Jagbir Singh vs. Uoi & Anr

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Pronounced on : 26.09.2025
+ LA.APP. 59/2007 & CM APPL. 13373/2016
BED RAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta
and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates
for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.
+ LA.APP. 372/2007
BHOPAL SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta
and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
versus
UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 1 of 171

Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.
+ LA.APP. 40/2007
DHARAM VEER .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi
and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates
for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv
Kumar, Advocates for DDA.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Prateek Dhir, Mr.
Kuljeet Singh and Mr. Shivam Takiar,
Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 42/2007
SRI RAM & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi
and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 2 of 171

Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates
for UOI.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta,
Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 43/2007
BED RAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi
and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates
for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Adv.

+ LA.APP. 44/2007
ATTAR SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi
and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 3 of 171

Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates
for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.
Ms. Kamna Singh, Panel Counsel for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 58/2007
DULI CHAND .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates
for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 4 of 171

Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 1143/2008
UOI & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates
for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

versus

BHOHTI DECEASED THR.LR'S .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners.
Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 911/2010
KEHAR SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 5 of 171

Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates
for UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 338/2015, CM APPL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016
FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. S.A. Khan, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 339/2015 & CM APPL. 11804/2015
HUKUM SINGH SINCE DECEASED THR LRS & ORS
.....Appellants
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Shivansh, Mr.
Rajan Sharma, Mr. Deepak Gola, Mr.
Krishna Kant, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 6 of 171

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta,
Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 144/2019
PRAKASH & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Dhruv Anand, Mr. Dhananjay
Khanna, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 230/2022
SALEK RAM (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Appearance not given.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita
Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 7 of 171

+ LA.APP. 366/2022, CM APPL. 52464-65/2022
SITA RAM (DECEASED) THR. LR CHAVAN & ANR.
.....Appellants
Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi
and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and
Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Akhil Mittal, ASC with Ms.
Navita Gupta, Mr. Sidhant Garg,
Advs. for DDA.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 61/2007
KESAR SINGH & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 8 of 171

Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 62/2007
GANGA RAM & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 63/2007
SATTO DEVI & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 9 of 171

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu
and Mr. Sami Sameer Siddiqui,
Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC
with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr.
Abhishek Kumar, Advocates
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 64/2007
ANGOORI DEVI (D) THRU. L.R. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita
Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 65/2007
RAJ PAL .....Appellant


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 10 of 171

Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi
and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 66/2007
KAILASH SHARMA & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 11 of 171

Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 73/2007
TEK CHAND .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 87/2007, CM APPL. 808-09/2019
PRITAM SINGH & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 12 of 171

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Ms. Meghna, Advocate for DDA.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 412/2007
GIRIRAJ & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 89/2007
BALBIR SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 13 of 171

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate
for DDA.
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 1234/2008
HANS RAJ DECD. THR . LR'S .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UOI &ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 14 of 171

+ LA.APP. 1235/2008, CM APPL. 6801/2017 & 16070/2024
SURYA PRAKASH & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 130/2009
SHRI BHIK RAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 15 of 171

Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 607/2009
NEKI RAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UOI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for
DDA

+ LA.APP. 91/2007
BHIM SINGH DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 16 of 171

Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta,
Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 293/2007
JAGBIR SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 72/2016 & CM APPL. 11271/2016
RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHUBER SINGH @ RAGHBAR
SINGH & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Y.R. Sharma and Ms. Akshita
Sharma, Advocates for LRs of
Appellant No.2

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 17 of 171

and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.


+ LA.APP. 335/2008
MUNSHI DECEASED THROUGH L.R'S & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta,
Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 500/2008
BHARAT SINGH & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 18 of 171

+ LA.APP. 501/2008
ZILE SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R'S .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 508/2008
JAGWATI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 509/2008
BIR SINGH .....Appellant


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 19 of 171

Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 564/2008
AMAN SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 565/2008
SHASHI VERMA .....Appellant


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 20 of 171

Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 609/2008 & CM APPL. 917/2016
NIMANT RANA & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 21 of 171

Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 631/2008
DINESH KUMAR & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Amit Dhalla and Mr. Sohan Singh
Rawat, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.
Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Manish Kr.
Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Singh,
Advocates for R-2 to 8.

+ LA.APP. 737/2008
INDER SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 22 of 171

Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

U.O.I & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for DDA

+ LA.APP. 739/2008
RAMESH BASISTHA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

U.O.I & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 748/2008, CM APPL. 945/2011, 2181/2011 & 52896/2018
DAL CHAND & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Appearance not given.

versus


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 23 of 171

U.O.I & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 816/2008, CM APPL. 12931/2017, 12932/2017,
12933/2017, 36662/2017 & REVIEW PET. 132/2017
KISHAN SAHAI THRU L.R'S .....Appellant
Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradeep
Tokas, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 817/2008
JAGBIR & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi
and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 24 of 171

versus

UOI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 876/2008
RISHAL SINGH DECD. THR. LR'S .....Appellant
Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradeep
Tokas, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 966/2008
RAJ KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Appearance not given.

versus



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 25 of 171

UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 992/2008
AJEET SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 994/2008, CM APPL. 12577-79/2017, 36659/2017 &
REVIEW PET. 128/2017
HARI SINGH .....Appellant


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 26 of 171

Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradeep
Tokas, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 995/2008
PREM SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 27 of 171

Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 996/2008
RAJENDER PRASHAD & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates
for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.


+ LA.APP. 1038/2008, CM APPL. 11903-04/2015
UOI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates
for UOI.
versus

KHAZAN SINGH &ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 28 of 171

+ LA.APP. 1040/2008
UOI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
versus

CHAMPA DEVI DECD. THR.LR'S .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners

+ LA.APP. 1042/2008
UOI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.

versus

RICHA RAM & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners

+ LA.APP. 1043/2008
UOI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.

versus

PHOOL SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 29 of 171

Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners

+ LA.APP. 1136/2008
JASWANT SINGH RANA (DECEASED) THR. LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 1141/2008
UOI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.

versus

MANSA RAM DECD. THR. LR'S & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 30 of 171

+ LA.APP. 1142/2008, CM APPL. 42668-69/2023
UOI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Mr. Aakash
Mohar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Adv. for
Claimant
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC with Mr.
Gautam Yadav, Mr. Sanjay Singh
Rathore, Advocates

versus

KISHORI @ BHOLA DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners

+ LA.APP. 1144/2008
UOI & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 31 of 171

Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

versus

NATHU & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners


+ LA.APP. 1145/2008
UOI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.

versus

BALBIR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners

+ LA.APP. 1146/2008, CM APPL. 11470-71/2015
UOI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.

versus

HARI KISHAN DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for DDA
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 32 of 171

Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners

+ LA.APP. 1147/2008
UOI & ANR. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

versus

SOHAN THR.HIS LR'S .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners

+ LA.APP. 1148/2008
UOI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.

versus

KHAZAN SINGH DECD. THR. LR'S .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 33 of 171

+ LA.APP. 1204/2008
DEVENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 1238/2008
CHINTA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 34 of 171

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 89/2009
OM PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita
Maheshwari and Mr. Mohit Sharma,
Advocates.
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for DDA

+ LA.APP. 528/2009
SHER SINGH (DECEASED) THR. LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 35 of 171

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 550/2009
GUNI RAM DECD THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for DD

+ LA.APP. 551/2009
RANJIT KUMAR TRIGUNA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 36 of 171

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 552/2009
JAGDIP KUMAR TRIGUNA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 553/2009
BAHADUR DECD THR LRS .....Appellant


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 37 of 171

Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 556/2009
ATTAR SINGH DECD THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 38 of 171

Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 559/2009 & CM APPL. 41913/2019
PEHLAD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Deepak Gola and
Mr. Shivam Wadhwa, Advocates.
Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 560/2009 & CM APPL. 14064/2015
AJIT SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 39 of 171

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 576/2009 & CM APPL. 14065/2015
NARENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 580/2009, CM APPL. 14066/2015
KESAR SINGH & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 40 of 171

and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 595/2009 & CM APPL. 14010/2015
PREM RAJ & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 618/2009, CM APPL. 11472-73/2015
BADLEY .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 41 of 171

Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Mr.
Harpreeet Singh Chadha, Advocates
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 647/2009, CM APPL. 8877-79/2025
MEHAR CHAND & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta,
Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 650/2009
PREM RAJ & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri,
Advocates.

versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 42 of 171

and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta,
Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 101/2010, CM APPL. 14013/2015
RATTO DEVI DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 253/2010 & CM APPL. 14060/2015
RAM PAT .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Parmita Nath, Ms.
Alka Singh, Mr. Naveen K.,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 43 of 171

+ LA.APP. 263/2010 & CM APPL. 14068/2015
RAMESH & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 264/2010 & CM APPL. 14069/2015
HARI SINGH DECD THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman
Sinha, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 311/2010, CM APPL. 14014/2015 & 6488/2017
MAMRAJ & ORS .....Appellants


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 44 of 171

Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 314/2010
LAKHMI CHAND & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Gagandeep Sachdeva, Mr.
Harshpreet Singh Chadha & Mr.
Hardesh Khanna, Advs. for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 315/2010 & CM APPL. 14063/2015
JAGGAN & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 45 of 171

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 316/2010 & CM APPL. 14062/2015
RAMESH DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 380/2010
KESAR SINGH & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Prashant Katara, Mr. Aman Sinha,
Advocates.

versus

UOI .....Respondent


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 46 of 171

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.

+ LA.APP. 454/2010, CM APPL. 14079/2015 & 21034/2019
DAYA KISHAN DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 677/2010, CM APPL. 12572-74/2017, 36669/2017 &
REVIEW PET. 127/2017
OM PRAKASH & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradeep
Tokas, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita
Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 47 of 171

+ LA.APP. 678/2010 & CM APPL. 14058/2015
SHRI CHANDERMAN @ CHANDER SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Appearance not given.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 679/2010, CM APPL. 12927-29/2017, 36664/2017 &
REVIEW PET. 131/2017
RAM SINGH DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradeep
Tokas, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Roshan Lal and Mr. Bhuvan Goel,
Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 682/2010 & CM APPL. 14067/2015
MOOL CHAND DECD THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Appearance not given.

versus



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 48 of 171

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 683/2010
YASH PAL & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradeep
Tokas, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Ms. Nain Singh, Advocates
for DDA

+ LA.APP. 699/2010
NAIN SINGH THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Appearance not given.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 49 of 171

Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mr.
Devvrat Arya, Ms. Deeya Mittal,
Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 765/2010 & CM APPL. 14073/2015
DAL CHAND & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 827/2010 & CM APPL. 14012/2015
BHOOP SINGH DECD THRU LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 50 of 171

Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 1070/2010, CM APPL. 14080/2015, 37746-47/2022
RAM KISHAN DECD THRU LRS & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 15/2011 & CM APPL. 14081/2015
MUSSADI DECD THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 29/2011
DAL CHAND & ANR .....Appellants


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 51 of 171

Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 39/2011
UMA DHOWAN & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for
Claimants/Land owners

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Panel Counsel with
Mr. Sourav Verma, Advocate for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 54/2011
KARAN SINGH .....Appellant


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 52 of 171

Through: Mr. Brijesh Chaudhary, Mr. Prins
Kumar, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 140/2011, CM APPL. 14071/2015, 15510-11/2025
RANJEET SINGH DECD THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Parmita Nath, Ms.
Alka Singh, Mr. Naveen K.,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 155/2011 & CM APPL. 14070/2015
JASPAL SINGH (DEC) THRU.LRS .....Appellant


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 53 of 171

Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA


+ LA.APP. 156/2011 & CM APPL. 14011/2015
BED RAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Kuljeet Singh,
Advocate.

