Naveen Kumar Jain vs Union Of India & Ors

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 16.12.2025
Pronounced on : 30.04.2026
Uploaded on : 04.05.2026

+ LA.APP. 47/2017
NAVEEN KUMAR JAIN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. L. B. Rai, Mr. Kartik Rai, Mr.
Satvik Rai, Mr. Vineesh Tyagi, Mr.
D.S. Lakra, Mr. Aakash Parashar, and
Mr. Sohan Lal, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd Sueb
Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil,
Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Gyanendra Kumar and Mr. Tarun
Johri, Advocates for DMRC.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT
1. The present appeals, preferred under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “LA Act”), pertain to
acquisition proceedings undertaken in respect of 89 bighas of “agricultural
land” falling in the revenue estate of village Mundka , for the purpose of
“Construction of Depot, Staff Quarters and TSS of Inderlok-Mundka
Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II” near Senior Secondary School,
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 1 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

Mundka and North of NH-10 ( Mundka Depot).
2. Pertinently, besides the above acquisition, 54 bighas 02 biswa of
extended Lal Dora land falling in the revenue estate of village Mundka was
also acquired; however, the consideration in the present proceedings is
restricted to agricultural land only.
3. Though argued separately, the submissions addressed were common.
On the prayer of learned counsels, the appeal titled “ Naveen Kumar Jain Vs.
Union of India & Ors. ”, bearing L.A. APP. 47/2017 , is treated as the lead
case, and all the appeals pertaining to agricultural land are disposed of vide
this common judgment.
4. The sequence of relevant events in the acquisition proceedings are set
out in the table below:-

Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 2 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

LAC AWARD
5. The LAC took into account Order bearing no.
F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6720 dated 30.08.2005 issued by the GNCT of Delhi ,
whereby the minimum rate for agricultural land was fixed @ Rs.17,58,400/-
per acre, and also an earlier Award pertaining to village Mundka i.e., Award
No. 13/DC(W)/2005-06, which, in turn, had also relied on the said Order.
Based on the above two parameters, as noted in the table above, the LAC
assessed the fair market value of the agricultural land under acquisition to be
Rs.17,58,400/- per acre. In such consideration, the LAC discarded 4
registered sale deeds of agricultural land that were sought to be relied upon
by the landowners.
6. It is pertinent to note that while reaching the aforenoted conclusion,
the LAC noted the presence of structures such as boundaries and factories
on the land, but excluded them from the fair market value determination.
These structures were deemed contrary to land use under the Delhi Land
Reforms Act, 1954, and were neglected pursuant to Section 24 (eighthly) of
the LA Act.
7. Aggrieved by the LAC‟s decision, the landowners approached the
Reference Court under Section 18 of the LA Act seeking enhanced market
value for the acquired land.
REFERENCE COURT
8. The Reference Court, treating the case of Smt. Anjali Garg Vs. Union
1
of India & Anr. as the lead matter, held the fair market value determined by

1
LAC No. 58/11 (New No. 14/16), decided on 03.10.2016
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 3 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

the LAC to be erroneous. It took into account the Office Order dated
30.08.2005 issued by the GNCTD whereby minimum rate of Rs.17,58,400/-
per acre for acquisition of agricultural land was fixed. The Court, thereafter,
applied a progressive appreciation of 12% per annum until 07.06.2007
(amounting to Rs.3,72,877/- per acre) to assess and determine the total fair
market value to be Rs.21,31,277/- per acre.
9. While arriving at this conclusion, the Court discarded the valuation
report of M/s. Khanna and Associates furnished by the landowners, on the
ground that it was not prepared for the purpose of determining the use of the
acquired land but only to identify the structures thereon and assess their
value.
The landowners‟ claim that the land was being used for
industrial/commercial purposes was also rejected, as neither any document
in the name and style of any industrial/commercial unit, nor the time since
which industrial activities were going on, nor any permission or sanction of
the authorities, was placed on record. Further, no Notification was shown
which authorised the use of the land as industrial. Rather, the Notification
dated 17.09.2007 established that on the date of the Acquisition Notification,
the acquired land was not notified or part of the Master Plan.
The landowners had also claimed parity with the compensation
2
awarded in Jayant Juneja Vs. E. Sreedharan & Ors. ; however, the petitions
were held to be bereft of any such plea. The Court held that the land therein
was not acquired under an Award, but rather the DMRC had directly entered
into an agreement for a very small parcel of land admeasuring 873 sq.
metres. Furthermore, it was observed that the valuation report of ABC

