UOI v. Balbir & Ors (LA.APP. 1145/2008)

Court: High Court of Delhi
Decided: 26 September 2025
Bench: Tara Vitasta Ganjuauthor
Case no.: LA.APP. 1145/2008

Official PDF Read full judgment Report an error

Judgment

Judgment Pronounced on :

26.09 .2025

LA.AP. 59/207 & CM APL. 1373/2016

BED RAM

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 372/207

BHOPAL SINGH

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel

with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind

2 of 171

Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar,

Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 40/207

DHARAM VER

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishanv Kumar, Advocates for DA.

Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Pratek Dhir, Mr. Kuljet Singh and Mr. Shivam Takiar, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 42/207

SRI RAM & ANR.

.Apelants

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

3 of 171

Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.

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

LA.AP. 43/207

BED RAM

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel

with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar,

Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.

Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kuljet Singh, Adv.

LA.AP. 4/207

ATAR SINGH

.Apelant

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

4 of 171

Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

Ms. Kamna Singh, Panel Counsel for DA.

LA.AP. 58/207

DULI CHAND

.Apelant

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 DA

Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind

5 of 171

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

LA.AP. 143/208

UOI & ANR.

.Apelants

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 DA

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

versus

BHOHTI DECEASED THR.LR'S

.Respondent

Through:

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

Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DA.

LA.AP. 91/2010

KEHAR SINGH

.Apelant

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

6 of 171

Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.

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

+ LA.AP. 38/2015, CM APL. 2671/2016 & 41910/2016

FAKIR CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .Apelants

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Mr. S.A. Khan, Advocate for R - 2. Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 39/2015 & CM APL. 1804/2015

HUKUM SINGH SINCE DECEASED THR LRS & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Shivansh, Mr. Rajan Sharma, Mr. Depak Gola, Mr. Krishna Kant, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

.Respondents

7 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 DA.

LA.AP. 14/2019

PRAKASH & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. Dhruv Anand, Mr. Dhananjay Khana, 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 DA.

LA.AP. 230/202

SALEK RAM (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS.

.Apelants

Through:

Apearance 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 DA.

8 of 171

LA.AP. 36/202, CM APL. 52464 - 65/202

SITA RAM (DECEASED) THR. LR CHAVAN & ANR.

.Apelants

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. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

Mr. Akhil Mital, ASC with Ms. Navita Gupta, Mr. Sidhant Garg, Advs. for DA.

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

LA.AP. 61/207

KESAR SINGH & ORS.

.Apelants

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,

9 of 171

Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 62/207

GANGA RAM & ANR

.Apelants

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 63/207

SATO DEVI & ORS

.Apelants

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 Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Mr. Sami Samer Sidiqui, Advocates for UOI.

Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 64/207

ANGORI DEVI (D) THRU. L.R.

.Apelant

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 DA.

LA.AP. 65/207

RAJ PAL

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 6/207

KAILASH SHARMA & ANR

.Apelants

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind

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

LA.AP. 73/207

TEK CHAND

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 87/207, CM APL. 808 - 09/2019

PRITAM SINGH & ORS.

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Ms. Meghna, Advocate for DA.

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

LA.AP. 412/207

GIRIRAJ & ORS.

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 89/207

BALBIR SINGH

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Mr. Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for DA.

Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DA.

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

LA.AP. 1234/208

HANS RAJ DECD. THR . LR'S

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 1235/208, CM APL. 6801/2017 & 16070/2024

SURYA PRAKASH & ORS.

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 130/209

SHRI BHIK RAM

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 607/209

NEKI RAM

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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 DA

LA.AP. 91/207

BHIM SINGH DECD. THR.LR'S & ORS

.Apelants

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. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 293/207

JAGBIR SINGH

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. Anurop, 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. Vaish na v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DA.

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

LA.AP. 72/2016 & CM APL. 1271/2016

RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHUBER SINGH @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. Y.R. Sharma and Ms. Akshita Sharma, Advocates for LRs of Apelant 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

and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI.

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

LA.AP. 35/208

MUNSHI DECEASED THROUGH L.R'S & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. Anurop, 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 DA.

LA.AP. 50/208

BHARAT SINGH & ORS

.Apelants

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 DA.

LA.AP. 501/208

ZILE SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R'S

.Apelant

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 DA.

LA.AP. 508/208

JAGWATI

.Apelant

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 DA.

LA.AP. 509/208

BIR SINGH

.Apelant

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 DA.

LA.AP. 564/208

AMAN SINGH

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 565/208

SHASHI VERMA

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 609/208 & CM APL. 917/2016

NIMANT RANA & ORS.

.Apelants

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 631/208

DINESH KUMAR & ORS.

.Apelants

Through:

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

Mr. Amit Dhala 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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Manish Kr. Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates for R - 2 to 8.

LA.AP. 737/208

INDER SINGH

.Apelant

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 & 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 DA.

Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for DA

LA.AP. 739/208

RAMESH BASISTHA

.Apelant

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 DA.

LA.AP. 748/208, CM APL. 945/201, 2181/201 & 52896/2018

DAL CHAND & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Apearance not given.

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.

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 816/208, CM APL. 12931/2017, 12932/2017, 1293/2017, 362/2017 & REVIEW PET. 132/2017

KISHAN SAHAI THRU L.R'S

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep 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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 817/208

JAGBIR & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, 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.

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

LA.AP. 876/208

RISHAL SINGH DECD. THR. LR'S

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep 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. Vais h n a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 96/208

RAJ KUMAR

.Apelant

Through:

Apearance not given.

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 92/208

AJET SINGH

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 94/208, CM APL. 1257 - 79/2017, 3659/2017 & REVIEW PET. 128/2017

HARI SINGH

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep 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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 95/208

PREM SINGH

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind

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

LA.AP. 96/208

RAJENDER PRASHAD & ORS.

.Apelants

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 1038/208, CM APL. 1903 - 04/2015

UOI

.Apelant

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

LA.AP. 1040/208

UOI

.Apelant

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.AP. 1042/208

UOI

.Apelant

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.AP. 1043/208

UOI

.Apelant

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

PHOL SINGH & ORS.

.Respondents

Through:

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

LA.AP. 136/208

JASWANT SINGH RANA (DECEASED) THR. LRS .Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 141/208

UOI

.Apelant

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

LA.AP. 142/208, CM APL. 4268 - 69/2023

UOI

.Apelant

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 DA

Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Adv. for Cla i mant

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

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.AP. 14/208

UOI & ANR.

.Apelants

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind

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

versus

NATHU & ORS.

.Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.

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

LA.AP. 145/208

UOI

.Apelant

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.AP. 146/208, CM APL. 1470 - 71/2015

UOI

.Apelant

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. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DA

Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.

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

LA.AP. 147/208

UOI & ANR.

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

versus

SOHAN THR.HIS LR'S

.Respondent

Through:

Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.

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

LA.AP. 148/208

UOI

.Apelant

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

LA.AP. 1204/208

DEVENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 1238/208

CHINTA

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 89/209

OM PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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 DA

LA.AP. 528/209

SHER SINGH (DECEASED) THR. LRS

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 50/209

GUNI RAM DECD THR LRS

.Apelant

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. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for D

LA.AP. 51/209

RANJIT KUMAR TRIGUNA

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 52/209

JAGDIP KUMAR TRIGUNA

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 53/209

BAHADUR DECD THR LRS

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DA.

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

LA.AP. 56/209

ATAR SINGH DECD THR LRS

.Apelant

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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind

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

LA.AP. 59/209 & CM APL. 41913/2019

PEHLAD

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Depak 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. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 560/209 & CM APL. 14064/2015

AJIT SINGH

.Apelant

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

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 DA.

LA.AP. 576/209 & CM APL. 14065/2015

NARENDER KUMAR TRIGUNA

.Apelant

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 DA.

LA.AP. 580/209, CM APL. 1406/2015

KESAR SINGH & ORS

.Apelants

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 DA.

LA.AP. 595/209 & CM APL. 14010/2015

PREM RAJ & ORS

.Apelants

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 DA.

LA.AP. 618/209, CM APL. 1472 - 73/2015

BADLEY

.Apelant

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.

Mr. Gaganmet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harpret Singh Chadha, Advocates for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

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

LA.AP. 647/209, CM APL. 87 - 79/2025

MEHAR CHAND & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. Anurop, 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 DA.

LA.AP. 650/209

PREM RAJ & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. Anurop, 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 DA.

LA.AP. 101/2010, CM APL. 14013/2015

RATO DEVI DECD THR LRS & ORS

.Apelants

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 DA.

LA.AP. 253/2010 & CM APL. 14060/2015

RAM PAT

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Parmita Nath, Ms. Alka Singh, Mr. Naven 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 DA.

LA.AP. 263/2010 & CM APL. 14068/2015

RAMESH & ANR

.Apelants

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 DA.

LA.AP. 264/2010 & CM APL. 14069/2015

HARI SINGH DECD THR LRS

.Apelant

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 DA.

LA.AP. 31/2010, CM APL. 14014/2015 & 648/2017

MAMRAJ & ORS

.Apelants

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 DA.

LA.AP. 314/2010

LAKHMI CHAND & ORS

.Apelants

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. Gagandep Sachdeva, Mr. Harshpret Singh Chadha & Mr. Hardesh Khana, Advs. for DA.

LA.AP. 315/2010 & CM APL. 14063/2015

JAGAN & ORS

.Apelants

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 DA.

LA.AP. 316/2010 & CM APL. 14062/2015

RAMESH DECD THR LRS & ORS

.Apelants

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 DA.