+ LA.APP. 251/2011 & CM APPL. 14015/2015
HARI CHAND .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi
and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 54 of 171

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 708/2011 & CM APPL. 3077/2017
LEKH RAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 716/2011
GOPAL SINGH & ORS .....Appellants


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 55 of 171

Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 5/2012, CM APPL. 33879-80/2024
SURJAN & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 56 of 171

+ LA.APP. 6/2012
GIAN CHAND DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R-
2/DDA.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Nidhi Raman CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA

+ LA.APP. 10/2012 & CM APPL. 44574/2022
ANANT RAM & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 57 of 171

and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 13/2012
BUDHAN DECD THRU LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 37/2012 & CM APPL. 14072/2015
DAROGA DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi
and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 58 of 171

Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 218/2012
NET RAM THROUGH LRS AND ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 223/2012
HARI SINGH THROUGH LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 59 of 171

Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms.
Guneet B. Khehar, Advocates for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 49/2013, CM APPL. 5014-15/2019
SAMARTA LRS AND ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
versus

UOI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 51/2013 & CM APPL. 14061/2015
NET RAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 60 of 171

and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy
Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 85/2015 & CM APPL. 2272/2015
LAKHMI CHAND & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 86/2015, CM APPL. 2282/2015 & 19952/2023
JUGAL KISHORE & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Gaurav Kakar and Mr. Lakshay
Raheja, Advocates for LR of
Appellant No.1.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 61 of 171

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 390/2015
VIRENDER SINGH (SINCE MISSING) THR LRS & ORS
.....Appellants
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Deepak Gola and
Mr. Rajan Sharma, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind
Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms.
Anamika, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 423/2015
HARI KISHAN (DECEASED) THR LEGAL HEIRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 62 of 171

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
+ LA.APP. 426/2015
NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for
DDA

+ LA.APP. 445/2015
NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 63 of 171

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 14/2016 & CM APPL. 354/2016
NAIN SINGH (DECEASED) THR HIS LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 18/2016
MAHIPAL (DECEASED) THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 64 of 171

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and
Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 19/2016
CHHATTAR SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for
DDA.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and
Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

+ LA.APP. 173/2016 & CM APPL. 9203/2020
RAM SAROOP THROUGH LRS .....Appellant


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 65 of 171

Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UOI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA


+ LA.APP. 196/2016, CM APPL. 37755/2018 & 28909/2024
BUDH RAM @ BUDH SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS
.....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Mr. Rajat
Sharma, Ms. Ruchika Sharma and Mr.
Chetan Sharma, Advocates for LR III
(a & c)
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 66 of 171

Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 292/2016 & CM APPL. 37754/2018
HARI KISHAN SHARMA & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 11/2017 & CM APPL. 942/2017
SHASHI KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr.
Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh,
Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 67 of 171

with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 256/2017
POOJA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for
DDA

+ LA.APP. 287/2017 & CM APPL. 31509/2017
MEHAR CHAND & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 68 of 171

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 131/2018
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and
Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
versus

MANMCHAND (DEC) THR LRS & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Appearance not given.

+ LA.APP. 204/2018
OM PARKASH (DECEASED) THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri,
Advocates.

versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Gaurav Dua and Mr. Govil
Upadhyay, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 209/2018
VIRENDER & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Appearance not given.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 69 of 171

Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA

+ LA.APP. 245/2018, CM APPL. 54192-94/2018
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and
Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Tushar Gupta, Mr. Parinay Gupta,
Advocates for DDA
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav
Kumar, Advocates for DDA
versus

BUDH RAM @ BUDH SINGH (DEC) THR LRS & ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Gupta and Mr. Parinay
Gupta, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 246/2018, CM APPL. 54324-26/2018
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and
Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 70 of 171

versus

HAR KISHAN (DEC) THR LRS & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 247/2018, CM APPL. 54360-62/2018
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and
Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju
Gupta, Advocates for R-2.

versus

RAM SAROOP (DEC) THR LRS & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju
Gupta, Advocates for DDA.
Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Mr. Bhuvan
Goel, Advocates for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 4/2019, CM APPL. 1666-68/2019
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and
Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

versus



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 71 of 171

RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS...Respondents
Through: Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 49/2019, CM APPL. 16601/2019, CM APPL.16603-
04/2019
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and
Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

versus

HANSO (DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Poddar, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Mrinalni Sen, SC with Ms.
Shivangi Bhasin and Ms. Gauri
Shyam, Advs. for DDA
Ms. Prity Sharma, Advocate for DDA.

+ LA.APP. 130/2019, CM APPL. 38327-28/2024
DAL CHAND SHARMA & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 72 of 171

with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms.
Guneet B. Khehar, Advocates for
DDA.
Mr. Neeraj Kumar and Mr. Kartik
Garg, Advocates.

+ LA.APP. 137/2019 & CM APPL. 38884/2019
BHOOP SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate
for DDA
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms.
Guneet B. Khehar, Advocates for
DDA.

+ LA.APP. 298/2022
JAI BHAGWAN DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS
AND ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh
Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay,
Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 73 of 171

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita
Maheshwari, Advocates for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
JUDGMENT
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE…………………………………………………………………75
BRIEF FACTS………………………………………..……..…………....75
THE HISTORY OF ASSESSMENT……………………………………78
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT…………………………………….85
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.2/DDA……………………..92
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.1/UOI……………………...99
REJOINDER BY APPELLANT ………………………………………100
SUR-REJOINDER………………………………………………………103
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT.............................................................103
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS………………………...................................108
The Appeals…..…………………………….........................................109
Village Khizrabad ………………………............................................110
Village Kilokari ….…..…………………….........................................111
Village Nangli Razapur…………………............................................114
Village Garhi Mendu……………………............................................117
The Award…………………………………………………………….119
The Reference Court Judgments…………………………………….120
The Additional Evidence..…………………........................................122
The Statute…………………………………………………………….134
Compensation awarded in Village Behlolpur Khadar &
Jasola..………………………………………........................................138
Proximity to developed colonies, agricultural activities &
potentiality…………………………………………………………….145
The Location Plan………..…………………………………………...152
The Exemplar…………………………………………………………160
CONCLUSION………….………………………....................................170


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 74 of 171

PREFACE
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. 59/2007 captioned Bed Ram v.
UOI & Anr. 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.
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as “LA Act”] against the
judgment and decree dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Court of Learned ADJ,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in LAC No. 1 of 2003 captioned Bed Ram v. UOI &
Anr. [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”].
2. By the Impugned Judgment the learned Reference Court enhanced the
market value of the acquired land from Rs.27,344/- per Bigha, which was
awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector [hereinafter referred to as "LAC"]
to Rs.89,600/- per Bigha 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 Appellant is 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 notification till the date of award or date of
dispossession, [whichever is earlier], till the expiry of one year and thereafter
@15% per annum.
3. Land was acquired for land development of Delhi in relation to the
channelisation of the river Yamuna, by a notification under Section 4 of the


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 75 of 171

LA Act was issued on 23.06.1989 [hereinafter referred to as the “23.06.1989
Notification”]. The notification sets out in detail that for acquisition of land
admeasuring about 3500 hectares of land starting from a point 1 km upstream,
Wazirabad Barrage road along eastern Yamuna marginal bund till it meets the
boundary of Union Territory upto point it meets newly constructed NOIDA
Bridge then along the Northern Boundary of the Bridge upto Agra Canal then
along the eastern boundary of Agra canal upto Okhla head-works and along
the Eastern Boundary of regularised unauthorised colonies of Batla House
Joga Bai, Village Zakir Nagar, Hinrerbad village and then along the eastern
boundary of Women Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute, Kalindi
Colony till it meets Ring Road the Eastern Boundary of Ring road till meets
Indraprastha Power House then along the Eastern Boundary of Power House
and then along the bund upto the point it meets old Railway bridge and then
along the road joining Ring Road crossing near Poakey Bridge then along the
Ring Road upto 1 km upstream Wazirabad Water Works along the bund upto
1 km then along the imaginary line running parallel to Wazirabad Barrage on
the Northern side upto starting point excepting the following land:-
(a) Government land;
(b) Land already notified under Section 4 or under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 is likely to be acquired under the provisions of
the said Act for the purpose above stated.
3.1 Award No. 14/1992-1993 was passed for acquisition of the land
admeasuring 2226 Bighas and 5 Biswas situated in village Kilokari. Award
No. 18/1992-93 was passed for acquisition of land admeasuring 874 Bighas
and 4 Biswas in village Khizrabad. Award No. 16/1992-93 was passed for
acquisition of land admeasuring 2009 Bighas and 10 Biswas in village Nangli


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 76 of 171

Razapur and Award No. 13/1992-93 was passed for acquisition of land
admeasuring 1563 Bighas and 18 Biswas in village Garhi Mendu [hereinafter
collectively referred to as “acquired land”] as set out in the Table below:
Award No. Village Area Area of land acquisitioned by the Award
Award No. 13/1992-93 Garhi Mendu 1563 Bighas 18 Biswas
Award No. 14/1992-93 Kilokari 2226 Bighas and 5 Biswas
Award No. 16/1992-93 Nangli
Razapur
2009 Bighas and 10 Biswas
Award No. 18/1992-93 Khizrabad 874 Bighas and 4 Biswas
4. Pursuant thereto, the notifications under Section 6 and Section 17 of
the LA Act were issued on 22.06.1990 in respect of the acquired land
including at villages Madanpur Khadar, Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Chuck
Chilla, Okhla, Jogabai, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad, Jasola and on 20.06.1990
in respect of village Garhi Mendu. The possession of the acquired land was
taken in the year 1995.
5. The Award No.14/1992-93 was passed by the Land Acquisition
Collector on 19.06.1992, for land admeasuring 2226 Bighas and 5 Biswa in
village Kilokari whereby compensation or market value of the land was
ascertained at Rs.27,344/-per Bigha was awarded to the Appellant for the
acquired land [hereinafter referred to as “Kilokari Award”]. The LAC took
into consideration sale deeds of the land executed during the years 1985-89
and took out the average value thereof at Rs. 18,736/-. In addition, it took into
account an office order no. F.9(20)/80-L&B/4313-16 dated 03.05.1990
[hereinafter referred to as “Office Order of 1990”] which came into force from
27.04.1990 and after working out a pro-rata discount, it valued the acquired


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 77 of 171

land at Rs. 27,334/- per Bigha for the land at village Kilokari.
6. The LAC similarly assessed the value of the land for the villages
Khizrabad, Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu and passed three separate
awards assessing the market value of the land of these villages at a uniform
rate of Rs. 27,334/- per Bigha. The reason as assigned by the LAC for the
uniform rate was that the purpose of acquisition of all land was the same and
all villages were adjacent and contiguous to each other. The village wise
details of the four awards are set out below:
Award No. Name of Village Kind of Land
14/1992-93 Kilokari Sailabi
18/1992-93 Khizrabad Khadar
16/1992-93 Nangli Razapur Khadar
13/1992-93 Garhi Mendu Flooded land
7. Subsequently, by virtue of a notification under Section 48(1) of the LA
Act dated 25.01.1995, lands admeasuring 1430 Bighas and 10 Biswas in
village Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Nangli Razapur and Chuck-Chilla stood
de-notified by the LAC. The reasons as set out by the LAC in its order dated
05.11.2004 for de-notification, was that the lands admeasuring 1430 Bighas
and 10 Biswas were submerged or prone to be submerged, and hence were
de-notified.
THE HISTORY OF ASSESSMENT
8. In the meantime, being dissatisfied with the low assessment of the
market value of the land by the LAC, a reference was filed under Section 18
of the LA Act before the learned Reference Court on 13.07.1992 to submit


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 78 of 171

that the present market value of the acquired land is about Rs.10,000/- per
square yard and the acquired land does not form part of riverbed and that large
portion of land of village, Kilokari was acquired in the year 1959 wherein the
LAC assessed the market value of the land at Rs 26,000/- per Bigha at that
time. It was contended that LAC assessed the market value of acquired land,
without taking into account the prices of land and their enhanced value during
the period of 30 years between 1959 and 1989, and without considering the
prevailing market rate of the area.
9. The Reference Petitions were filed in relation to villages at Kilokari,
Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu before the learned Reference
Court. The learned Reference Court in terms of the judgment passed in LAC
No. 18 of 2005 titled ‘ Attar Singh v UOI ’ [hereinafter referred to as “ Attar
Singh case”] pertaining to village Khizrabad, allowed the Reference Petitions
by an order dated 25.09.2006. The learned Reference Court relying upon the
1
judgment of Tindey & Ors v UOI & Anr. [hereinafter referred to as “ Tindey
case”] , increased the compensation awarded to Rs.89,600/- per Bigha.
9.1 Similarly, the Reference Petitions filed in relation to land in the revenue
estate of village Kilokari were decided. The lead matter for the village
Kilokari is LAC No. 1/2003 titled ‘Bed Ram v. UOI & Anr.’ [hereinafter
referred to as “ Bed Ram Reference Court case”] whereby the compensation
was increased by the learned Reference Court to Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha by a
judgment dated 19.06.1992 based on the judgment in the Attar Singh case
and the Tindey case.

