Right to Land Acquisition Compensation is an Assignable Actionable Claim, Not a Mere Right to Sue

The Government of Delhi initiated land acquisition in Village Jasola via Section 4 notification on 06.01.1995 for a Sewage Treatment Plant

Possession was taken on 22.02.1995, and the Award (No. 10/95-96) was passed on 11.10.1995, assessing market value at ₹96.80 per sq. yard

After possession but before the award, the original owners assigned their compensation rights to Respondents via registered deeds dated 22.03.1995

In a prior round of litigation, the Supreme Court set aside a High Court enhancement (₹7,390 per sq. yard) and remitted the matter to the Reference Court to decide the assignees' locus standi and determine the market value afresh

On remand, the Reference Court upheld the assignees' locus standi and re-fixed the market value at ₹7,390 per sq. yard

Both the Union of India (seeking reduction) and the assignees (seeking further enhancement to ₹10,000+) appealed

Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, which prohibit the transfer of "land" under acquisition

Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the non-transferability of a "mere right to sue"

Precedents such as Laxmi Narain v. UOI and Sh. Chandan v. UOI established that the right to receive compensation is a statutory actionable claim, not a bare right to sue, and remains assignable after the land vests in the State

Principles from ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, which caution against applying high annual escalation rates (12-15%) when the time gap between the exemplar and notification exceeds 4-5 years

Central Warehousing Corp. v. Thakur Dwara Kalan, suggesting a reduced rate (approx. 8%) for larger gaps

The court determined that since the assignment occurred after the state took possession on 22.02.1995, the land had already vested in the Government; thus, the deed transferred a "monetary statutory entitlement" rather than "land" itself, exempting it from the 1972 Act's prohibitions

It noted that the LAC had already recognized these assignees via a corrigendum and disbursed original compensation to them, creating an estoppel against the UOI's challenge

On market value, the court rejected the UOI's sale deeds as undervalued (showing ₹85-100 per sq. yard) compared to judicial precedents from 1986 showing ₹3,808

However, it also rejected the claimants' demand for ₹13,118–₹20,958 per sq. yard derived from a 1979 exemplar (Ram Chander), ruling that a 15.5-year gap makes mechanical escalation cumulative at 12-15% speculative

The court found that applying a conservative 8% escalation to the 1986 rate (Dharamvir Singh) resulted in approx. ₹7,410, validating the Reference Court’s choice of ₹7,390

It held that the assignees have valid locus standi as the right to compensation is an assignable interest

The market value was upheld at ₹7,390 per sq. yard based on parity with the Kishan Lal case (pertaining to the same award and village) and corroborated by 1992 market schedules for nearby Kalkaji

The court directed payment of 30% solatium, 12% additional amount under Section 23(1A), and interest at 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter under Section 28