LA.AP. 380/2010

KESAR SINGH & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

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

Mr. Prashant Katara, Mr. Aman Sinha, 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.

LA.AP. 454/2010, CM APL. 14079/2015 & 21034/2019

DAYA KISHAN DECD THR LRS & ORS

.Apelants

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 DA.

LA.AP. 67/2010, CM APL. 12572 - 74/2017, 369/2017 & REVIEW PET. 127/2017

OM PRAKASH & ANR

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep 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 DA.

LA.AP. 678/2010 & CM APL. 14058/2015

SHRI CHANDERMAN @ CHANDER SINGH

.Apelant

Through:

Apearance 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 DA

LA.AP. 679/2010, CM APL. 12927 - 29/2017, 364/2017 & REVIEW PET. 131/2017

RAM SINGH DECD THR LRS & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep 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 DA.

LA.AP. 682/2010 & CM APL. 14067/2015

MOL CHAND DECD THR LRS

.Apelant

Through:

Apearance not given.

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.

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

LA.AP. 683/2010

YASH PAL & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Mr. Pradep 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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Ms. Nain Singh, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 69/2010

NAIN SINGH THR LRS

.Apelant

Through:

Apearance 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.

Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel with Mr. Prabhav Rali, Mr. Devrat Arya, Ms. Deya Mital, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 765/2010 & CM APL. 14073/2015

DAL CHAND & ORS

.Apelants

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 DA

LA.AP. 827/2010 & CM APL. 14012/2015

BHOP SINGH DECD THRU LRS

.Apelant

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 DA

LA.AP. 1070/2010, CM APL. 14080/2015, 3746 - 47/202

RAM KISHAN DECD THRU LRS & ORS

.Apelants

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 DA

LA.AP. 15/201 & CM APL. 14081/2015

MUSADI DECD THR LRS

.Apelant

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 DA

LA.AP. 29/201

DAL CHAND & ANR

.Apelants

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 39/201

UMA DHOWAN & ORS

.Apelants

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 Sanu, Panel Counsel with Mr. Sourav Verma, Advocate for DA.

LA.AP. 54/201

KARAN SINGH

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DA.

LA.AP. 140/201, CM APL. 14071/2015, 1510 - 1/2025

RANJET SINGH DECD THR LRS

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. S.K. Rout, Ms. Parmita Nath, Ms. Alka Singh, Mr. Naven 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 DA

LA.AP. 15/201 & CM APL. 14070/2015

JASPAL SINGH (DEC) THRU.LRS

.Apelant

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 DA

LA.AP. 156/201 & CM APL. 1401/2015

BED RAM

.Apelant

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. Kuljet Singh, Advocate.

LA.AP. 251/201 & CM APL. 14015/2015

HARI CHAND

.Apelant

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.

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

LA.AP. 708/201 & CM APL. 307/2017

LEKH RAM

.Apelant

Through:

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

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 716/201

GOPAL SINGH & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 5/2012, CM APL. 3879 - 80/2024

SURJAN & ORS

.Apelants

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 6/2012

GIAN CHAND DECD THR LRS & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

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

Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R - 2/DA.

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 Mital, Advocates for UOI.

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

LA.AP. 10/2012 & CM APL. 4574/202

ANANT RAM & ANR

.Apelants

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. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for DA.

LA.AP. 13/2012

BUDHAN DECD THRU LRS

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 37/2012 & CM APL. 14072/2015

DAROGA DECD THR LRS & ORS

.Apelants

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.

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

LA.AP. 218/2012

NET RAM THROUGH LRS AND ANR

.Apelants

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 23/2012

HARI SINGH THROUGH LRS

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 49/2013, CM APL. 5014 - 15/2019

SAMARTA LRS AND ORS

.Apelants

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 DA

LA.AP. 51/2013 & CM APL. 14061/2015

NET RAM

.Apelant

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 DA

LA.AP. 85/2015 & CM APL. 272/2015

LAKHMI CHAND & ORS

.Apelants

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 86/2015, CM APL. 282/2015 & 1952/2023

JUGAL KISHORE & ORS

.Apelants

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 Apelant No.1.

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 390/2015

VIRENDER SINGH (SINCE MISING) THR LRS & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Depak 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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 423/2015

HARI KISHAN (DECEASED) THR LEGAL HEIRS .Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

LA.AP. 426/2015

NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate for DA

LA.AP. 45/2015

NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 14/2016 & CM APL. 354/2016

NAIN SINGH (DECEASED) THR HIS LRS

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 18/2016

MAHIPAL (DECEASED) THR LRS

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 19/2016

CHATAR SINGH

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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 DA.