1
1999 SCC OnLine Del 1070


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 79 of 171

9.2 In respect of Petitions filed for the land acquired at village Nangli
Razapur, the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 2/1998 titled ‘Bhopal
Singh v. Union of India & Anr.’ by a judgment dated 29.08.2007 [hereinafter
referred to as the “Nangli Razapur Reference Court Judgment”], relied upon
the Attar Singh case and the Bed Ram Reference Court case to award
compensation of Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha.
9.3 So far as concerns the village Garhi Mendu, the learned Reference
Court by a judgment dated 26.07.2007 passed in LAC No. 96/1 of 2006 titled
Khazan Singh v. UOI [hereinafter referred to as “ Khazan Singh case”]
relying on the judgment of Smt. Chawli Devi (Deceased) through her LRs v.
UOI & DDA being LAC No. 334/1 of 2006 , similarly enhanced the market
value of the acquired land from Rs. 27,344/- per Bigha to Rs. 90,102/- per
Bigha.
10. As stated above, the learned Reference Court enhanced the market
value of the acquired land in all four villages – Kilokari, Nangli Razapur,
Khizrabad to Rs.89,600/- per Bigha and for Garhi Mendu Rs. 90,102/- per
Bigha. The other antecedent directions such as solatium and interest were also
awarded by the learned Reference Court. Aggrieved by this award, the
Appellants filed the present Appeals before this Court. By a judgment dated
07.06.2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court decided a batch of Appeals,
including the present Appeal of which the LA APP. 59/2007 captioned Bed
Ram v. Union of India & Anr. was the lead matter to hold that the fair market
value of the land acquired in three villages of Kilokari, Khizrabad and Nangli
Razapur as set out by the learned Reference Court was correctly determined


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 80 of 171

at Rs.89,600/- per Bigha. The Coordinate Bench thus dismissed the batch of
Appeals including the present Appeal.
10.1 By a separate order dated 07.06.2011 also, the Coordinate Bench of this
Court decided the batch of Appeals including LA. APP. 1038/2008 captioned
UOI. v. Khazan Singh & Ors. in respect of village Garhi Mendu, and revised
the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court to Rs. 89,600/- per
Bigha as in the case of village Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Khizrabad.
11. The order(s) dated 07.06.2011, as corrected by order dated 22.07.2011
passed by this Court, were challenged by the Appellant by filing a Special
Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 1939/2012
captioned Union of India v. Ram Lal & Ors. and connected matters
[hereinafter referred to as “SC Judgment”]. The Supreme Court by order dated
13.01.2015 passed two directions with respect to the matters in villages
Kilokari, Khizrabad Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu. In the first instance,
it was held that a Review Petition be filed before the High Court to permit the
Appellant to produce additional documents, maps and awards before Single
Judge within 30 days. The Court further held that if the Review Petition(s)
were filed within 30 days, the Single Judge would consider the same without
going into the question of limitation. The relevant extract of the SC judgment
is set out below:
“2. Briefly stated, the facts in the present appeals and petition are: the lis
pertains to the determination of fair market value of lands admeasuring 1536
Bigha 10 biswa in village Garhi Mendu , belonging to the
claimants/respondents herein. The said land was acquired under Section 11
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), by the
appellants/petitioner herein for the public purpose of planned development of
Delhi.
3. The said land, along with land in three other villages, namely Khirzahad
[sic: Khizrabad], Kilolari [sic: Kilokari] and Chak Chilla, was notified by


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 81 of 171

the Government, vide Notification No. F. 9 (1)/89—L&B (i.) issued under
Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 23.06.1989 . The same was followed by
Notification No. F. 9 (I)/89-L&B/LA(ii) & (iii) issued under Sections 6 and
17 of the Act, dated 20.06.1990. In pursuance of the said Notifications,
notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were issued to all interested
persons.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the LAC”), took into
consideration Order No. F-9(20)/80-L&B/4313-16, issued by the Delhi
Administration regarding fixation of minimum price of agricultural land by
the LAC, dated 03.05.1990. In light of the aforesaid policy of the State
administration the LAC vide Award No. 13/1992-93, determined the
compensation to be awarded at the rate of Rs.27,344/- per Bigha along with
statutory benefits, dated 19.06.1992.
5. Dissatisfied with the award of the LAC, the respondents herein sought for
a reference under Section 18 of the Act for adjudication of the fair market
value. It was argued by the claimants that the LAC did not consider, inter
alia, the potential value of the land, that the revenue estate of the village in
which the land was situate was surrounded by posh colonies developed by
the Delhi Development Authority and other private colonies, and that all
basic civic amenities were available to the land . The Reference Court, while
considering the contentions raised by the parties to the lis, took notice of the
award of the LAC with regard to land situate in villages Khizrabad, Kilokari
and Chak Chilla, dated 19,06.1992. By the said awards, the LAC had
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.27,344/- per Bigha along with
statutory benefits, It was further noticed, by the Reference Court, that a
reference had been, sought against the said awards, and consequently,
taking into consideration the location, potentiality, nature, topography of
the said land, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.89,600/- per bigha .
xxx xxx xxx
2. In our considered opinion, these facts, as also the maps and relevant
documents, may be brought to the notice of the High Court by the
appellant(s)/petitioners herein by filing appropriate review petition(s)
before the High Court within thirty days’ time from today .
3. If such review petition(s) is/are filed within the time granted by this Court,
we request the learned Single Judge to consider the same in accordance with
law, but without going into the question of limitation .
4. Further, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we permit
the appellant(s)/petitioners herein to produce the additional documents,
maps, awards, if any, which are in their possession, before the learned
Single Judge along with the said review petition(s) .
5. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the learned
Single Judge.”
[Emphasis supplied]


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 82 of 171

12. Subsequently, several Review Petitions in relation to the acquired land
were filed before this Court by the Appellants. By its order dated 13.03.2015,
a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed that the decision dated 07.06.2011
is withdrawn vis-à-vis the review petitioners and it was directed that the
present Appeals would be reconsidered by the roster bench after giving an
opportunity to the Appellant/Review Petitioners to place on record further
evidence. The relevant extract of the order dated 13.03.2015 is below:
“3. The review petitioners, are relying upon a large number of documents
which include a few judicial determinations in Land Acquisition References
made.
4. In ethos with the order passed by the Supreme Court on January 13, 2015,
the review petitioners would be entitled to formally lead evidence and prove
the documents on which they rely requiring a re-consideration of the matter
keeping in light such documents which may be proved.
5. Since I am presiding over a Division Bench, it may not be possible to spare
time in the near future to record evidence and thereafter decide the issue
afresh, as agreed to between the learned counsel for the parties, the review
petitions are being disposed of declaring that the decision dated June 07,
2011 is withdrawn vis-a-vis the review petitioners. Land Acquisition
Appeals filed by the review petitioners would be re-considered by the roster
bench, after giving opportunity to the review petitioners to lead further
evidence but limited to proving such documents and judicial orders, which
have been filed under cover of the review petition .
6. The Review Petitions stand disposed of.”
[Emphasis supplied]
13. By an order dated 30.07.2015, this Court directed that additional
evidence and additional documents be filed in the lead matter i.e., the Bed
Ram case and the other Appellants can rely on these Affidavits and additional
documents for other cases. The relevant extract of the order dated 30.07.2015
is set out below:
“Counsel for Union of India states that they are in the process of collecting
the records and, therefore, seeks an adjournment.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 83 of 171

Upon remand by the Supreme Court with liberty to file additional evidence at
the behest of the appellants/claimants, Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Nandrajog has
reviewed his judgment disposing of the appeals on 07.06.2011 and that is how
the matter is listed before this Court.
Let one set of additional affidavit and additional documents to be led in
evidence be filed in lead case, i.e. LA App No.59/2007, titled Bed Ram v.
Union of India. Since the said evidence is sought to be relied by all the other
appellants, there is no necessity of filing separate affidavit of evidence in
the other cases.
If any of the other appellants wishes to file any additional documents, they
may file the same in their respective appeals. However, the counsels shall
coordinate and prepare a common compilation of additional documents to be
relied upon. The compilation shall be filed in the lead case, i.e. LA App
No.59/2007, Bed Ram v. Union of India . Advance copies shall be furnished
to counsel for the respondent. This exercise be completed within four weeks.
Learned counsels state that only documentary evidence of unimpeachable
nature is required to be filed….”
[Emphasis supplied]
14. Pursuant thereto, the evidence was led by the Appellants in the Bed
Ram case and the case captioned Karan Singh v. Union of India, LA.APP.
54/2011 [hereinafter referred to as “ Karan Singh case”] for the batch of
matters. Affidavits statements of AW1/Kailash Sharma in the Bed Ram case
and AW1/Karan Singh in the Karan Singh case were filed and they were
cross-examined by the Respondents. Evidence was also led by RW1/Ravinder
Dang on behalf of Respondent before this Court.
15. Subsequently, by an order dated 26.11.2015, the Court directed that the
additional evidence recorded and led in the Bed Ram case and the Karan
Singh case shall be read in so far as relevant for the remaining Appeals and
listed the matters before the Joint Registrar of this Court for recording of
evidence.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 84 of 171

16. Once the evidence was concluded, these Appeals were listed before this
Court in pursuance of the aforegoing decisions of the Supreme Court and the
Coordinate Bench.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
17. Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants have
divided their submissions into 3 primary contentions:
(i) location of land and its potentiality;
(ii) submissions of exemplars;
(iii) land being ‘Sailabi’ cannot have much potentiality is not a
correct analysis.
18. Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit
that land was assessed by LAC at rate of Rs. 26,000/- in the year 1959. Hence,
the Award by LAC in the year 1992 at the rate of Rs. 27,344/- per Bigha was
not the fair market value. Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the
Appellants submit that the Reference Court in the Impugned Judgment had
observed that, since the market value of land increases over the years, it is
unlikely that prices of land have remained stagnant from the year 1959 when
market price was Rs. 26,000/- per Bigha and therefore rate of land would have
been 10% per annum from 1959. Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel
for the Appellants submit that as per 10% p.a. progressive increase from 1959
to 1989 as observed in the Impugned Judgment the actual market value should
be more than Rs. 1000/- per square yard or approximately Rs. 30 lakhs per
Bigha. The learned Reference Court on 18.10.2006 passed the Impugned
Judgment assessing market value of acquired land at rate of Rs.89,600/- per
Bigha as on 23.06.1989. Other antecedents related to the acquired land


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 85 of 171

pertaining to solatium and interest was also awarded. While assessing market
value of acquired land in village Kilokari, the learned Reference Court drew
comparison with village Khizrabad stating that both lands stood acquired by
same notification and for the same purpose and the location is also within the
same vicinity and accordingly awarded the same market value as awarded in
Tindey case.
18.1 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit
that land of village, Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Nangli Razapur, Chuck-
chilla admeasuring 1430 Bigha and 10 biswa was de-notified under Section
48(1) of the LA Act by a gazette notification dated 25.01.1995. On
05.11.2004, order was passed by the LAC assigning reasons that since part of
the land was found to be submerged in the river Yamuna land was de-notified.
Emphasis is laid on the fact that the land not submerged was retained and
acquired by the Respondents and the acquired land in these Appeals forms
part of the land.
18.2 It was contended that the Section 4 notification was also the same in
respect of land acquired for village Behlolpur Khadar and the compensation
awarded by the LAC in this village was enhanced by the learned Reference
Court to Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha in terms of a judgment dated 04.01.2011 passed
by the learned Reference Court in LAC 75/2008 captioned Smt. Sudesh
Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr.
18.2.1 It was further contended that relying on the testimony of AW-1,
Kailash Sharma, that the witness had stated that they had been cultivating the
land in question until its acquisition in 1989 and that there was no examination


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 86 of 171

conducted on the aspect of flooding. In fact, it is stated that the land was
irrigated from the water of river Yamuna and not submerged.
18.3 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit
that the market value for the land of village, Behlolpur Khadar and Jasola,
both acquired under the same notification as the acquired land, has been
assessed at rate of Rs. 2.5 lacs per Bigha for Behlolpur Khadar and Rs. 4948/-
per sq. yard for Jasola respectively. For the village, Behlolpur Khadar
compensation has already been received by the claimants. Reliance is placed
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bal Ram &
2
Anr to submit that if the nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to
the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of
compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union
3 4
of India & Anr and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.
to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when
land is of similar nature.
18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from
Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village
Kilokari while village Behlolpur Khadar is also a part of adjoining village
Kilokari, yet a distinction has been drawn by the learned Reference Court in
the award for these four villages of Kilokari, Khizrabad, Nangli Razapur and
Garhi Mendu without any legal basis.