2
Contempt Petition (C) No. 34 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 4115/2009
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 4 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

Valuer that was furnished and relied upon by the landowners was merely a
photocopy and not part of the concerned Supreme Court decision. As the
report was not proved by its author, the State did not have an opportunity to
test the parameters or rebut it. It was also found to pertain to a valuation
made on 08.12.2008, a much later period than relevant to the present matter.
Ultimately, it was held that the said valuation report had not been duly
proved and could not be relied upon.
The landowners had also re-emphasized their reliance on sale
exemplars. The Reference Court observed that the only sale deed that
pertained to village Mundka was dated 13.07.2007. It was discarded as the
same was executed subsequent to the Acquisition Notification. The other
relied upon sale deeds pertained to village Bakkarwala , which was not
considered to be “ideally, geographically and topographically” similar to
village Mundka . Also, the sale exemplars relied upon by the landowners
were opined to show very high rates whereas the ones relied upon by the
Union of India and DMRC showed very low rates.
10. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgments, the landowners have
approached this Court. Pertinently, neither the Union of India nor the
beneficiary, i.e. the DMRC, though parties before the Reference Court, have
challenged the impugned judgments.
SUBMISSIONS
11. Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant landowners, while placing
reliance on Jamna ( supra ), submits that in the said case, this Court
determined the value of agricultural land in village Mundka , acquired vide
Notification dated 17.06.2005, @ Rs.23,93,227.20/- per acre. It is submitted
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 5 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

that since the Acquisition Notification in the present matter was issued on
07.06.2007 i.e., approximately 2 years after the Notification in Jamna
( supra ), the market value of the appellants‟ land ought to be determined by
applying commensurate appreciation to the value arrived at in the said
decision.
12. In the alternative, it is contended that this Court should determine the
value of the land on the basis of the Notification dated 24.01.2008, put into
effect retrospectively from 18.12.2007, as per which the Land and Building
Department of GNCTD had itself revised the minimum rate for the purpose
of determining compensation for acquisition of agricultural land in Delhi to
Rs.53,00,000/- per acre. Notably, the said Notification was made effective
barely 6 months after the issuance of the subject Acquisition Notification on
07.06.2007.
13. It is further contended that since the market value of agricultural land
is generally pegged at half the value of land falling within the „extended Lal
Dora ‟ area of village Mundka , this Court may grant to the appellants half the
fair market value awarded for the extended Lal Dora land. It is stated that
the rationale behind asking for 50% of the value determined for extended
Lal Dora land is that in the consolidation proceedings, if a farmer gave land
falling in the category of „agricultural land‟, he got half the amount of land
in the „extended Lal Dora ‟ part. He, however, concedes that this was neither
argued before the Reference Court nor has any such ground been pleaded in
the present appeals.
14. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant in the matter of “ Anjali Garg Vs. Union of India & Ors. ”, bearing
L.A. APP. 33/2017 , while reiterating the aforesaid submissions, also relied
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 6 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