Mr. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

LA.AP. 173/2016 & CM APL. 9203/2020

RAM SAROP THROUGH LRS

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 196/2016, CM APL. 375/2018 & 28909/2024

BUDH RAM @ BUDH SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS

.Apelants

Through:

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

Mr. Ravi Dut Sharma, Mr. Rajat Sharma, Ms. Ruchika Sharma and Mr. Chetan Sharma, Advocates for LR I (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.

Mr. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 292/2016 & CM APL. 3754/2018

HARI KISHAN SHARMA & ORS

.Apelants

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. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DA.

LA.AP. 1/2017 & CM APL. 942/2017

SHASHI KUMAR

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Depak 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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel

with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 256/2017

POJA

.Apelant

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 DA

LA.AP. 287/2017 & CM APL. 31509/2017

MEHAR CHAND & ORS

.Apelants

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 131/2018

UNION OF INDIA

.Apelant

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. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

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

versus

MANMCHAND (DEC) THR LRS & ORS

.Respondents

Through:

Apearance not given.

LA.AP. 204/2018

OM PARKASH (DECEASED) THR LRS

.Apelant

Through:

Mr. Anurop, 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 DA.

LA.AP. 209/2018

VIRENDER & ANR

.Apelants

Through:

Apearance 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. Sanjay Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

LA.AP. 245/2018, CM APL. 54192 - 94/2018

UNION OF INDIA

.Apelant

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. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

Mr. Tushar Gupta, Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advocates for DA

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA

versus

BUDH RAM @ BUDH SINGH (DEC) THR LRS & ORS

.Respondents

Through:

Mr. Tushar Gupta and Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 246/2018, CM APL. 54324 - 26/2018

UNION OF INDIA

.Apelant

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. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

versus

HAR KISHAN (DEC) THR LRS & ORS

.Respondents

Through:

Mr. Neraj Kumar, Advocate for DA.

LA.AP. 247/2018, CM APL. 54360 - 62/2018

UNION OF INDIA

.Apelant

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. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates for R - 2.

versus

RAM SAROP (DEC) THR LRS & ORS

.Respondents

Through:

Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates for DA.

Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Mr. Bhuvan Goel, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 4/2019, CM APL. 16 - 68/2019

UNION OF INDIA

.Apelant

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. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

versus

RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS.Respondents

Through:

Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DA.

LA.AP. 49/2019, CM APL. 1601/2019, CM APL.1603 - 04/2019

UNION OF INDIA

.Apelant

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. Sidharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI.

versus

HANSO (DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR

.Respondents

Through:

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Podar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Mrinalni Sen, SC with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin and Ms. Gauri Shyam, Advs. for DA

Ms. Prity Sharma, Advocate for DA.

LA.AP. 130/2019, CM APL. 38327 - 28/2024

DAL CHAND SHARMA & ORS

.Apelants

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel

with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DA.

Mr. Neraj Kumar and Mr. Kartik Garg, Advocates.

LA.AP. 137/2019 & CM APL. 384/2019

BHOP SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS

.Apelant

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 Podar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA

Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Gunet B. Khehar, Advocates for DA.

LA.AP. 298/202

JAI BHAGWAN DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS.

.Apelants

Through:

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

versus

UNION OF INDIA 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. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

JUDGMENT

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J. :

PREFACE………………………………………………………………… 7 5 BRIEF FACTS………………………………………..…… . …………... . 75

THE HISTORY OF ASSESSMENT………………………

CONTENTIONS OF APELANT ……………………………………. 8 5 CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.2/DDA……………… . 92

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.1/UOI . 9 9 REJOINDER BY APPELLANT …………………………… …10

SUR - REJOINDER……………………………………………………… THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS………………………...... The Appeals…..…… ………………………............... .10 Vilage Khizrabad ………………………................ . . 1 10

Vilage Kilokari …. ….. ……………………............... . 1 Vilage Nangli Razapur …………………................ . . 1 Vilage Garhi Mendu ……………………................ . The Award …………………………………………………………….1 1 9 The Reference Court Judgments …………………………………….1 20

The Aditional Evidence. …………………............... . 12 The Statute………………………………………………………… ….13 Compensation a warded in Vilage Behlolpur Khadar & Jasola . . ………………………………………..... . . . 13 Proximity to d eveloped c olonies, a gricultural a ctivities & p otentiality………………………………………………………… The Location Plan………..…………………………… .15 The Exemplar …………………………………………………………1 60

CONCLUSION………….……………………….......... 1 70

PREFACE

Since the isues raised in the above captioned apeals are the same, the above Apeals are being disposed of by this comon judgment. The present Apeals were heard together with LA.AP. 59/207 captioned Bed Ram v. UOI & Anr. being argued as the lead mater with the consent of the parties . For the sake of brevity, the facts are being recorded from the lead mater captioned . BRIEF FACTS

¶1The present Apeal has ben filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 [ hereinafter referred to ] against the judgment and decre dated 18.10.206 pased by the C ourt of L earne d ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in LAC No. 1 of 203 captioned Bed Ram v. UOI & A nr . [ hereinafter referred to as — Impugned Judgment" ] .