2
(2010) 5 SCC 747
3
(2004) 10 SCC 627
4
2009 (8) SCC 582



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 87 of 171

18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for
the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the
adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony,
Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony,
Jangpura and Rajdoot Hotel etc. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon the
testimony of RW-l, Mr. Ravinder Dang [Naib Tehsildar at office of LAC] and
testimony of RW-2, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Chandra [Scientist with Central
Ground Water Authority].
18.5 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit
that they are also entitled for 12% per annum additional market value under
Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of
possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of
the acquired land.
18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit
that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition
purpose requires a reassessment of market value using a fair and just
approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based
on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted
that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near
future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause
(4) of Section 24 of the LA Act.
18.7 Relying on the sale deed dated 17.03.1988 [Ex. PW3/1] which
references a sale of one Bigha for Rs.2,07,500/- per Bigha, it was contended
that the sale deed was proved before the learned Reference Court and that the


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171

witness stood his ground, despite which the learned Reference Court came to
a conclusion that the sale deed could not be relied upon.
18.8 The exemplar in respect of village Behlolpur Khadar wherein the
compensation was enhanced by the learned Reference Court by its order dated
04.01.2011 to Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha, was also relied upon to contend that this
exemplar was not taken into consideration by the learned Reference Court in
the present case. It is further contended that Respondent No.1/UOI has not
challenged these findings in respect of village Jasola and Behlolpur Khadar
5
except in two cases and in all other cases, the land owners have received the
compensation, thus, parity must be maintained in respect of adjoining
adjacent lands with similar potentiality. Learned Senior Counsel/Learned
Counsel for the Appellants relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
6
K. Periasami Vs. Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) to submit that the
acquired land is entitled to compensation at the parity with the other lands
situated in the same area and acquired by the same notification as the acquired
land.
18.9 In addition, reliance has also been placed on the Award No.21/92-93
pertaining to village Jasola wherein the LAC awarded the market value of the
land at the rate of Rs.27,344/- per Bigha while the learned Reference Court in
LAC No. 224 of 2011 captioned Jagdish Gulati v. UOI & Anr. decided on
29.11.2011 substantially enhanced the amount to Rs. 4948/- per square yard.
7
It is stated again that even against the present award only two Appeals were

5
LA.APP. 129/2016 captioned Union of India v. Hari Kishan @ Harkesh (Deceased) Thr. LRs & Ors. and;
LA APP. 128/2016 captioned Union of India v. Kesar Singh & Ors.
6
(1994) 4 SCC 180
7
LA.APP. 224/2012 captioned Union of India v. Jagdish Gulati and;
LA.APP.225/2012 captioned Union of India v. Sadhna Gupta & Anr.



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 89 of 171

filed again by Respondent No. 1 and compensation to remaining land owners
was received in terms of order of the learned Reference Court.
18.10 Lastly, on the aspect of the land being ‘Sailabi’ which means
submergible, it is contended by the Respondents that the land does not have
much potentiality. It is submitted that this submission does not take into
account the 1430 Bighas 10 Biswa land which was de-notified by the
Respondents, in pursuance of which on 05.11.2004, the LAC passed a detailed
order stating that the reasons for the de-notification was that the land was
submerged or submergible. It is contended that the remaining land which
includes the acquired land was thereafter taken into possession on the
recommendation of Respondent No.2/DDA while 1,430 Bigha 10 Biswa land
was de-notified. Thus, it is averred by the Appellant that the remaining land
which includes the acquired land was clearly not submergible or ‘Sailabi’
land. Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that
the Reference Court inspected the site on 22.06.2011 and observed that the
land as situated in the heart of the city and that the land “appears to be utilized
for agricultural purposes” .
18.10.1 Relying on the notification dated 13.11.1959 pertaining to village
Kilokari, it was contended that at that time a uniform rate of compensation
was awarded by the LAC for different types of land, i.e., GM Nala, Sailabi,
Chahi and Rosli and compensation of Rs.26,000/- per Bigha was awarded
irrespective of the type of land. Learned Counsel contends that LAC has used
the term ‘Sailabi’ to describe the land pertaining to village Kilokari, the term
‘Khadar’ to describe the land of village Nangli Razapur and ‘Sailabi/Khadar’
to describe the land situated in village Behlolpur. Thus, these terms have been


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 90 of 171

used interchangeably. Since Khadar also means low alluvial land fit for
cultivation, the type of land in all three villages is the same, thus the
compensation cannot be varied.
18.10.2 The Appellant’s witnesses AW1/Kailash Sharma [in LA.APP.
59/2007], in his cross examination has contended that he has never witnessed
any flooding or water logging during his lifetime and this is recorded in his
statement as given on 23.01.2016.
18.10.3 Reliance is also placed on LA.APP.372/2007 captioned Bhopal
Singh v. Union of India & Anr. [Award No.16/92-93 dated 19.06.1992]
[hereinafter referred to as “ Bhopal Singh case”] passed for village Nangli
Razapur wherein it is noted that the entire land is being irrigated by the
Yamuna River and since it is irrigated, there is no question of the same being
‘Sailabi’ in nature.
18.11 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants have
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjani Molu Dessai Vs.
8
State of Goa & Anr. to submit that for calculating compensation highest
exemplar is to be considered by the Court and not by averaging the different
types of sale prices. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme
9
Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb to submit
that sale instances of solitary sale deed or small pieces of land can be relied
upon while determining the amount of compensation. Learned Senior
Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants also relies upon the judgment of
10
the Supreme Court in Narendra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

8
(2010) 13 SCC 710
9
(2011) 7 SCC 714
10
(2017) 9 SCC 426


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 91 of 171

to submit that benefit of higher compensation should be granted to even those
landowners who could not approach the court . Reliance is placed upon the
judgment of Coordinate bench of this Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India
11
& Anr. to submit that for determination of market value of land when no
sale deed is available principle of escalation is to be applied. Learned Senior
Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants further relied upon judgment of
12
the Supreme Court in Trishala Jain & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr.
to submit that concept of guesstimation is to be used for determining the
market value of the land when no sale deed is available principle of escalation
is to be applied.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2/DDA
19. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2/DDA has contended that
LAC in the Award has specifically recorded that the acquired land is situated
between two "Forward Bunds" and the river Yamuna, and that there were no
constructions on the land and only a few trees were found available on the
land at the time of its acquisition.
19.1 The LAC relied on an office order dated 03.05.1990 wherein the
Government of NCT of Delhi had notified the maximum price of agricultural
land in Delhi as Rs. 4.5 lakhs per acre for agricultural land and Rs. 1.5 lakhs
per acre for land situated on the riverbed. The fair market value for the land
was thus notified by the LAC on 23.06.1989 as Rs. 27,344/- per Bigha on the
basis of minimum price as notified on 03.05.1989 given the nature of the land.

11
2001 SCC Online Del 325
12
(2011) 6 SCC 47



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 92 of 171

19.2 It was further contended that the market value of the land as assessed
by learned Reference Court is at Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Learned Reference
Court gave findings that the acquired land situated in the riverbed on the
“Forward Bund” will be covered with water during some parts of the year
and land may be cultivable for remaining parts of the year. The
Appellants/Claimants have failed to lead any evidence to disprove the fact
that subject land was not situated in “Forward Bund” area. The Learned
Reference Court found that the land is not capable of being utilised neither as
an agricultural land nor for constructing a building and consequently, cannot
be compared with other developed lands. Further, isolated constructions on
the acquired land cannot lead to an inference that land can be used for building
structures or that the land is comparable to other lands falling outside the
“Forward Bund” area.
19.3 The Respondents have also relied upon a site inspection report, and
photographs of the area and a spot report dated 21.11.2006 which was
prepared by the learned Reference Court along with spot note [hereinafter
collectively referred to as the "Site Report"]. Relying on this Site Report, it
was contended that the site inspection found that the land "appears to be under
cultivation". However, when the water level of the Yamuna crosses 204 mark,
the land gets submerged in water depending on the amount of discharge from
the river. In addition, the Site Report states that there are no substantial
developments on the land near the site for agricultural purposes. It is thus
contended that the land is unfit for development.
19.4 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the
learned Reference Court by order dated 04.01.2011 had rejected the evidence


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 93 of 171

relied upon by the Appellants to claim higher compensation. The Appellants
had exhibited a sale deed dated l7.03.1988 of land of approximately 1 Bigha
sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior
Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a
possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher
compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition
become known to the residents in the locality in advance and prior to the
issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act.
19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far
as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the
same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax
payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing a parcel of land for sum of
Rs. 2,07,500/- to the income tax authority.
19.5 It was contended that, the testimony of PW-4, Mr. S.P. Singh [Assistant
at Office of DDA] cannot be relied upon to assess the market value of the
subject land as PW-4 admits in his cross-examination that he was neither
aware of the date of notification nor he was aware of the date of the award by
which land was allotted to Akshar Dham Mandir, nor the date of acquisition
and consequently he cannot be said to be aware of the prevailing market rate
of the area. Further, the testimony of PW-5, Mr. Anwar Abbasi [Assistant
Manager Toll Plaza, DND Flyway] cannot be relied upon as he failed to prove
the authenticity of the Sale agreements and site plans.
19.6 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that
Respondent No.1/UOI had adduced 5 sale deeds [Exhibit R1 to R5] in
evidence, of land situated in the same area as acquired land and sold around


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 94 of 171

the same time when the notification was issued. These exhibited sale deeds
reflected average market value was at Rs. 18,736/- per Bigha.
19.7 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 contends that burden
lies on the Appellants to prove the prevailing market value of the acquired
land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act and to prove
that the acquired land had building potentiality. In the event of failure to
adduce cogent evidence, the claim ought to have been rejected. Reliance is
placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Tandon
13
v Allahabad Development Authority & Anr. to submit that the burden of
proof lies upon the Claimant to prove that the amount of compensation
awarded by the Collector is inadequate.
19.8 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 relies on the Tindey
case to submit that when land has similar potentiality and location advantages,
it must be similarly valued. The correct approach is to ascertain what a willing
vendor and a willing purchaser would reasonably transact at, keeping in mind
the principles of fairness and justice. It is well-settled that the burden lies on
the claimant to adduce evidence showing that the land has high potential
value.
19.9 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that no
development has been undertaken on the acquired land and it has no building
potentiality because it a ‘Sailabi Land’ and is land which is in close proximity
to river Yamuna. ‘Sailabi’ lands are valued lower than agricultural land due
to seasonal inundation. Learned Counsel further states that the Appellant/PW-
7, Bed Ram in his testimony has deposed that some portion of the land in

13
2004 (10) SCC 745


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 95 of 171

village Kilokari was developed as New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh and
Kalindi Colony and he admitted that there is no abadi around the petrol pump
and the two shops and that there is a drainage in village Kilokari but it is far
away from acquired land. Further, testimony of PW-6, Mr. P.K. Meena
suggests that land is capable of being used for cultivation only when it is not
covered by the Yamuna river.
19.9.1 It is contended that the testimony of AW-1, Mr. Karan Singh in LA
APP.54/2011 reflects that he never raised an objection to the term ‘Sailabi’
used for the acquired land and he never applied to the MCD seeking sanction
of the layout plan for the subject land. Learned Counsel submits that the
government did not allow any construction to be raised other than a petrol
pump and the two shops of marble on the land of village Kilokari. Learned
Counsel submits that all these goes to suggest that subject land has no
potential to build structures.
19.10 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the
argument of the Appellants that the subject land falls in the vicinity of posh
colonies and hence, a higher amount of compensation should be awarded is
misconceived. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the subject land
is prone to water logging and flooding as it was situated in the “Forward
Bund” area. He further submits that Appellants have not placed on record any
evidence to show that the land can be used for agriculture or residential
purposes. Further, the Appellant is his testimony has admitted that except for
a petrol pump and the two shops, there is no abadi around the subject land and
till date there has been no development on the subject land which supports the