upon the Notification dated 24.01.2008 and submitted that the Reference
Court ought to have determined the fair market value in accordance with the
said Notification.
15. Mr. Vibhore Garg, learned counsel for the appellants in the matters
“ Mange Ram Aggarwal Vs. Union of India & Anr. ” bearing LA APP. No.
219/2017 & “ Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors. ” bearing LA
APP. No. 46/2017 , submits that the Reference Court erred in not
considering the valuation report dated 08.12.2008 furnished in Jayant Juneja
( supra ) by holding that the same had not been duly proved. The said case
pertained to the acquisition of approximately 873 sq. metres of agricultural
land in village Mundka by the DMRC, where a much higher compensation
was paid. It is submitted that during pendency of proceedings before it, the
Supreme Court had appointed one M/s. ABC Valuer & Co. to determine the
market value of the land concerned. Based on the said valuation, the DMRC
paid compensation @ Rs.38,533.33/- per sqm. In the same valuation report,
the market rate of that specific agricultural land was determined to be
Rs.27,400/- per sqm. as of June 2007, i.e., at the time of the Acquisition
Notification. It is submitted that since the appellant landowners‟ land also
falls under the category of „agricultural land‟, the fair market value ought to
be the same.
16. Learned counsels also contended that the land in question, though it
falls in the category of „agricultural land‟, was, however, used for industrial
purposes. In this regard, reliance is placed on the valuation reports of the
property situated in the same vicinity, prepared by the valuer M/s. Khanna &
Associates , exhibited as Ex. 7/A & Ex. 7/B in Smt. Anjali Garg ( supra ). It is
submitted that the said documents categorically record that the land in
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 7 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

question is agricultural with industrial use. Furthermore, the Notifications
dated 17.09.2007 & 07.02.2007 are referred to in order to show that the area,
including Phirni Road , Mundka , and Udyog Nagar , was being regularized as
part of the unorganized industrial cluster. In this backdrop, it is reiterated
that the building potential of the land has to be taken into consideration
while determining the market value of the land.
17. Per contra , Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of
India, as well as the learned counsel for the DMRC, both advert to Section
24 of the LA Act to contend that the future potentiality of the land in
question cannot be considered a relevant factor to determine the market
value of the land as the same has been statutorily barred. It is further
contended that where relevant measures of fair market value predating the
Section 4 Notification are available, those post-dating it ought not to be
considered.
18. Learned counsel for the DMRC additionally contended that the
Reference Court had failed to apply the judicially accepted principle of
„Belting‟ to determine the fair market value of the land. He submitted that
all plots situated in the same vicinity will not have the same situational
advantages and different land areas have to be assessed differently.
19. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant landowners, while re-
emphasising the minimum rates circulated vide Notification dated
24.01.2008, took strong objection to the applicability of the „Belting‟
principle by arguing that the land in question is homogenous in nature.
Reliance in this regard is placed upon Baljeet Singh Vs. Union of India
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 8 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

3
through Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. and Trishala Jain Vs. State of
4
Uttaranchal .
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
20. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record. Since the present batch of appeals pertains to
the determination of compensation to be granted qua the subject land, before
dealing with the above stated contentions, it is necessary to refer to the
relevant provisions of the LA Act.
Some of the factors which the Court must take into consideration
while determining compensation are enumerated in Section 23 of the LA
Act in the following manner:-
“ 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. – (1)
In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land
acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration—

first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication
of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1);
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason
of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be
on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession
thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at
the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land,
by reason of severing such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at
the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land,
by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other
property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or
his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the
Collector, the person interested is compelled to change
his residence or place of business, the reasonable

3
Civil Appeal Nos.5480-5486 of 2013, decided on 19.09.2017
4
AIR 2011 SC 2458.
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 9 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of
the profits of the land between the time of the publication
of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the
Collector's taking possession of the land. ”

21. Likewise, the factors which the Court needs to ignore while
determining compensation are given in Section 24 of the LA Act. They read
as follows:-
“ 24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. — But
the Court shall not take into consideration—
first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition;
secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with
the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him, which, if caused by a private
person, would not render such person liable to a suit;
fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land
acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under Section
6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to
accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person
interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be
put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of, the land
acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the
Collector after the date of the publication of the notification under Section
4, sub-section (1); or
eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its
being put to any use which is forbidden by land or opposed to public
policy. ”

