Prem Kaur v. Union of India

judgment dated 17.11.2006.

¶5The appellants, who did not seek a reference, filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act on 01.02.2007, within 90 days from the date of the award of the Reference Court, seeking re-determination of their compensation based upon the award of the Reference Court in LAC Nos. 1-5/2003. During the pendency of the said application, appeals were filed before the High Court by some of the landowners, as well as by respondent No. 2, seeking enhancement and reduction of compensation, respectively. After the appeals filed by respondent No. 2 were dismissed by the High Court, vide order dated 06.08.2012, the first application filed by the appellants under Section 28-A of the Act was allowed on 02.04.2013, and their compensation was re-determined on the basis of the award of the Reference Court, even though the appeals filed by the landowners were still pending and came to be allowed by the High Court only on 22.07.2013, further enhancing the compensation to Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre.

¶6Upon receipt of knowledge of the award passed by the High Court, the appellants filed another The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. application under Section 28-A of the Act on

25.11.2013, seeking re-determination of compensation on the basis of the enhanced award passed by the High Court in MFA No. 3289/2007 and MFA No. 3291/2007 dated

22.07.2013, presumably within the period of limitation, which is to be computed by excluding the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award. In any case, the issue of limitation in filing the said application is not a matter of concern, before us, in the present appeals.

¶7The second application made under Section 28-A of the Act was rejected by respondent No. 2, vide order dated 30.11.2013, on the ground that the appellants had already accepted the earlier compensation on 02.04.2013, as enhanced by the Reference Court and, that, they did not bring the pendency of the appeals before the High Court challenging the award of the Reference Court to the notice of the competent authority, even though one set of appeals was filed by respondent No. 2 itself. It is also observed that in the said order passed by respondent No. 2, there is no indication of any delay on the part of the appellants in filing the second application, particularly, in light of the proviso to Section 28-A(1) of the Act. "

¶22The decision in Andanayya (supra) has to be looked at in the context where the re-determination of compensation was actually pending before the competent authority and the appeals which were filed were also pending before the High Court.

¶23Under these circumstances, the facts in Andanayya (supra) and the present cases are completely distinguishable. In the present cases, the re-determination of compensation at Rs. 4,65,000/- per acre along with other The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. statutory benefits has already attained finality vide the judgement dated 27th April, 2006, and the same cannot be sought to be re-opened in this manner, on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Andanayya (supra).

¶24Moreover, the judgement in Sh. Ram Chander (Dead) Through LRs (Supra) relating to land acquired in Jasola, and in the present cases, are on different facts. There cannot be any underlying commonality that can be claimed for re-determination of compensation in respect of the present land in village Jaitpur and the land which was acquired in the Jasola area.

¶25Under these circumstances, if such a re-opening of compensation for acquired land is allowed in this manner, there would never be any finality to determination of compensation and this could lead to enormous uncertainty, especially when lands are acquired for public purposes.

¶26It is accordingly held that the petitions are without merit and are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE MARCH 30, 2026/b/sm The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 30th March, 2026 Uploaded on: 2nd April, 2026 ~32 + W.P.(C) 4001/2026 & CM APPL. 19603/2026 MAHENDER KAUR & ORS. .....Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent ~33 + W.P.(C) 4002/2026 & CM APPL. 19604/2026 KARNAIL SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent ~34 + W.P.(C) 4003/2026 & CM APPL. 19606/2026 GURMEET SINGH .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent ~35 + W.P.(C) 4014/2026 & CM APPL. 19648/2026 PREM KAUR .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent ~36 + W.P.(C) 4018/2026 & CM APPL. 19653/2026 JEET KAUR & ORS. .....Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent ~37 + W.P.(C) 4028/2026 & CM APPL. 19679/2026 AMARJEET SINGH .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent ~39 + W.P.(C) 4036/2026 & CM APPL. 19689/2026 KARNAIL SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent ~47 + W.P.(C) 4085/2026 & CM APPL. 20018/2026 GURBAKSH SINGH .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent ~48 + W.P.(C) 4086/2026 & CM APPL. 20019/2026 KARNAIL SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent ~50 + W.P.(C) 4121/2026 & CM APPL. 20130/2026 GURNAM SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent ~51 + W.P.(C) 4131/2026 & CM APPL. 20150/2026 NISHAN SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Appearance: For the Petitioners:- Mr. Vinay Kumar Khanna, Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Mr. Vibhav Chaturvedi, Mr. Narveer Yadav, Mr. Siddhartha Sati & Ms. Ruchi Kumari, Advs. For the Respondents:- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Ms. Joohu Kumari, Advs. for LAC. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. 2. These are various writ petitions which have been filed by original landowners/their legal heirs seeking fair market value in respect of acquired lands falling in village Jaitpur. 3. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, 'the Act') was issued on 2nd June, 1989 for acquisition of the land to the extent of 729 bighas 10 biswas situated in village Jaitpur for public purposes i.e., for the construction of ash pond of Badarpur Thermal Power Station. 4. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act which was issued on 10th July, 1989. Pursuant to the aforesaid notifications, Award No. 2 of 1990-91 of village Jaitpur was passed on 26th April, 1990 by Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi (hereinafter, 'the award'). 5. In the said award, the market value of the land in village Jaitpur was determined at Rs.12,000/- per bigha, along with the following statutory benefits: i. Solatium @ 30% of the market value; ii. Additional amount under Section 23(1) of the Act @ 12% from the date of preliminary notification till the date of possession; iii. Interest @ 9% from the date of possession till the date of announcement of award under Section 34 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the award, the landowners had filed respective references under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was referred to the Reference Court on the adequacy of compensation. The Reference Court, vide separate judgements had assessed the market value of land at Rs. 4,65,000/- per acre. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. Relevant portion of the judgment of the Reference Court dated 31st August, 1991 pertaining to W.P.(C) 4001/2026 is as follows: "[...] 7. The market value of land in question is here by assessed @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre, and the petitioner is accordingly, held to be entitled to receive enhanced compensation @ Rs.4.65,