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 96 of 171

fact that subject land is qualitatively distinguishable from the land on which
posh colonies are developed.
19.11 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the land
owners have failed to show other comparable sale deeds and that the land
owners have failed to show that the acquired land is similar in nature and
potentiality to other comparable same village or neighbouring village.
Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Mohd. Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition
14
Officer .
19.12 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the
Appellants have failed to show any similarity of the acquired land with the
lands situated in Jasola or Behlolpur Khadar. Learned Senior Counsel submits
that mere contiguity of the acquired land with the other land situated in an
urban area is not the acceptable criteria for grant of similar rate. Reliance is
15
placed upon Kanwar Singh & Ors v UOI to submit that the Supreme Court
has held that mere contiguity of two villages cannot be adopted to determine
the market value of two villages unless similarity and advantages of both the
lands are proved.
19.12.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 refutes the
contention of the Appellants claiming parity with market value of the land
situated at village Behlolpur Khadar which has been assessed at Rs. 2.5 lakhs
per Bigha in case of Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v UOI & Anr .; LAC No.75/2008
and Village Jasola at Rs. 4,948 per sq. yard in the case of Jagdish Gulati v.
UOI ; LAC No. 224/11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that market value of

14
(2009) 14 SCC 367
15
1998 (8) SCC 136



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 97 of 171

the land assessed, as mentioned above, by the learned Reference Court was
made by ignoring and overlooking the market value as determined by this
Court and thus is a nullity. It is further contended that the learned Reference
Court ought to have balanced the public interest and private interest while
determining market value rate. Reliance is placed on the case of Periyar &
16
Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v State of Kerala to submit that lands must be
assessed at fair and reasonable market value of the land and too much
emphasis on claimant’s right to compensation would place a heavy burden
upon the public exchequer.
19.13 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 places reliance upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas
17
Parishad v Asha Ram (dead) through LRs and Others to submit that
market value of land must be determined based on comparable sale instances
that are proximate in time and location to the acquisition notification.
19.14 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that even if
acquired land lies near Yamuna River and building structures is presently
prohibited due to environmental regulations, potentiality of the land must still
be assessed. However, there is no material on record showing development
on the subject land on the date of the notification or at the time of possession
of the land. No evidence has been led showing any application made for
change of land use from agricultural to residential purposes, nor is there any
such prayer in the documents on record. Learned Counsel submits that mere
proximity to developed colonies cannot by itself establish potentiality. Once
the land is found to lack building potentiality, no benefit of higher

16
1991 (4) SCC 195
17
2021 (17) SCC 289


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 98 of 171

compensation can be granted. Therefore, it is contended that there is no
infirmity in the market value of the land as fixed by the learned Reference
Court i.e. Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/UOI
20. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that no evidence
has been brought on record by the Appellants to attribute any building
potentiality to the acquired land. Learned Counsel submits that in order to
determine the market value of the acquired land, the building potentiality of
the land must be considered. However, no material has been brought on record
to show any development on the acquired land either on the date of the
notification or on the date of possession of the land.
20.1 Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that as per the Delhi
Land Reforms Act, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as “DLR Act”], permission
from the authority is mandatory to change the nature of land use and no such
permission for change of land use from agriculture to building purposes has
been brought on record by the Appellants to evidence any "change of user"
application.
20.2 Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has reiterated the contentions
as set out by Respondent No. 2 that while awarding the compensation, the
LAC/learned Reference Court has to ascertain the market value of the land
keeping in mind what a willing vendor may reasonably except to obtain from
a willing purchaser. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of the Supreme Court in the Periyar case.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 99 of 171

20.3 Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the learned
Reference Court while passing the Impugned Judgment has correctly relied
upon Tindey case, wherein the land of village, Khizrabad was held to have no
building potentiality at the relevant time i.e., at the time of publication of the
notification and the amount of compensation was awarded accordingly.
20.4 Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that the evidence led
by the Appellants at best supports that acquired land is used for agriculture
purposes only and not for construction of a building. Acquisition of the land
for building purposes cannot be sufficient circumstance to presume land has
building potentiality. Accordingly, the acquired land has no building
potentiality and hence, no additional compensation should be granted.
REJOINDER BY APPELLANTS
21. Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit
that the characterisation of the land as ‘Sailabi’ does not per se negate its
development potential. Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the
Appellants submit that out of total acquired land, pockets of land may have
been prone to flooding but not the entire acquired land. Siddharth Nagar and
Ganga Vihar, similarly situated as acquired land, have been fully developed.
Therefore, the argument that ‘Sailabi' lands lacks potentiality is untenable.
21.1 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit
that the land which was not submerged by the river Yamuna was retained and
not de-notified in terms of the notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act
on 25.01.1995. It is contended that the possession was taken by the


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 100 of 171

Respondents and hence the argument of the Respondents that the entire land
being ‘ Sailabi’ land cannot be used for development purposes is misplaced.
21.2 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit
that for market value of land to be assessed at higher value, reliance is placed
upon testimony of PW-3/Mr. Vinod Kumar (land purchaser) who purchased
1 Bigha and 1 biswa of land in village Kilokari through Sale deed dated
l7.03.1988 for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/- [hereinafter referred to as
"17.03.1988 Exemplar"]. The sale deed is dated one year and three months
prior to the date of notification of the subject land and is thus a relevant
exemplar. The allegation that the sale deed is inflated to secure higher
compensation is without basis. Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for
the Appellants clarify that only one Bigha or 3,025 square yards was
purchased by PW-3, and the transaction stands unimpeached and the criticism
regarding the purchaser not being an Income Tax payee is irrelevant and
speculative.
21.3 Learned Senior Counsel/learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that
the 17.03.1988 Exemplar was rejected by the learned Reference Court on
assumption that landowners had prior knowledge about the acquisition, which
is not correct. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel/learned Counsel for the
Appellants places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
18
Mahamaya General Finance Company v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
wherein a similar speculative finding that the Appellants had prior knowledge
of the acquisition which was adopted by the learned Reference Court without
any reasons, was disapproved by the Supreme Court.

18
(2014) 15 SCC 290


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 101 of 171

21.4 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit
that testimony of PW2/Gopal Singh is not being relied upon. The emphasis is
only upon the testimony of PW3, in relation to the 17.03.1988 Exemplar,
which testimony remains unimpeachable.
21.5 Learned Senior Counsel/learned Counsel for the Appellants further
reiterates that the land in Behlolpur Khadar which even as per the map and
rough location plan relied upon by the Respondents is a village bordering
Kilokari and that the learned Reference Court gave a finding enhancing the
compensation of the said land to Rs. 250/- per sq. yd./Rs. 2.5 lacs per Bigha
[approximately] and the same compensation must be awarded to village
Kilokari, village Nangli Razapur and village Khizrabad.
21.6 Learned Senior Counsel/learned Counsel for the Appellants further
distinguished the Tindey case. It was submitted that the Tindey case was
based in respect of Section 4 notification of 1976 whereas the notification in
the present case is of 1989. The other distinction sought to be drawn was that
the Tindey case was related to village Khizrabad, whereas the present case is
of village Kilokari. In addition, it was submitted that in the Tindey case, there
is a clear finding of the Court that no evidence was led and thus, the
Coordinate Bench of this Court relied upon in earlier notification and added
escalation at the rate of 12% per annum to arrive at the final value given the
fact that there were exemplars provided. No reliance could have been placed
by the learned Reference Court in the Tindey case.




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 102 of 171

SUR-REJOINDER
22. A brief Sur-Rejoinder was given by the learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No. 2 to contend that there is no denial that the acquired land is
situated between two "Forward Bunds" and the river and thus, any distinction
cannot be sought to be drawn between the acquired land and the land which
was de-notified under Section 48 of the LA Act on 25.01.1995. In addition, it
was contended that there is no evidence was led by the Appellants to show
future building potentiality.
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
23. As stated above, the Kilokari Award was passed on 19.06.1992 by the
LAC for the acquisition of land admeasuring 2226 Bighas and 5 Biswas
situated in the revenue estate of village, Kilokari for development of Delhi
channelization of river Yamuna. The LAC while assessing the market value
relied upon various similar awards passed for the land within the vicinity of
the acquired land and also relied upon the Office Order of 1990 wherein the
minimum price for agricultural land had been fixed at Rs. 1.5 lacs per acre as
on 27.04.1990 and treating the land as ‘ Sailabi ’ land situated between two
“ Forward Bunds” by discounting 15% per annum, LAC assessed the market
value at Rs. 27,344/- per Bigha.
23.1 Similarly, the award no. 18/1992-93 was passed for acquisition of 874
Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Khizrabad
[hereinafter referred to as ‘Khizrabad Award’]. The LAC similarly taking into
consideration the Office Order of 1990 and discounting it as in the Kilokari
Award, assessed the fair market value for the land at Rs. 27,344/- per Bigha.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 103 of 171

23.2 The award no. 16/1992-93 for land admeasuring 2009 Bighas and 10
Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Nangli Razapur as notified
was also passed on 19.06.1992 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Nangli Razapur
Award’]. The LAC found that the kind of soil was Khadar and assessed the
market value of the land, as it did in the case of Kilokari and Khizrabad Award
as Rs. 27,344/- per Bigha.
23.3 In the case of land situated in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu, the
award no. 13/1992 was passed in the acquisition of 1563 Bighas and 18
Biswas in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu [hereinafter referred to as ‘Garhi
Mendu Award’]. The classification in the Garhi Mendu Award of the land
was of flooded land and the LAC assessed the market value of the land at Rs.
27,344/- per Bigha.
23.4 The Appellants challenged this determination by filing a Reference
Petitions under Section 18 of the LA Act. The Appellants claimed the value
of acquired land at about Rs 10,000/- per square yard and averred that the land
is not situated under the riverbed.
23.5 The following issues were framed by the learned Reference Court in
Attar Singh case and Bed Ram Reference Court case:
(i) Whether the provisions of the DLR Act is applicable to the land
in dispute, if so, to what effect?
(ii) What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of
issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894?
(iii) To what enhancement in compensation, the Appellant is entitled
to?


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 104 of 171

23.6 An additional issue was framed by the learned Reference Court in the
Bhopal Singh case, which is reproduced below:
“(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to amount u/s 23(1)A of the LA Act with
respect to Khasra nos. of which the possession has been taken subsequently, for the
period during which the proceedings for the acquisition of land were held up on
account of any stay or injunction?”
23.7 No evidence was led by the Respondent No.2/DDA in his support
before the learned Reference Court. However, evidence in support of their
contentions was led by the Appellant and the Respondent No.1/UOI.
23.8 The learned Reference Court held that no evidence has been led by the
Appellant to show acquired land was not situated in "Forward Bund" area and
hence it cannot be compared with other lands. It was held that the land in
village, Khizrabad and acquired land both fall in the "Forward Bund" area
and are comparative lands. Since the rate of land in village, Khizrabad has
been assessed at rate of Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha and is ‘Sailabi’ land in LAC
No. 13 of 2004 titled ‘ Sri Ram v. UOI ’, LAC No. 18 of 2005 titled ‘ Attar
Singh v UOI ’ and LAC No. 19 of 2005 titled ‘ Bed Ram Vs. UOI ’ has also
been assessed at the rate Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha, the acquired land being
similarly situated is assessed at the same rate. Learned Reference Court also
relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Tindey case for village
Khizrabad, to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be
Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Other antecedent directions were also passed with
respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in
19
Sunder v UOI .