22. The fair market value of land which is subjected to acquisition is
invariably taken on the date of publication of the Notification under Section
4 of the LA Act. It is to be computed by seeing what a hypothetical
purchaser is willing to pay to purchase that land from the open market and
also what is a reasonable price for a willing vendor. The computed market
value must be in line with the market value reflected in the most comparable
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 10 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

instances. Care must be taken to ensure that only genuine transactions are
taken into account, and not those inflated in expectation of prospective
acquisition. Both temporal and geographical proximity of the transactions
has to be taken into account as in how close they are to the date of the
Section 4 Notification, and situation-wise, as in how comparable the land in
question is to the land being acquired. Courts have taken into account even
post notification instances provided they are genuine, proximate, and the
purchaser has not paid a higher price due to the increased development
prospects. Once the index of market value is determined by identifying
suitable transactions, this value is taken as the norm, which is increased or
decreased based on the plus and minus factors of the particular acquisition in
a commonsensical fashion. A gainful reference may be made to the decision
in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona &
5
Anr. , wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-
“ 4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
…
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on
the crucial date of publication of the notification under sec. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of
valuation (date of publication of notification under sec. 4) as if the valuer
is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market
and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be
assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the
market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the
index of market value.
(8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes
instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land).
(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they
are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not

5
(1988) 3 SCC 751
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 11 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant
improvement in development prospects.
(l0) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to
be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market
value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market
value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable
adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition
by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this
purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price
variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be
deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for
plus factors and unloading it for minus factors.
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in
a common -sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would
do. … ”

6
23. In Tribeni Devi Vs. Collector of Ranchi , the Supreme Court
discussed some other indicators like rent fetched for the same or the
neighbouring lands, opinion of experts etc. for determination of the market
value. The relevant observations are extracted hereunder:-
“ 4. The general principles for determining compensation have,
been set out in Sections 23 & 24 of the Act. The compensation payable to
the owner of the land is the market value which is determined by reference
to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a
willing purchaser, but as this may not be possible to ascertain with any
amount of precision, the authority charged with the duty to award
compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective
standard. The land acquired has, therefore, to be valued not only with
reference to its condition at the time of the declaration under section 4 of
the Act but its potential value also must be taken into account. The sale-
deeds of the lands situated in the vicinity and the comparable benefits and
advantages which they have, furnish a rough and ready method of
computing the market value. This, however, is not the only method. The
rent which an owner was actually receiving at the relevant point of time or
the rent which the neighbouring lands of similar nature are fetching can

6
AIR 1972 SC 1417
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 12 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

be taken into account by capitalising the rent which according to the
present prevailing rate of interest is 20 times the annual rent. But this also
is not a conclusive method. This Court had in Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty, indicated at page 412 the
methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the
land on the date of the notification under section 4(1) which are : (i)
opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide
transactions of purchase, of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to
the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number
of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the
lands acquired. These methods, however, do not preclude the Court from
taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement
being always to arrive as near as possible an estimate of the market value.
In arriving to a reasonably correct market value, it may be necessary to
take even two or all of those methods into account inasmuch as the exact
valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in
respect of the situation or the extent or the potentially nor is it possible in
all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be
accurately determined. ”

24. Adverting now to the rival contentions, the landowners are aggrieved
by the non-consideration of the four sale exemplars relied upon by them and,
on the other hand, the respondents have sought to rely on their own set of
sale exemplars. In this regard, it is sufficient to note that neither set of sale
deeds reflects the actual fair market value of the land. While the sale deeds
relied upon by the respondents were only photocopies of the certified copies
that were handed over by their counsel before the references were listed for
final arguments, thus denying the landowners the right of challenging their
genuineness, the three sale deeds relied upon by the landowners pertained to
a different village, Bakkarwala , which was held to be not “ideally,
geographically and topographically” similar to village Mundka , and the
remaining one deed was found to be executed after the date of the
Acquisition Notification. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the
Union has referred to Section 51A of the LA Act, the same pertains to
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 13 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

certified copies of documents being accepted as evidence, and not
photocopies of certified copies. Therefore, the said documents don‟t qualify
as secondary evidence under Section 51A of the LA Act. Further, the market
values reflected in the same were even lower than the minimum rates for
acquisition of agricultural land in Delhi notified vide GNCTD‟s Order dated
30.08.2005. This Court is in complete agreement with the approach of the
Reference Court in not taking into consideration the sale deeds relied upon
by both the parties.