¶2By the Impugned Judgment the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha , which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Colector [hereinafter refered to as "LAC"] to Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha for the acquired land. The l earned Reference Court

also granted 30% solatium on the value of the land . In adition, it was directed that the Apelant 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 anum from the date of notification til the date of award or date of disposesion , [whichever is earlier], til the expiry of one year and thereafter @15% per anum .

¶3L and was acquired for land development of Delhi in relation to the chanelisation of the river Yamuna, by a notification under Section 4 of the

LA Act was isued on 23.06.1989 [here in after referred to Notification"] . The notification set s out in detail that for acquisition of land admeasuring about 350 hectares of land starting from a point 1 km upstream, Wazirabad B arage road along eastern Yamuna marginal bund til it mets the boundary of Union Teritory upto point it mets newly constructed NOIDA Bridge then along the Northern Boundary of the Bridge upto Agra Canal then along the eastern boundary of Agra canal upt o Okhla h ead -works and along the Eastern Boundary of regularised unauthorised colonies of Batla House Joga Bai, Vilage Zakir Nagar, Hinrerbad vilage and then along the eastern boundary of Women Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute, Kalindi Colony til it mets Ring Road the Eastern Boundary of Ring road til mets Indraprastha Power House then along the Eastern Boundary of Power House and then along the bund upto the point it mets old Railway bridge and then along the road joining Ring Road cros ing 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 runing paralel to Wazirabad Barage on the Northern side upto starting point excepting the folowing 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.

¶31 Award No. 14/192 - 193 was pased for acquisition of the land admeasuring 26 Bighas and 5 Biswas situated in vilage Kilokari . Award No. 18/192 - 93 was pased for acquisition of land admeasuring 874 Bighas and 4 Biswas in vilage Khizrabad . Award No. 16/192 - 93 was pased for acquisition of land admeasuring 209 Bighas and 10 Biswas in vilage Nangli

Razapur and Award No. 13/192 - 93 was pased for acquisition of land admeasuring 1563 Bighas and 1 8 Biswas in vilage Garhi Mendu [hereinafter collectively referred to as —acqui as set out in the Table below:

Award No.

Vilage Area

Area of land acquisitioned by the Award

Award No. 13/192 - 93

Garhi Mendu

1563 Bighas 1 8 Biswas

Award No. 14/192 - 93

Kilokari

26 Bighas and 5 Biswas

Award No. 16/192 - 93

Nangli Razapur

209 Bighas and 10 Biswas

Award No. 18/19 2 - 93

Khizrabad

874 Bighas and 4 Biswas

¶4Pursuant thereto, the notifications under Section 6 and Section 17 of the LA Act were isued on

2.06.190 in respect of the acquired land

including at vilages Madanpur Khadar, Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Chuck Chila, Okhla, Jogabai, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad , Jasola and on

20.06.190 in respect of vilage Garhi Mendu . The posesion of the acquired land was taken in the year 195.

¶5The Award No.14/192 - 93 was pased by the Land Acquisition Colector on 19.06.192, for land admeasuring 2 6 Bighas and 5 Biswa in vilage Kilokari whereby compensation or market value of the land was ascertained at Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha was awarded to the Apelant for the acquired land [hereinafter referred to as Kilokari Award"]. The LAC tok into consideration sale deds of the land executed during the years 1985 - 89 and tok out the average value thereof at Rs. 18,736/ - . In adition, it tok into acount a n ofice order no. F.9(20)/80 - L&B/4313 - 16 dated 03.05.190 [hereinafter referred to as —Offic

27.04.190 and after working out a pro - rata discount, it valued the acquired

land at Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha for the land at vilage Kilokari.

¶6The LAC similarly asesed the value of the land for the vilages Khizrabad , Nangli Raza pur and Garhi Mendu and pased thre separate awards asesing the market value of the land of these vilages at a uniform rate of Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha. The reason as asigned by the LAC for the uniform rate was that the purpose of acquisition of al land w as the same and al vilages were adjacent and contiguous to each other. The vilage wise details of the four awards are set out below:

Award No.

Name of Vilage

Kind of Land

14/192 - 93

Kilokari

Sailabi

18/192 - 93

Khizrabad

Khadar

16/192 - 93

Nangli Razapur

Khadar

13/192 - 93

Garhi Mendu

Floded land

¶7Subsequently, by virtue of a notification under Section 48(1) of the LA Act dated 25.01.195, lands admeasuring 1430 Bighas and 10 Biswas in vilage Kilokari, Behlolpur Khadar, Nangli Razapur and Chuck - Chila stod de - notified by the LAC. The reasons as set out by the LAC in its order dated

05.1.204 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 ASESMENT

¶8In the meantime, being disatisfied with the low asesment of the market value of the land by the LAC, a reference was filed under S ection 18 of the LA Act before the learned Reference Court on

13.07.192 to submit

that the present market value of the acquired land is about Rs.10,0/ - per square yard and the acquired land does not form part of riverbed and that large portion of land of vilage , Kilokari was acquired in the year 1959 wherein the LAC asesed the market value of the land at Rs 26,0/ - per Bigha at that time. It was contended that LAC asesed the market value of acquired land,

without taking into acount the prices of land and their enhanced value during the period of 30 years betwen 1959 and 1989, a nd without considering the prevailing market rate of the area.