19
(2001) 7 SCC 211


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 105 of 171

24. Before the learned Reference Court, the Appellant had argued that
village Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia
University and Jasola village and that there was no evidence to show that the
land was not situated in a "Forward Bund" area. Reliance was also placed by
20
the Appellant on the judgment in Dhoomi Singh & Anr. v. UOI wherein
this Court enhanced the compensation of the land acquired for village Jasola
by Rs.2,240/- per square yard, which was land acquired in village Kilokari by
an Award in 1981.
24.1 The Respondents/DDA and UOI on the other hand had contended that
the DLR Act is applicable to the acquired land and had also relied on
exemplars of the land to submit that the LAC had correctly assessed the
valuation for the acquired land at Rs.27,344/- per Bigha.
25. The learned Reference Court gave a finding that the DLR Act was not
applicable to the acquired land. It further relied upon the sale deeds/exemplars
as placed on record by the Appellant and the Respondent/DDA the details
whereof are set out below:
Appellants :
S.No. Ex.No. Date of
Sale deed
Village Area of
land
Total
Consideration
with stamp
duty
1. Ex.P1 17.03.1988 Kilokari 1 Bigha
1 Biswa
2,07,500/-


20
Judgment dated 19.10.2001 in RFA 408/1986 – Delhi High Court


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 106 of 171

Respondents :
S.No. Ex.No. Date of
Sale deed
Village Area of
land
Total
Consideration
with stamp
duty
1. Ex.R1 6.4.87 Kilokari 1 Bigha 43,200/-
2. Ex.R2 1.11.85 Kilokari 1 Bigha
9 Biswa
52,920/-
3. Ex.R3 9.9.83 Kilokari 1 Bigha 2,160/-
4. Ex.R4 28/31.3.84 Kilokari 5 Bigha
12 Biswa
15,120/-
1 Bigha
13 Biswa
5. Ex.R5 28/31.3.84 Kilokari 9 Bigha 19,440/-

25.1 The learned Reference Court further held that the land is situated in the
"Forward Bund" in river bed and is ‘Sailabi’ in nature. The learned Reference
Court found that the exemplar given by the Appellant did not appear to be
reliable while Ex. R2 to R5 also appear that they have been undervalued to
save stamp duty. The learned Reference Court then relied on the judgment in
the Tindey case as assessed in terms of the Award No. 19/1992-93 which was
also notified along with village Kilokari and granted compensation at the
same rate as was granted for village Khizrabad in the Tindey case at
Rs.89,600 per Bigha. The relevant extract of the findings in the Impugned
Judgment is below:
“…17. In the present case the land under acquisition is also located in
forward bund in river bed and appears to be similarly situated as in the case
of land acquired in village Khizrabad . Considering the location of village
Kilokari, there is no reason to assume that rate of land in village Kilokari
would be less than in village Khizrahad . There appears to be no reason as
to why the rate of land assessed in Award No. 19/92-93 involving the same
date of notification in village Khizrabad may not be adopted in present case .
1 may also mention that for assessment of land (other than situated in forward
bund in river bed) which is not covered under the provisions of DLR Act, a


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 107 of 171

marginal increase in compensation can be granted on account of
urbanization when the same is compared with land to which provisions of
DLR Act arc applicable. However in the present case as the land is situated
in forward bund area in the river bed, the possibility of any distinct
advantage is remote and the fact that the village Kilokari had been
urbanized may not be of much consequence . Any benefit on account of
urbanization was also denied by Hon’ble High Court in Tindey’s case (Supra)
on account of urbanization of village Khizrabad though the same was claimed
to have been also urbanized, in view of typical location and sailabi nature of
land. in view of above, I am not inclined to grant rate of compensation in
village Kilokari at any higher rate that assessed in village Khizrabad. I am
therefore of the view that it shall be fair to assess the market value of land
@ Rs.89,600/- per Bigha following the rate of land assessed by this Court
in village Khizrabad wherein the land had been acquired for same purpose
and involves the same date of notification …”
[Emphasis supplied]
ANAYLSIS & FINDINGS
26. As stated above, the learned Reference Court also conducted an ‘on the
spot’ inspection of the site and relied on its report dated 22.11.2006 in the
Impugned Judgment.
27. At this stage, it is apposite to set out that the Appeals listed before this
Court were in relation to four villages i.e., Khizrabad, Kilokari, Nangli
Razapur and Garhi Mendu. It is apposite to set out the details by way of a
tabular chart below:
S.No. Total
Village
Name
Award No.
& Date
Rate as
Awarded by
Reference
Court
Rate as
awarded by
Predecessor
Bench of this
Court on
07.06.2011
1. 21 Khizrabad 18/1992-93
19.06.1992
No.
of
Cases
Rs.89,600/-
per Bigha
Rs.89,600/-
per Bigha
2. 62 Kilokari 14/1992-93
17.06.1993
Rs.89,600/-
per Bigha
Rs.89,600/-
per Bigha
3. 48 Nangli 16/1992-93 Rs.89,600/- Rs.89,600/-


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 108 of 171

Razapur 19.06.1992 per Bigha per Bigha
4. 13 Garhi Mendu 13/1992-93
Rs.90,102/-
per Bigha
Rs.89,600/-
per Bigha

19.06.1992

The Appeals
28. Learned Counsel for the parties contended that the reasoning of the
learned Reference Court is pari materia in the Impugned Orders in relation to
these villages and thus all 144 Appeals can be heard together and with the
consent of the parties LA.APP. 59/2007 captioned being Bed Ram v. UOI &
Anr. was argued as the lead matter.
29. Pursuant to the SC Judgment, the Appellants essentially relied upon
the evidence which was already available with the learned Reference Court
albeit both in the Bed Ram case as well as in connected matters. The
Appellants have also relied upon the exemplars in the form of sale deeds
which were available on record, including of village Behlolpur Khadar and
village Jasola.
29.1 The Respondents have relied upon the building potentiality of the land
and have stated that the land being 'Sailabi' in nature did not have the same
building potentiality as the land which was in its vicinity for development. It
is additionally contended that the burden of proof in such cases is on the
Claimants to show the value of the land.
29.2 The parties agreed that no further evidence (other than what was
already led by the parties before this Court) was required to be led by either
party nor was cross-examination on the sale exemplars necessary as the
Respondents made their submissions contradicting these exemplars.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 109 of 171

Village Khizrabad
30. The learned Reference Court passed a judgment in the LAC No. 18 of
2005 titled ‘ Attar Singh v UOI ’ on 25.09.2006 [hereinafter referred to as the
"Khizrabad Judgment"]. The Khizrabad Judgment in essence made the
calculations with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in Tindey case to award Rs.89,600/- per Bigha. The 21 cases that have
been decided are set out below:
S. No. Case No. & Case Title
1. LA.APP. 40/2007
Dharam Veer vs. UOI & Anr.
2. LA.APP. 42/2007
Sri Ram &Anr. vs. UOI & Anr.
3. LA.APP. 43/2007
Bed Ram vs. UOI & Anr.
4. LA.APP. 44/2007
Attar Singh vs. UOI & Anr.
5. LA.APP. 293/2007
Jagbir Singh vs. UOI & Anr
6. LA.APP. 72/2016
Raghubar Dayal @ Raghuber Singh @ Raghbar Singh & Ors. vs. Union
of India & Anr
7. LA.APP. 335/2008
Munshi Deceased Through LRs & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
8. LA.APP. 647/2009
Mehar Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
9. LA.APP. 650/2009
Prem Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
10. LA.APP. 311/2010
Mamraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.
11. LA.APP. 314/2010
Lakhmi Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.
12. LA.APP. 315/2010
Jaggan vs. Union of India & Anr.
13. LA.APP. 316/2010
Ramesh Decd Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.
14. LA.APP. 699/2010
Nain Singh Decsd. Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
15. LA.APP. 13/2012
Budhan Decsd. Thru LRs vs. Union of India & Ors


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 110 of 171

16. LA.APP. 37/2012
Daroga Decsd. Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
17. LA.APP. 85/2015
Lakhmi Chand & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr
18. LA.APP. 14/2016
Nain Singh (Deceased) Thr His LRs vs. Union of India
19. LA.APP. 131/2018
Union of India vs. Mamchand (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
20. LA.APP. 204/2018
Om Prakash (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of
India & Anr
21. LA.APP. 4/2019
Union of India vs Raghubar Dayal @ Raghbar Singh & Ors.
Village Kilokari
31. The judgment in the Bed Ram Reference Court case relied upon the
Attar Singh and the Tindey case to calculate the compensation in these
matters were listed before this Court in respect of the revenue estate of village
Kilokari, which are set out below:
S. No. Case No. & Case Title
1. LA.APP. 58/2007
Duli Chand vs. UOI &Anr.
2. LA.APP. 59/2007
Lead matter
Bed Ram vs. vs. UOI & Anr.
3. LA.APP. 338/2015
Fakir Chand (Deceased) Thr. Lr & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.
4. LA.APP. 339/2015
Hukum Singh Since Deceased Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.
5. LA.APP. 144/2019
Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
6. LA.APP. 230/2022
Salek Ram (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.
7. LA.APP. 366/2022
Sita Ram (Deceased) Thr. LR Chavan &Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
8. LA.APP. 61/2007
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr.
9. LA.APP. 62/2007
Ganga Ram &Anr vs. UOI &Anr
10. LA.APP. 63/2007
Satto Devi & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 111 of 171

11. LA.APP. 64/2007
Angoori Devi (D) Thru. LR vs. UOI &Anr
12. LA.APP. 65/2007
Raj Pal vs. UOI & Anr
13. LA.APP. 66/2007
Kailash Sharma &Anr. vs. UOI &Anr
14. LA.APP. 73/2007
Tek Chand vs. UOI &Anr
15. LA.APP. 87/2007
Pritam Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
16. LA.APP. 412/2007
Giriraj & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
17. LA.APP. 89/2007
Balbir Singh vs. UOI &Anr
18. LA.APP. 130/2009
Shri Bhik Ram vs. Union of India & Ors.
19. LA.APP. 91/2007
Bhim Singh Decd. Thr. LRs & Or vs. UOI &Anr
20. LA.APP. 500/2008
Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr
21. LA.APP. 748/2008
Dal Chand & Ors. vs. U.O.I & Ors.
22. LA.APP. 89/2009
Om Prakash (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.
23. LA.APP. 528/2009
Sher Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI &Anr.
24. LA.APP. 553/2009
Bahadur DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
25. LA.APP. 559/2009
Pehlad vs. Union of India &Anr
26. LA.APP. 595/2009
Prem Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
27. LA.APP. 101/2010
Ratto Devi Decd Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr
28. LA.APP. 380/2010
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. UOI and Anr.
29. LA.APP. 765/2010
Dal Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.
30. LA.APP. 827/2010
Bhoop Singh Decd Thr LRs vs. UOI &Anr
31. LA.APP. 1070/2010
Ram Kishan Decd Thru LRs & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr.
32. LA.APP. 15/2011
Mussadi Decsd Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Ors.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 112 of 171

33. LA.APP. 29/2011
Dal Chand &Anr vs. Union of India
34. LA.APP. 39/2011
Uma Dhawan & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.
35. LA.APP. 54/2011
Karan Singh vs. Union of India &Anr
36. LA.APP. 155/2011
Jaspal Singh (Dec) Thr LRs vs. UOI &Anr
37. LA.APP. 156/2011
Bed Ram vs. UOI &Anr.
38. LA.APP. 251/2011
Hari Chand vs Union of India & Ors
39. LA.APP. 5/2012
Surjan & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
40. LA.APP. 6/2012
Gian Chand Decsd. Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
41. LA.APP. 10/2012
Anant Ram &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
42. LA.APP. 218/2012
Net Ram Through LRs and Anr vs. UOI &Anr
43. LA.APP. 223/2012
Hari Singh Through LRs vs. UOI &Anr.
44. LA.APP. 49/2013
Samarta Decsd. Thru LRs and Ors vs. UOI and Anr
45. LA.APP. 51/2013
Net Ram vs. UOI &Anr
46. LA.APP. 86/2015
Jugal Kishore & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
47. LA.APP. 423/2015
Hari Kishan (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
48. LA.APP. 426/2015
Nathu (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
49. LA.APP. 445/2015
Nathu (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
50. LA.APP. 173/2016
Ram Saroop Through LRs vs. UOI and Anr
51. LA.APP. 196/2016
Budh Ram @ Budh Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India
&Anr
52. LA.APP. 292/2016
Hari Kishan Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
53. LA.APP. 11/2017
Shashi Kumar vs. Union of India &Anr
54. LA.APP. 287/2017
Mehar Chand & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 113 of 171