25. Another contention raised by the landowners, that the value of the
land ought to have been pegged at half of the value determined for the
extended Lal Dora land, is also meritless as, concededly, neither was this
argued before the Reference Court nor any evidence led on this aspect, nor
has the same been made a ground of challenge in the present appeals.
Further, the submission lacks any documentary support.
26. Next, reliance was sought to be placed on the decision in Jayant
Juneja ( supra ). A perusal of the said decision shows, inter alia , that an area
admeasuring 873 sq. metres was urgently required by the DMRC, and that
both the parties to the transaction had „agreed‟ for the release of this portion
on the market rates prevailing on 08.12.2008, i.e. much after the Acquisition
Notification. A plain reading of the order would show that the same was
more in the nature of a “consent decree”. The extract of the relevant
Supreme Court order reads as under:-
“ Impleadment allowed.
An area admeasuring 2175 sq. meters in Delhi was acquired for
Planned Development (specifically for road). An area admeasuring 873
sq. meters out of total area of 2175 sq. meters are urgently required for
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). Vide Order dated 24th
September, 2007 this Court directed the interim order passed by the High
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 14 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

Court to continue.
The present Interlocutory Application seeks modification of our
th
Order dated 24 September, 2007 to the extent of the land admeasuring
873 sq. meters to be released from the subject matter of the pending
Special Leave Petition for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. Parties
appearing before us, namely, the claimants and Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation agree for release of 873 sq. meters of land on the basis that
the claimants would be receiving compensation for the said land
admeasuring 873 sq. meters at the market rate prevailing as on today’s
date. Delhi Development Authority and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no
objection subject to rider that this arrangement would be without
prejudice to their rights and contentions in the pending Special Leave
Petition.
th
Accordingly, our Order dated 24 September, 2007 stands
modified.
Interlocutory Application are disposed of accordingly. ”

27. Another contention raised by the landowners regarding the use of land
for industrial purposes also merits rejection as, in the opinion of this Court,
the Reference Court rightly noted that the Government Notifications dated
17.09.2007 and 07.02.2007 showed that on the date of the Acquisition
Notification, the land had not been notified for industrial purposes. Further,
reliance on the valuation report prepared by the valuer „ M/s. Khanna &
Associates ‟ was also found to be meritless, as the said report was prepared
only to identify structures and assess their value, and not to establish the use
of the land. The Reference Court also noted that there were no documents
proved on record to establish the name and style of the unit, or the necessary
permissions, licenses, and sanctions required to establish industrial activity
and use.
28. Insofar as the issue of „Belting‟ raised on behalf of the DMRC is
concerned, it is also pointed out that neither was such a contention raised
before the Reference Court, nor any documentary evidence led in this regard
to establish any lack of homogeneity or varying potential within the acquired
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 15 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

land. It is further highlighted that the DMRC has not separately challenged
the impugned judgments by way of appeal, despite being arrayed as a
respondent before the Reference Court. Furthermore, this Court is guided by
the decision of the Supreme Court in Baljeet Singh ( supra ), which
specifically dealt with agricultural land in village Mundka . In that case, the
Supreme Court specifically noted the landowners‟ submission that the
belting system applied by the High Court for village Mundka was not
appropriate as the potential of the land was more or less the same, and
ultimately set aside the said system after deeming it inappropriate in the
facts and circumstances in light of the principles laid down in Trishala Jain
( supra ). Since the present matter is likewise concerned with agricultural land
in the same village, this Court finds that the application of a belting system
is not warranted and the fair market value must be applied uniformly.
Similarly, the issue of development cost is stated to be not raised before the
Reference Court. It is also pertinent to note that in the prior decision of this
Court in Jamna ( supra ) relating to the acquisition of agricultural land in
village Mundka, this Court did not impose any development cost, and the
said decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Baljeet Singh ( supra ).
29. Adverting now to the decision of this Court in Jamna ( supra ), which
pertained, inter alia , to proceedings carried out in the context of an earlier
Section 4 Notification dated 17.06.2005 for the acquisition of agricultural
land in village Mundka . In the said decision, this Court determined the value
of agricultural land @ Rs.23,93,227.20/- per acre. In doing so, the Court
7
relied on its prior decision in Chiranji Lal Vs. Union of India & Anr. ,
relating to a Section 4 Notification dated 06.02.2003 and applied