¶9The Reference Petitions were filed in relation to vilages at Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu before the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court in terms of the judgment pased in LAC No. 18 of 2005 titled " Atar Singh v UOI ' [hereinafter refe Atar Singh case"] pertaining to village Khizrabad , alowed the Reference Petitions by an order dated 25.09.206. The learned Reference Court relying upon the judgment of Tindey & Ors v UOI & Anr . 1 [hereinafter refe Tindey case"] , increased the compensation awarded to Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha.

9.1

Similarly, the Reference Petitions filed in relation to land in the revenue estate of vilage Kilokari were decided. The lead mater for the vilage Kilokari is LAC No. 1/203 titled "Bed Ram v. UOI & A [hereinafter referred to as — Bed Ram Reference Court case"] whereby th was increased by the learned Reference Court to Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha by a judgment dated

19.06.192 based on the judgment in the Atar Singh case and the Tindey case.

1 19 SC OnLine Del 1070

9.2

In respect of Petitions filed for the land acquired at vilage Nangli Razapur, the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 2/198 titled "Bhopal Singh v. Union of India & Anr.' by a judgment dated 29.08.207 [hereinafter referred to as the —Nangli Razapur , relied upon the Atar Singh case and the Bed Ram Reference Court case to award compensation of Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha.

9.3

So far as concerns the vilage Garhi Mendu, the learned Reference Court by a judgment dated 26.07.207 pased in LAC No. 96/1 of 206 titled Khazan Singh v. UOI [hereinafter referred to Khazan Singh case"] relying on the judgment of Smt. Chawli Devi (Deceased) through her LRs v. UOI & DA being LAC No. 34/1 of 206 , similarly enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 27,34/ - 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 al four vilages œ Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad to Rs.89,60/ - 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. Agrieved by this award, the Apelants filed the present Apeals before this Court. By a judgment dated

07.06.201, a Cordinate Bench of this Court decided a batch of Apeals, in cluding the present Apeal of which the LA AP. 59/207 captioned Bed Ram v. Union of India & Anr. was the lead mater to hold that the fair market value of the land acquired in thre vilages of Kilokari, Khizrabad and Nangli Razapur as set out by the learned Reference Court was corectly determined

at Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha . The Cordinate Bench thus dismised the batch of Apeals including the present Apeal.

10.1

By a separate order dated 07.06.201 also, the Cordinate Bench of this Court decided the batch of Apeals including LA. AP. 1038/208 captioned UOI. v. Khazan Singh & Ors. in respect of vilage Garhi Mendu, and revised the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court to Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha as in the case of vilage Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Khizrabad .

The order(s) dated 07.06.201 , as corected by order dated 2.07.201 pased by this Court , were chalenged by the Apelant by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being Civil Apeal No. 1939/2012 captioned Union of India v. Ram Lal & Ors. and conected maters [hereinafter referred to as —SC Ju

13.01.2015 pased two directions with respect to the maters in vilages 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 Apelant to produce aditional documents, maps and awards before Single Judge within 30 days. The Court further held that if the Review Petition(s) we re 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 pertains to the determination of fair market value of lands admeasuring 1536 Bigha biswa in vilage Garhi Mendu , belonging to the claimants/respondents herein. The said land was acquired under Section 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 189 4 (for short, "the Act"), by the apelants/petitioner herein for the public purpose of planed development of Delhi.

¶3The said land, along with land in thre other vilages, namely Khirzahad

[sic: Khizrabad ] , Kilolari [sic: Kilokari] and Chak Chila, was notified by

the Government, vide Notification No. F. 9 (1)/89 –L&B (i.) isued under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 23.06.1989 . The same was folowed by Notification No. F. 9 (I)/89 - L&B/LA(i) & (i) isued under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act, dated 20.0 6 .190. In pursuance of the said Notifications, notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were isued to al interested persons.

¶4The L and Acquisition Collector (for s consideration Order No. F - 9(20)/80 - L&B/4313 - 16, isued by the Delhi Administration regarding fixation of minimum price of agricultural land by the LAC, dated 03.05.190. In light of the aforesaid policy of the State administration the LAC vide Award No. 13/192 - 93, determined the

compensation to be awarded at the rate of Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha along with statutory benefits, dated 19.06.192.