55. LA.APP. 209/2018
Virender &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
56. LA.APP. 245/2018
Union of India vs. Budh Ram @ Budh Singh (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
57. LA.APP. 246/2018
Union of India vs. Hari Kishan (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
58. LA.APP. 247/2018
Union of India vs. Ram Saroop (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors
59. LA.APP. 49/2019
Union of India vs. Hanso (Deceased) Thr LRs &Anr
60. LA.APP. 130/2019
Dal Chand Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr
61. LA.APP. 137/2019
Bhoop Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
62. LA.APP. 298/2022
Jai Bhagwan Deceased Through His Legal Heirs and Ors vs. Union of
India and Anr.
31.1 These Appeals emanate either from the Impugned Judgment or
judgments passed by the Reference Court thereafter, relying on the Impugned
Judgment.
Village Nangli Razapur
32. So far as concerns the village Nangli Razapur, the lead matter for this
village is LA.APP. 372/2007 captioned Bhopal Singh vs. UOI & Anr. The
learned Reference Court by a judgment dated 29.08.2007 in LAC No. 2/1998
titled as Bhopal Singh v. UOI & Anr. /Nangli Razapur Reference Court
Judgment ascertained the compensation to be awarded at the same rate as
those in village Kilokari at Rs.89,600/- per Bigha. The learned Reference
Court in this matter relied on the judgment in the Attar Singh case in respect
of village Khizrabad to hold that the compensation should be awarded. The
learned Reference Court discussed the sale exemplars relied in the Bed Ram
Reference Court case of village Kilokari, referencing the fact that the land


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 114 of 171

was situated in the “Forward Bund” area. The details of the 48 cases in
relation to village Nangli Razapur are set out below:
S. No. Case No. & Case Title
1. LA.APP. 911/2010
Kehar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
2. LA.APP. 1234/2008
Hans Raj Decd. Thr LRs vs. UOI & Anr
3. LA.APP. 1235/2008
Surya Prakash & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
4. LA.APP. 607/2009
Neki Ram vs. UOI
5. LA.APP. 372/2007
Lead Matter
Bhopal Singh vs. UOI &Anr
6. LA.APP. 501/2008
Zile Singh (Deceased) Through LRs vs. UOI & Anr
7. LA.APP. 508/2008
Jagwati vs. UOI & Anr
8. LA.APP. 509/2008
Bir Singh vs. UOI & Anr
9. LA.APP. 564/2008
Aman Singh vs. UOI & Anr
10. LA.APP. 565/2008
Shashi Verma vs. UOI & Anr
11. LA.APP. 609/2008
Nimant Rana & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
12. LA.APP. 631/2008
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
13. LA.APP. 737/2008
Inder Singh vs. U.O.I & Anr
14. LA.APP. 739/2008
Ramesh Basistha vs. U.O.I & Ors
15. LA.APP. 816/2008
Kishan Sahai Thru LRs vs. UOI & Anr
16. LA.APP. 817/2008
Jagbir & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
17. LA.APP. 876/2008
Rishal Singh Decd. Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Anr
18. LA.APP. 966/2008
Raj Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.
19. LA.APP. 992/2008
Ajeet Singh vs. UOI & Ors.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 115 of 171

20. LA.APP. 994/2008
Hari Singh vs. UOI & Anr
21. LA.APP. 995/2008
Prem Singh vs. UOI & Anr
22. LA.APP. 996/2008
Rajender Prashad & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr
23. LA.APP. 1136/2008
Jaswant Singh Rana (Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Anr
24. LA.APP. 1204/2008
Devender Kumar Triguna vs. UOI & Anr.
25. LA.APP. 1238/2008
Chinta vs. UOI &Anr.
26. LA.APP. 550/2009
Guni Ram Decsd. Through LRs vs. Union of India & Ors.
27. LA.APP. 551/2009
Ranjit Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India & Anr
28. LA.APP. 552/2009
Jagdip Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India &Anr
29. LA.APP. 556/2009
Attar Singh DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
30. LA.APP. 560/2009
Ajit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
31. LA.APP. 576/2009
Narender Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India &Anr
32. LA.APP. 580/2009
Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr
33. LA.APP. 253/2010
Ram Pat vs. Union of India & Anr.
34. LA.APP. 263/2010
Ramesh &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr
35. LA.APP. 264/2010
Hari Singh DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr
36. LA.APP. 454/2010
Daya Kishan Decd Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr.
37. LA.APP. 677/2010
Om Prakash &Anr vs. Union of India & Ors.
38. LA.APP. 678/2010
Shri Chanderman @ Chander Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
39. LA.APP. 679/2010
Ram Singh Decsd Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors.
40. LA.APP. 682/2010
Mool Chand Decd Thr LRs vs. Union of India and Ors.
41. LA.APP. 683/2010
Yash Pal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
42. LA.APP. 140/2011


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 116 of 171

Ranjeet Singh Decd Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
43. LA.APP. 708/2011
Lekh Ram vs. Union of India & Anr
44. LA.APP. 716/2011
Gopal Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Anr
45. LA.APP. 390/2015
Virender Singh (Since Missing) Thr. LRs & Ors vs. Union of India &
Anr
46. LA.APP. 18/2016
Mahipal (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr
47. LA.APP. 19/2016
Chhattar Singh vs. Union of India & Anr
48. LA.APP. 256/2017
Pooja vs. Union of India & Anr
Village Garhi Mendu
33. As stated in paragraph 9.3 above, the learned Reference Court had
enhanced the market value of the land as acquired from Rs. 27,344/- per Bigha
to Rs. 90,102/- per Bigha in the lead matter in this village being LA.APP.
1038/2008 captioned UOI vs. Khazan Singh & Ors. by a judgment dated
26.07.2007 [hereinafter referred to as the " Garhi Mendu Judgment"].
Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Smt. Chawli Devi
(Deceased) through her LRs v. UOI & Anr., being order dated 31.05.2007
passed in LAC No. 334/1 of 2006 by the learned Reference Court. The details
of 13 matters in relation to village Garhi Mendu which were listed before this
Court as below:
S. No. Case No. & Case Title in High Court
1. LA.APP. 1143/2008
UOI &Anr. vs. Bhohti Deceased Through LRs
2. LA.APP. 1038/2008
UOI vs. Khazan Singh & Ors.
3. LA.APP. 1040/2008
UOI vs. Champa Devi Decd. Thr LRs.

4. LA.APP. 1042/2008
UOI vs. Richa Ram & Ors.
5. LA.APP. 1043/2008


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 117 of 171

UOI vs. Phool Singh & Ors.
6. LA.APP. 1141/2008
UOI vs. Mansa Ram Decd. Thr. LRs & Ors.
7. LA.APP. 1142/2008
UOI vs Kishori @ Bhola Decd. Thr. LRs & Ors.
8. LA.APP. 1144/2008
UOI &Anr vs. Nathu & Ors.
9. LA.APP. 1145/2008
UOI vs. Balbir & Ors.
10. LA.APP. 1146/2008
UOI vs. Hari Kishan Decd. Thr LRs & Ors.
11. LA.APP. 1147/2008
UOI &Anr vs Sohan Thr. His LRs
12. LA.APP. 1148/2008
UOI vs. Khazan Singh Decd. Thr. LRs
13. LA.APP. 618/2009
Badley vs. UOI &Anr
33.1 The Garhi Mendu Judgment was challenged by the Appellants before
this Court. By an order dated 07.06.2011, this Court directed that the fair
market value per Bigha of the lands in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu
would be Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha and not Rs. 90,102/- per Bigha as awarded
by the learned Reference Court. The amount of compensation for village
Garhi Mendu was kept at parity to Rs.89,600/- per Bigha in view of the
amounts awarded for the adjoining villages of Kilokari, Khizrabad and Nangli
Razapur. The relevant extract of order dated 07.06.2011 is set out below:
“8. Since in the decisions pronounced today pertaining to village Khizrabad,
Kilokari and Nangli Rajapur I have upheld the market value determined by
the learned Reference Court for said villages @ ₹89,600/- per bigha by
assigning the minimum value to the lands, I see no scope to further reduce
the market value of the lands in village Ghari Mendu and by way of an
illustration may simply state that on the poverty index, those who are listed
as Below Poverty Line would have no scope for further sub-classification as
'Below Poverty Line' and 'Little Below Poverty Line'.
9. I accordingly hold that the fair market value of the subject lands in village
Ghari Mendu as of 23.6.1989 would be ₹89,600/- per bigha and not
₹90,102/- per bigha worked out by the learned Reference Court .


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 118 of 171

10. Accordingly, LA App.No.618/2009 filed by Badley seeking enhancement
of compensation is dismissed.
11. The Land Acquisition Appeals filed by Union of India are partly allowed
by modifying the Reference Order and decreeing ₹89,600/- to be the fair
market value per bigha of the subject lands in village Ghari Mendu which
are the subject matters of the appeals filed by Union of India and needless to
state on the said sum the land owners would be entitled to statutory benefits
under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported
as Sunder Vs. Union of India 93 (2001) DLT 569. Cross objections in said
appeals filed by the land owners are dismissed.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
34. The Impugned Judgment has been made applicable in respect of the
lands comprised in the revenue estate of village Kilokari, Khizrabad, Nangli
Razapur and Garhi Mendu. It is clarified that not all agricultural land in the
revenue estate of these three villages was acquired, some part of land in these
villages were also de-notified under Section 48 of the LA Act.
The Award
35. The Kilokari Award which was passed for land admeasuring 2226
Bighas and 5 Biswas pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the LA Act,
relied upon the Office Order dated 03.05.1990 which conveyed the decision
of the Administration regarding fixation of minimum rise for agricultural land
to be taken into consideration by the LAC. It was further stated therein that it
would apply to all cases where land had been notified under Section 4 of the
LA Act after 27.04.1990. The Kilokari Award sets out that since the
notification in the present case was issued on 23.06.1989, the guidelines
issued prior to 1990 were to be used after working out a pro rata discount of
compensation at the rate of 15% per annum was calculated as Rs.27,344/- per
Bigha and the Award was made accordingly.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 119 of 171

35.1 The Kilokari Award further recorded the existence of 251 Safeda trees,
6 Shehtoot trees, 3 Amrood trees, 4 Neem trees and 1 Sheesham tree along
with a tubewell and a wall on the land. It further states that other than
boundary wall and one temple [which was not acquired], no other permanent
structure were found in existence at the time of the notification. The relevant
extract is below:
“Hence, in view of the guidelines conveyed by the Administration for
discounting the rates in regarding to notification issued prior to 1990, at the
rate of 15% per annum on this price of Rs.1.5 lacs per acre , after working out
the pro-rata discount of compensation works out to Rs.27,344/- per bigha i.e.
Rs.1,31,251/- per acre . Therefore, I assess the true and fair market value of the
land as per policy at Rs.27,344/- per bigha and award accordingly. No other
type of tree is available in any of the khasra under acquisition excepting some
Safeda tree and a few below mentioned, which are assessed as below:
251 Safeda Tree @ 100/- 25,100/-
6 Shahtoot @ 50/- 300/-
3 Amrood @ 50/- 150/-
4 Neem @ 125/- 500/-
1 Shisham @ 200/- 200/-
Total: 26,250/-
As regards tube well/well only one old well is recorded in zamabandi and that
too is un-usable for any purpose. So, no compensation deserves to be awarded.
Regarding structures only boundary wall were erected and no other
construction of permanent nature was found, in existence at the time of the
notification u/s 4 i.e., on 23.6.89, excepting one temple in Kh. No. 520 Min of
which, the possession was also not taken .”
[Emphasis Supplied]
The Reference Court Judgments
36. The first assessment of the market value for the acquired land was done
by the learned Reference Court in Attar Singh case, wherein learned
Reference Court had assessed the market value of the acquired land in village