7
LA Appeal No. 489/2009 dated 02.06.2011
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 16 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

appreciation @ 10%.
30. The Reference Court also adopted a somewhat similar approach. As
the LAC had relied on the the minimum rate for agricultural land fixed vide
the GNCTD‟s Order dated 30.08.2005, the Reference Court awarded further
12% progressive appreciation till 07.06.2007.
31. This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that agricultural land rates
in Delhi underwent an exponential rise between the years 2005 and 2008.
This aspect was reflected not only in the sale deeds executed at the relevant
8
time but also caught the attention of this Court in Jai Singh Vs. UOI . At the
cost of repetition, it is noted that the Notification dated 24.01.2008 (made
applicable retrospectively from 18.12.2007) fixed the minimum price of
agricultural land in Delhi @ Rs.53,00,000/- per acre, as against the
minimum price of Rs.17,58,400/- per acre fixed vide GNCTD‟s
Order/Notification dated 17.08.2005. That is a more than a three-fold
increase in the minimum rate in less than 3 years. The relevant extract from
Jai Singh ( supra ) is as under:-
“ 7. Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned
Reference Court have relied upon the notifications issued from time to
time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for
agricultural lands in Delhi, let me therefore note the dates and the
minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands
in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The
same would be as under:-

Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 17 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

to follow Jamna ( supra ), which determined the fair market value of
agricultural land in village Mundka on 17.08.2005, and then award
reasonable appreciation; and the other is to consider the mean of two
successive Notifications regarding the minimum price to arrive at the fair
market value of the acquired land.
Method I
33. As noted above, in Jamna ( supra ), the Coordinate Bench of this Court
specifically dealt with the acquisition of agricultural land in village Mundka
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 18 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

pertaining to a Section 4 Notification dated 17.06.2005. When the decision
in Jamna ( supra ) was assailed, the Supreme Court in Baljeet Singh ( supra ),
found the determinations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court to be
appropriate, save for the limited modification by removing the aspect of
belting. The fair market value calculated in Jamna ( supra ), being
Rs.23,93,227.20/- per acre as on 17.06.2005, therefore serves as a reliable
„anchor‟ for determining the fair market value of the acquired land in the
present matter.

34. Pertinently, the decision in Jamna ( supra ) relating to village Mundka
was based on another decision of this Court in Chiranji Lal ( supra ), which,
in turn, was based on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pratap
9
Singh (dead) through LRs etc Vs. Union of India & Ors. , which was also
10
upheld by the Supreme Court . It is also worth noting that the decision in
Jamna ( supra ) was relied upon by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in
11
Paramjeet Singh Suri Vs. Union of India & Ors. .
35. Accordingly, one way of calculating the fair market value in the
present matter is to apply an annual appreciation to the market value of
Rs.23,93,227.20/- per acre determined in Jamna ( supra ) from 17.06.2005 up
to the date of the Acquisition Notification in the present matter, i.e.,
07.06.2007.
36. Bearing in mind that the land rates in Delhi witnessed an exponential
upward trend, that also came to be recognized by the GNCTD in its
Notification dated 24.01.2008, this Court is of the opinion that a 10%
appreciation fails to adequately reflect the true state of affairs. However, it is

9
LA.APP. 193/2006, decided on 19.12.2008.
10
SLP(C) No. 34388/2009, decided on 19.04.2010.
11
2019:DHC:6439
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 19 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

not certain as to which specific period this increase has taken place in. In the
considered opinion of this Court, an annual appreciation of 15% is deemed
more representative of the market reality between June 2005 and June 2007.
37. Applying a 15% annual appreciation to the rate of Rs.23,93,227.20/-
per acre for a total of 720 days i.e., from 17.06.2005 to 07.06.2007, the fair
market value under this method is determined to be Rs.31,01,360.18/- per
acre.
Method II

