exemplar, the said
submission cannot be accepted for the reasons that follow. The Reference
Court, after independently computing the values emerging from both the
progressive (Rs. 13,118/-) and the cumulative (Rs. 20,958/-) appreciation
methods, consciously declined to adopt either figure on the ground that the
temporal gap of approximately fifteen and a half years rendered the
escalation method unsafe a conclusion fully consistent with the law as
declared in ONGC Ltd. (supra). While it is true that the claimants restricted
their claim to a maximum of Rs. 10,000/- per square yard, the self-imposed
cap on the claim does not, by itself, constitute evidence of market value, nor
does it compel the court to award a rate falling between the escalation-
derived figure and the cap. The correct approach which the Reference Court
adopted is to assess the rate that is borne out by credible evidence on record.
160. This Court accordingly accepts the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per square yard
as the just, fair and proper market value of the acquired land in the Revenue
Estate of Village Jasola as on 06.01.1995. This rate, determined by the
Reference Court on a sound appreciation of the evidence and the applicable
law, is further confirmed by the parity principle operating from Kishan
Lal(supra) and by the corroborating evidence discussed above. Neither the
Union of India‘s case for a reduction to Rs. 96.80 per square yard nor the
claimants’ claim for enhancement to Rs. 10,000/- per square yard premised
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 68 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
on an appreciation-based methodology that this Court finds unsafe given the
temporal gap involved is accordingly accepted.
161. Having regard to the considerations enumerated above, and in
particular to the corroboration provided by the 1992 market rate schedule,
this Court affirms that Rs. 7,390/- per square yard represents the fair market
value and that no basis exists on the evidence to depart further upward from
this figure. The cross-appeals (LA.APP. 546/2023 and LA.APP. 547/2023)
preferred by the claimants accordingly fail.
CONCLUSION:
162. In the light of the discussion and findings recorded hereinabove, this
Court arrives at the following conclusion:
(i) The Assignment Deeds dated 22.03.1995 executed by the original
recorded owners, namely Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and
Sh. Pritam Singh, in favour of the assignees/claimant are held to be
valid and enforceable. The said deed(s) are not rendered void either by
the provisions of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972
or by Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently,
the assignees validly stepped into the shoes of the original landowners
and are entitled to claim and receive compensation, including enhanced
compensation, in respect of the acquired land.
(ii) The objections raised by the Union of India and the Delhi
Development Authority regarding the validity of the Assignment
Deed(s), the adequacy of consideration, and the locus standi of the
assignees are rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 69 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
(iii) The contention founded upon the observations of the Supreme
Court in Delhi Development Authority v. S.S. Aggarwal is also
rejected, the record having established that the assignment transactions
were within the knowledge of the Land Acquisition Collector and
formed part of the acquisition proceedings.
(iv) The fair market value of the acquired land in the Revenue Estate of
Village Jasola as on 06.01.1995 is determined and upheld at Rs.
7,390/- per square yard. The Reference Court committed no error,
legal or factual, in adopting this rate on the basis of parity with Kishan
Lal(supra) and on the overall evidence on record.
(v) There is no basis on the evidence, and no principle of law, that would
justify enhancement of the market value beyond Rs. 7,390/- per square
yard, whether to Rs. 10,000/- per square yard as claimed by the
assignees or to any other figure, the escalation methodology relied upon
by the claimants being rendered unsafe by the excessive temporal gap
between the Ram Chander exemplar (1979) and the date of notification
(1995).
(vi) LA.APP. 496/2023 and LA.APP. 497/2023 (filed by the Union of
India) are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated
24.05.2023 of the learned Additional District Judge-01, South-East,
Saket Courts, New Delhi, passed in LAC No. 3/20 (Old No. 01/96), is
hereby confirmed insofar as it upholds the locus standi of the assignees
and fixes the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 7,390/- per square
yard.
(vii) LA.APP. 546/2023 and LA.APP. 547/2023 (filed by the
assignees/claimants seeking further enhancement) are hereby
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 70 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
dismissed. The learned Reference Court did not err in declining to
enhance the market value beyond Rs. 7,390/- per square yard.
(viii) The assignees/claimants in LA.APP. 496/2023 and LA.APP.
497/2023 shall accordingly remain entitled to compensation in respect
of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 7,390/- per square yard, together
with all consequential statutory benefits as directed by the Reference
Court, namely:
(a) 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, on the enhanced market value;
(b) Additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum under Section
23(1A) of the Act on the market value, computed from the date of
publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act (06.01.1995)
to the date of the Award of the Collector or the date of taking possession
of the land (22.02.1995), whichever is earlier;
(c) Interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation
from the date of possession (22.02.1995) until the expiry of one year,
and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter until the date of actual
deposit, under Section 28 of the Act; and
(d) All other statutory benefits as admissible under Award No. 10/95-
96 and directed in the impugned judgment.
163. It is clarified that the claimants in LA.APP. 546/2023 and LA.APP.
547/2023 shall receive compensation at the same rate of Rs. 7,390/- per
square yard as directed by the Reference Court, this Court having declined
to grant further enhancement. The consequential statutory benefits set out in
paragraph 141 above shall apply equally to the claimants in those appeals to
the extent applicable to their respective shares in the acquired land.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 71 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
164. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout.
165. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly. The
impugned judgment and award of the learned Reference Court dated
24.05.2023 in LAC No. 3/20 (Old No. 01/96) is hereby confirmed.
166. All the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
JULY 14, 2026
H.P./-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 497/2023 along with connected matters Page 72 of 72
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:41:40
