Compensation parity applies where similarly situated landowners have already received an unchallenged enhancement.

The Union of India challenged two judgments of the Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts, concerning Award No. 08/2003-04 for acquisition of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakoli, Delhi, pursuant to references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

In both matters, the ADJ enhanced compensation for Category A land from ₹15,70,000 per acre to ₹16,74,500 per acre.

The ADJ relied on Desh Raj Gupta v. Union of India, where the same rate had been awarded for land in Village Bakoli.

In turn, Desh Raj Gupta relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Jai Singh v. Union of India, which had assessed land in adjoining villages acquired under the same notification at ₹16,74,500 per acre for Category A land.

It was undisputed that the Union had not challenged the decision in Desh Raj Gupta.

Whether the ADJ was justified in awarding compensation at ₹16,74,500 per acre for Category A land in Village Bakoli by relying on Desh Raj Gupta and, indirectly, Jai Singh.

Whether the alleged distinction between Village Bakoli and the villages considered in Jai Singh warranted interference by the High Court with the impugned judgments.

The Court applied Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, governing references for determination of the proper amount of compensation.

It relied on the principle that similarly situated landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notification and for the same public purpose should ordinarily receive comparable compensation.

The Court accepted the reasoning in Desh Raj Gupta v. Union of India, which relied on Jai Singh v. Union of India, LA Appeal No. 266/2008, that lands situated in the same geographical region and acquired under the same notification for construction of a 100-foot-wide road in the Narela Freight Complex could be valued on a parity basis.

The Court also treated the Union’s failure to challenge Desh Raj Gupta as a relevant circumstance against disturbing the same rate in the present cases.

The High Court found that the ADJ in Desh Raj Gupta had expressly considered and rejected the Union’s objection that Village Bakoli was distinct from the villages involved in Jai Singh.

The ADJ had relied on the location of the villages, their position between National Highway No. 10 and National Highway No. 1, the common acquisition notification dated 22 August 2001, and the identical public purpose of constructing the Narela Freight Complex.

The High Court held that the conclusion that the villages were similarly situated was justified.

It further noted that the enhancement was relatively modest and that similarly situated landowners had already received the benefit of the rate fixed in Desh Raj Gupta, making interference particularly inappropriate.

It held that the ADJ had correctly applied the principle of parity and validly awarded ₹16,74,500 per acre for Category A land in Village Bakoli.

Both appeals, LA.APP. Nos. 303/2023 and 618/2023, were dismissed, and the connected applications were consequently disposed of.