38. At the time of the Acquisition Notification, the minimum rate for the
purpose of determining compensation for agricultural land in Delhi was
Rs.17,58,400/- per acre, as notified vide Notification dated 30.08.2005. Yet,
barely 6 months after the Acquisition Notification, the GNCTD revised the
minimum rate to Rs.53,00,000/- per acre.
39. In such circumstances, the golden rule of average is to be applied to
bridge the gap between the two rates. This methodology finds support in the
decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh ( supra ), which
was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Jai Singh &
12
Anr. . An extract from the decision of this Court is reproduced hereunder:-
“ 45. … The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the
recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values,
requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would be closest to the point
for which the mean average has to be determined. ”

40. A similar equitable approach was adopted by the Division Bench of
13
this Court in Jai Narain Vs. UOI & Anr. , which was upheld by the

12
Civil Appeal No. 675 of 2012, decided on 16.12.2014.
13
2008:DHC:6336-DB
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 20 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

14
Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ishwar Singh & Ors. . Writing for the
Division Bench of this Court, Justice T.S. Thakur (as his Lordship then was)
recognized that the minimum prices stipulated by the Government could be
made a basis for determining compensation by either adding or offloading
appreciation for the period intervening the date of the Section 4 Notification
and the Notifications fixing the minimum rates. The Division Bench held
that the average of the two rates, one appreciated forward from an earlier
Notification and the other de-escalated backward from a subsequent one,
should truly represent the minimum market value of the land in question.
41. Adopting this logic, the minimum rate of Rs.17,58,400/- per acre,
having been notified about 2 years prior on 30.08.2005, necessitates a
proportionate appreciation to reach the date of the Acquisition Notification.
Conversely, the minimum rate of Rs.53,00,000/- per acre, coming into effect
6 months post the Acquisition Notification, requires proportionate
discounting. To arrive at a balanced figure, the mean of these two indicators
must be determined as they would have stood on the date of the Acquisition
Notification, i.e., 07.06.2007.
42. Accordingly, applying the rate of 15% annual appreciation and de-
escalation to the concerned minimum rates:-
i. The rate of Rs.17,58,400/- per acre (notified on 30.08.2005) is
appreciated by 15% per annum until the date of the Acquisition
Notification (07.06.2007). The same comes out to
Rs.22,25,219.07/- per acre.
ii. The rate of Rs.53,00,000/- per acre (effective from 18.12.2007)
is de-escalated by 15% per annum backward to the date of the

14
SLP(C) Nos. 10627-10671/2009, decided on 27.03.2017.
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 21 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

Acquisition Notification (07.06.2007). This comes out to
Rs.48,77,452.06/- per acre.
43. The average of the above two values comes out to Rs.35,51,335.56/-
per acre.
44. Consequently, we now have two figures arrived at using two different
methodologies:-
Method I : Rs.31,01,360.18/- per acre
Method II : Rs.35,51,335.56/- per acre

45. It is evident that there does not exist a huge disparity between the two
figures, there being only a marginal difference of under 15%. This Court is
of the considered opinion that, keeping in view the rapid escalation in the
minimum rates for agricultural land as recognized by the GNCTD, the
appellant landowners ought to be given the benefit of that trend.
Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt the higher of the two
figures to calculate the fair market value of the acquired land.
Fair Market Value
46. In view of the foregoing discussion, the fair market value for the
agricultural land as on the date of the Acquisition Notification is determined
to be Rs.35,51,335.56/- per acre.
CONCLUSION
47. In the result, this Court passes the following order:-
i. The impugned judgments passed by the Reference Court are
quashed and set aside;
ii. The compensation granted to the appellants qua the agricultural
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 22 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46

land is enhanced from Rs.21,31,277/- per acre to
Rs.35,51,335.56/- per acre; and
iii. The landowners would be entitled to solatium and interest as
15
per statute and as clarified in Sunder Vs. Union of India .
iv. Wherever the Award amounts are deposited with the Registry,
the same shall be released to the landowners.
48. The present appeals, along with pending applications, if any, are
disposed of in the above terms.


MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
MAY 04, 2026
nb

15
(2001) 7 SCC 211
Signature Not Verified
LA.APP. 47/2017 Page 23 of 23

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:08:46