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 120 of 171

Khizrabad as Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha. Relying on the judgement in the Attar
Singh case, the learned Reference Court also decided other cases pertaining
to the village Khizrabad.
36.1 Since the land in village Kilokari was also located in the "Forward
Bund" in river bed and appeared to be similarly situated as in the case of land
acquired in village Khizrabad, the judgement in the Attar Singh case was
relied on by the learned Reference Court in LAC 1/2003 captioned Bed Ram
v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 18.10.2006 [the Impugned Judgment]
and the market value for the village Kilokari was assessed at the rate of Rs.
89,600/- per Bigha as well.
36.2 The land under acquisition in the village Nangli Razapur was also
found to be similarly situated to the land under acquisition in village Kilokari
and thus, learned Reference Court in LAC 2/1998 captioned Bhopal Singh v.
Union of India & Anr. decided on 29.08.2007 relied upon the Attar Singh
case and Bed Ram Reference Court case (the Impugned Judgment) and
assessed the market value of land in village Nangli Razapur at the rate of Rs.
89,600/- per Bigha.
36.3 The market value of the acquired land in village Garhi Mendu was
assessed by the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 96/01/2006 captioned as
Khazan Singh v. Union of India decided on 26.07.2007 at the rate of
Rs.90,102/- per Bigha. In the Garhi Mendu Judgment, the learned Reference
Court has relied upon the judgement in LAC 334/1/06 captioned as Smt.
Chawli Devi (decd.) through her LRs v. Union of India & Anr. decided on
31.05.2007 which had also assessed the market value of the land in the village
Garhi Mendu. The learned Reference Court in the Chawli Devi case relied


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 121 of 171

upon the judgment of Bed Ram Reference Court case and Sri Ram & Anr v.
21
Union of India and Anr. to categorize the land of village Garhi Mendu to
be similarly situated with the land of village Khizrabad and Kilokari. The
learned Reference Court, however, relied upon Rameshwar Solanki and Anr.
22
v. UOI & Anr. to marginally enhance the market value of the acquired land
in Garhi Mendu to Rs. 90,102/- per Bigha as on the date of notification i.e.,
23.01.1989.
36.4 Thus, both the learned Reference Court as well as this Court in the Bed
Ram case judgment passed on 07.06.2011 has found the lands in village
Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu to be similarly
situated for the purposes of award of compensation.
The Additional Evidence
37. As stated above, emphasis was placed by the learned Senior
Counsel/learned Counsel for the Appellants that in terms of the location of
land, the award by the Reference Court was not commensurate with the
potentiality of the land. Reliance was also placed on the awards given for
villages Jasola and Behlolpur Khadar. Relying on the Affidavit in evidence
dated 01.09.2015 filed by AW1/Karan Singh, it was contended that the
acquired land was under cultivation and the compensation as awarded for
village Behlolpur Khadar, which was adjoining and acquired by the same
notification was Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha, and since this area was adjoining
village Behlolpur Khadar, similar compensation should have been awarded.
The witness also placed reliance on the Khasra Girdawari showing the land

21
LAC 13/2004 decided on 25.09.2006
22
57 (1995) DLT 410


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 122 of 171

of the Appellant as well as the map of the location of the land. The witness
relied on the judgment dated 04.01.2011 passed in LAC 75/2008 captioned
23
Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr. [hereinafter referred to as the
“Behlolpur Khadar Reference Court Judgment”] as well as in LAC 27/2012
24
captioned S.S. Dhillon v. Union of India & Anr. to submit that these awards
have not been challenged by the Respondent.
38. Two witnesses were produced by the Appellants before this Court, Mr.
Karan Singh and Mr. Kailash Sharma [AW-1 in LA.APP. 54/2011 and AW-
1 in LA.APP. 59/2007 respectively]. Mr. Karan Singh deposed on the Khasra
Girdavari showing notification of the land of the Appellants. He further
deposed that the compensation for the adjoining village of Behlolpur Khadar
which was acquired by the same notification was given at the rate of Rs.250/-
sq. yds. The deponent also relied on the Behlolpur Khadar Reference Court
Judgment which awarded Rs. 2.5 lakhs per Bigha for village Behlolpur
Khadar as well as the judgment in Jagdish Gulati case which awarded Rs.
49,41,000/- per Bigha for land situated in the village Jasola. In addition, he
confirmed that the land was being used by him for agricultural purposes. The
relevant extract of the evidence of Mr. Karan Singh is set out below:
“4. That it is pertinent to mention here that the instant Appeal of the Appellants
i.e., L.A.APP NO. 54 OF 2011 titled Karan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors, was
treated as the lead case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as Civil Appeal
No. 11236 of 2011 and it is on the basis of these additional documents (the Eicher
map showing the location of the land of the instant Appellant, the khasra
Girdawri showing cultivation on the land of the Appellant herein,
Judgments/Awards by the Court of the LD.ADJ @ Rs.250 per Sq Yard in the
adjoining Village Behlolpur which was acquired vide the same notification on
the same date and for the same purpose) which were filed before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the Hon'ble Apex court vide its order/judgment dated
13.01.2015 had granted an opportunity to the Appellant herein to file these

23
LAC 75/2008: Judgment dated 04.01.2011 –District Courts
24
LAC 27/2012: Judgment dated 03.12.2014


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 123 of 171

documents before this Hon'ble court for being considered prior to adjudging the
quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant herein in comparison to
the compensation so awarded earlier. It is further significant to mention that the
benefit of the said order/Judgment dated 13.01.2015 so passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was extended to all other Appellants who were before the Hon'ble
Supreme court then and are now before this Hon'ble Court.
5. That the Copy of the Eicher map showing the location of the land of the
Appellant is marked as Exhibit AW1/2 (already filed in L.A.APP NO. 54 OF 2011
at page number 477.)
6. That the true copy of the Khasra girdawari showing the land of the Appellant
herein as being used for agricultural purposes is marked as Exhibit AW1/3
(already filed in L.A.APP NO. 54 OF 2011 at page number 350-359.) (Original is
in the possession of the Appellant and can be produced as and when directed by
this Hon'ble Court).”
[Emphasis supplied]
38.1 In his cross-examination conducted on 23.01.2016 by the Respondents
the witness deposed that the nomenclature of the land was 'Sailabi', which
when translated meant flood in the English translation filed. The witness also
clarified that 'Sailabi' as mentioned in Khasra Girdavari meant the area in
close proximity to the river Yamuna and that the Khasra Girdawari showed
the cultivation carried out on the land. He further deposed that there were
several established institutions like the women polytechnic, CRRI staff
quarters which came into existence in the vicinity of the acquired land in the
period from 1965-75. In addition, he deposed that the Eicher Map was filed
to show the proximity of the land to Kalindi Kunj which was near Maharani
Bagh the women polytechnic came into being in the year 1978-80. The
relevant extract of the cross-examination is set out below:
“23.01.2016
AW1 Statement of Mr. Karan Singh, S/o Late Sh. Likhi Ram, aged about
53 years, R/o 88, Taimur Nagar, Near New Friends Colony. New Delhi
110065, On SA.
xxx xxx xxx
My land which has been acquired by the Government bears Khasra No.
860 in Revenue Estate of Village Kilokri.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 124 of 171

Q. What is the meaning of flood mentioned in Khasra Girdawari at
running pages 350-359 in LA. APP. 54/2011 (Ex. AW1/3).
Ans. The translator who-did translation of Khasra Girdawari has
described the Urdu word Sailabi as ‘flood' in English. (Volunteered).
This Khasra Girdawari also mentions details of the cultivation carried
out in the particular years.
The Eicher Map (Ex. AW1/2) filed by me along with my affidavit was
prepared in the year 2012. (Volunteered) if required, I can produce the
original book carrying this map also. I was not at all associated with the
preparation of this Eicher Map (Ex. AW1/2). (Volunteered) It was filed
only to show the proximity of my land to Kalindi Colony. I never applied
to the MCD seeking sanction of the layout plan with respect to land in
question.
The Kalindi Colony near Maharani Bagh started developing from the
year 1970. I do not know about the completion of development of that
area. Likewise, Maharani Bagh was also developed in the years 1965-
70. The Women Polytechnic in Maharani Bagh came into being
approximately in the year 1978-80. CRRI Staff Quarters came into
existence in the year 1975-76 Akshardham Temple also came into
existence about 10-12 years back Common Wealth Garnes were held, in
the year 2010.
According to me, the 'posh colony' means a colony which has all the
civic amenities and facilities for the convenience of the residents.
According to me, the word 'Sailabi' means the area which is in close
proximity to the river Yamuna and has been categorised as such. The
other colonies at Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, New Friends Colony
have been categorized as plain land. I have never raised any objection to
the word ‘Sailibi' [sic; Sailabi] mentioned in Khasra Girdawari (Ex.
AW1/3) in relation to my land.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
39. The other witness - son of Shri Bed Ram, Shri Kailash Sharma, also
deposed before this Court by way of an Affidavit dated 14.09.2015. The said
Kailash Sharma deposed that the acquired land in village Kilokari touches
New Friends Colony, Kalindi Colony, Maharani Bagh and various other
colonies of Delhi and is in the vicinity of Akshardham Temple and Common
Wealth Game Village Complex. The witness deposed that the acquired land
is neither the river bed nor the flood plain since the land which was submerged


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 125 of 171

and/or submergible had already been de-notified on 25.05.1995 from the area
under acquisition under Section 48 of the LA Act. He also relied on the Award
of village Behlolpur Khadar as decided in the Behlolpur Khadar Reference
Court Judgment dated 04.01.2011 as well as the award qua village Jasola. It
was deposed that the villages Kilokari, Khizrabad, Nangli Razapur, Behlolpur
Khadar and Jasola had already been urbanised prior to the 23.06.1989
Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. The relevant extract is set out
below:
"6. That in the earlier acquired land of Village Kilokari, several posh colonies
like New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Women
Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute had already been developed and
the remaining land of these villages was acquired vide above said notification
dated 23.06.1989 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
7. That the presently acquired land is neither riverbed nor floodplain because
the land which was submerged or submergible has already been de-notified
under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act (already on record).
8. That the presently acquired land of Village Kilokari touches New Friends
Colony, Kalindi Colony, Maharani Bagh, Women Polytechnic, Central Road
Research Institute, Ring Road and Indraprastha. Akshardham Temple and
Common Wealth Game Village Complex are also in the vicinity.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
15. That as the presently acquired land of the appellant in Village Kilokari is of
the same kind/nature and enjoys better location and has been acquired for the
same purpose, the appellant cannot be treated discriminately and therefore, in
view of the steep rise in the market value of the land after 1959 and in view of the
evidence placed on record, the appellant deserves the same market value of the
entire acquire land ."
[Emphasis supplied]
39.1 The deponent was cross-examined by the Respondents on various
aspects including as to whether any layout or sanction plans were applied for
change of land use in the village which was answered in the negative. He
further deposed that he was running a shop in village Kilokari since the year
1996 doing the business of paint and hardware. The witness also deposed that


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 126 of 171

for the last 50 years or so, he never experienced any flood or water logging in
the land. He further deposed that they had been cultivating the land in question
since the year 1989. The relevant extract of this cross-examination conducted
on 23.01.2016 is set out below:
“ 23.01.2016
AW1
Statement of Mr. Kailash Sharma, S/o Sh. Bed Ram, aged about 5.5
years, R/O D-63, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.
On S A.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
I am running the business of paints and hardware and I have a shop at
Village Kilokri [sic: Kilokari] since 1996 . I have brought all the papers in
Court which are relevant to the present case. Whatever I have stated in
para-9 of the affidavit is on the basis of my personal knowledge.
I am related to the disputes of land in question for the last 25 years. I have
never applied to MCD seeking sanction of the layout plan in respect of
land in question. I have never experienced any flood or water logging on
the land in question for the last 50 years . (Volunteered) I am presently
50 years of age and to my knowledge I have never experienced any flood
or water logging in respect of land in question during my lifetime.
According to my knowledge, Maharani Bagh was developed between
1959-65. New Friends Colony was also developed during the said period.
Same is the position with Kalindi Colony. The Women Polytechnic came
into being in Maharani Bagh area in the years 1965-70. Same is the
position with CRRI. Akshardhan Temple came into existence during the
period after acquisition and before Common Wealth Games started in
Delhi. We had been cultivating the land in question till it was acquired
in the year 1989."
[Emphasis Supplied]
40. Both the witnesses, Shri Kailash Shama as well as Shri Karan Singh
had in their cross-examination referred to the facts that the land adjacent to
the acquired land included the ‘posh colonies’ of Maharani Bagh and New
Friends Colony, which were developed in the 1960s. They further deposed
that there was a women’s polytechnic in the Maharani Bagh area in the 1960-


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:05.10.2025
11:29:12
LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 127 of 171