¶5Disatisfied with the award of the LAC, the respondents herein sought for a reference under Section 1 8 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 vilage in which the land was situate was surounded by posh colonies developed by the Delhi Development Authority and other private colonies, and that al l basic civic amenities were available to the land . The Refe rence Court, while considering the contentions raised by the parties to the lis, tok notice of the award of the LAC with regard to land situate in vilages Khizrabad , Kilokari and Chak Chila, dated 19,06.192. By the said awards, the LAC had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha along with statutory benefits, It was further noticed, by the Reference Court, that a reference had ben, 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.89,60/ - per bigha . x

¶2In our considered opinion, these facts, as also the maps and relevant documents, may be brought to the notice of the High Court by the apelant(s)/petitioners herein by filing apropriate review petition(s) before the High Court within thirty d .

¶3If 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 acordance with law, but without going into the question of limitation .

¶4Further, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we permit the apelant(s)/petitioners herein to produce the aditional documents, maps, awards, if any, which are in their posesion, before the learned Single Judge along with the sa id review petition(s) .

¶5Al contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the learned Single Judge . "

[Emphasis suplied]

12.

Subsequently, several Review Petitions in relation to the acquired land were filed before this Court by the Apelants . By its order dated 13.03.2015, a Cordinate Bench of this Court directed that the decision dated 07.06.201 is withdrawn vis - à - vis the review petitioners and it was directed that the present Apeals would be reconsidered by the roster bench after giving an oportunity to the Apelant/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 relyi which include a few judicial determinations in Land Acquisition References made.

¶4In ethos with the order pased by the Supreme Court on January 13, 2015, the review petitioners would be entitled to formaly lead evidence and prove the documents on which they rely requiring a re - consideration of the mater keping in light such docum ents which may be proved.

¶5Since I am presiding over a Division Bench, it may not be posible to spare time in the near future to record evidence and thereafter decide the isue afresh, as agred to betwen the learned counsel for the parties, the review petitions are being disposed of declaring that the decision dated June 07, 201 is withdrawn vis - a - vis the review petitioners. Land Acquisition Apeals filed by the review petitioners would be re - considered by the roster bench, after giving oportunity to the review petitioners to lead further evidence but limited to proving such documents and judicial orders, which have ben filed under cover of the review petition .

¶6The Review Petitions stand dispose

[Emphasis suplied]

. By an order dated 30.07.2015, this Court directed that aditional evidence and aditional documents be filed in the l ead m ater i.e., the Bed Ram case and the other Apelants can rely on these Afidavits and aditional documents for other cases. The relevant extract of the order dated 30.07.2015 is set out below:

—Counsel for Union of India states th the records and, therefore, seks an adjournment.

Upon remand by the Supreme Court with liberty to file aditional evidence at the behest of the appellants/claimants reviewed his judgment disposing of the apeals on 07.06.201 and that is how the mater is listed befo re this Court.

Let one set of aditional afidavit and aditional documents to be led in evidence be filed in lead case, i.e. LA Ap No.59/207, titled Bed Ram v. Union of India. Since the said evidence is sought to be relied by al the other apelants, there is no nece sity of filing separate afidavit of evidence in the other cases.

If any of the other apelants wishes to file any aditional documents, they may file the same in their respective apeals. However, the counsels shal cordinate and prepare a comon compilation of aditional documents to be relied upon. The compilation shal be filed in the lead case, i.e. LA Ap No.59/207, Bed Ram v. Union of India . Advance copies shal be furnished to counsel for the respondent. This exercise be completed within four weks.

Learned counsels state that only documentary evidence of unimpeachable nature is required to be filed …."

[Emphasis suplied]

14.

Pursuant thereto, the evidence was led by the Apelants in the Bed Ram case and the case captioned Karan Singh v. Union of India, LA.AP. 54/2011 [hereinafter referred to Karan Singh case"] for th maters . Afidavits statements of AW1/Kailash Sharma in the Bed Ram case and AW1/Karan Singh in the Karan Singh case were filed and they were cros - 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 26.1.2015, the Court directed that the aditional evidence recorded and led in the Bed Ram case and the Karan Singh case shal be read in so far as relevant for the remaining Apeals and listed the maters before the Joint Registrar of this Court for recording of evidence.

16.

Once the evidence was concluded, these Apeals were listed before this Court in pursuance of the aforegoing decisions of the Supreme Court and the Cordinate Bench.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APELANT S

17.

Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s ha ve

divided their submisions into 3 primary contentions:

(i)

location of land and its potentiality;

(i)

submisions of exemplars;

(i)

land being "S ailabi' canot have much potentiality is not a corect analysis.

. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit

that land was asesed by LAC at rate of Rs. 26,0/ - in the year 1959. Hence, the Award by LAC in the year 192 at the rate of Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha was not the fair market value. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the Reference Court in the I mpugned J udgment 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. 26,0/ - per Bigha and therefore ra te of land would have ben 10% per anum from 1959. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that as per 10% p.a. progresive increase from 1959 to 1989 as observed in the I mpugned J udgment the actual market value should be more than Rs. 10/ - per square yard or aproximately Rs. 30 lakhs per Bigha . The learned Reference Court on 18.10.206 pased the Impugned Judgment asesing market value of acquired land at rate of Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha as on 23.06.1989. Other antecedents relate d to the acquired land

pertaining to solatium and interest was also awarded. While asesing market value of acquired land in vilage Kilokari, the learned Reference Court dr e w comparison with vilage Khizrabad stating that both lands stod acquired by same notification and for the same purpose and the location is also within the same vicinity and acordingly awarded the same market value as awarded in Tindey case.

18.1

Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that land of vilage, Kilokari , Behlolpur Khadar , Nangli Razapur, Ch u ck - ch i la admeasuring 1430 Bigha and 10 biswa was de - notified under Section 48(1) of the LA Act by a gazete notification dated

25.01.195 . On

05.1.204, order was pased by the LAC asigning 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 Apeals 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 vilage Behlolpur Khadar and the compensation awarded by the LAC in this vilage was enhanced by the learned Reference Court to Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha in ter ms of a judgment dated 04.01.201 pased by the learned Reference Court in LAC 75/208 captioned Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr . 1 8.2.1 It was further contended that relying on the testimony of AW - 1, Kailash Sharma , that the witnes had stated that they had ben cultivating the land in question until its acquisition in 1989 and that there was no examination

conducted on the aspect of floding. In fact, it is stated that the land was irigated from the water of river Yamuna and not submerged.

18.3

Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit

that the market value for the land of v ilage , Behlolpur Khadar and Jasola , both acquired under the same notification as the acquired land , has ben asesed at rate of Rs.

2.5 l acs per Bigha for Behlolpur Khadar and Rs. 4948/ - per sq. yard for Jasola respectively. For the vilage, Behlolpur Khadar

compensation has already ben received by the claimants. R eliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ba l Ram & Anr 2 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 of India & Anr 3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors . 4 to submit that there should be no discrimination betwen 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 vilage Jasola is about one kilometre away from vilage Kilokari while vilage Behlolpur Khadar is also a part of adjoining vilage Kilokari, yet a distinction has ben drawn by the learned Reference Court i n the award for these four vilages of Kilokari, Khizrabad , Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu without any legal basis.

2 (2010) 5 SC 747

3 (204) 10 SC 627

4 209 (8) SC 582

18.4

Learned Counsel for the Apelant submits that the market value for the acquired land of vilage, Kilokari canot be treated diferently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Sidhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdot Hotel etc. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon the testimony of RW - l, Mr. Ravinder Dang [ Naib Tehsildar at ofice of LAC ] and testimony of R W - 2, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Chandra [ Scientist with Central Ground Water Authority ] .

18.5

Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that they are also entitled for 12% per anum aditional market value under S ection 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award til the date of posesion as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to posesion of the acquired land .

18.6

Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the acquired land's potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires a reasesment of market value using a fair and just aproach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land . It is submited 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 ded dated 17.03.198 [Ex. PW3/1] which references a sale of one Bigha for Rs.2,07,50/ - per Bigha , i t was contended that the sale ded was proved before the learned Reference Court and that the

witnes stod his ground, despite which the learned Reference Court came to a conclusion that the sale ded could not be relied upon.

18.8

The exemplar in respect of vilage Behlolpur Khadar wherein the compensation was enhanced by the learned Reference Court by its order dated

04.01.201 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 chalenged these findings in respect of vilage Jasola and Behlolpur Khadar

except in two cases 5 and in al 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 Apelant s relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Periasami Vs. Sub - Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) 6 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 adition, reliance has also ben placed on the Award No.21/92 - 93

pertaining to vilage Jasola wherein the LAC awarded the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha while the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 24 of 201 captioned Jagdish Gulati v. UOI & Anr. decided on

29.1.201 substantialy enhanced the amount to Rs. 4948 / - per sq uare yard . It is stated again that even against the present award only two Apeals 7 were

5 LA.AP. 129/2016 captioned Union of India v. Hari Kishan @ Harkesh (Deceased) Thr. LRs & Ors. and;

LA AP. 128/2016 captioned Union of India v. Kesar Singh & Ors.

6 (194) 4 SC 180

7 LA.AP. 24/2012 captioned Union of India v. Jagdish Gulati and ; LA.AP.25/2012 captioned Union of India v. Sadhna Gupta & Anr.

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 submited that this submision does not take into acount the 1430 Bighas 10 Biswa land which was de - notified by the Respondents, in pursuance of which on 05.1.204, the LAC pased 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 i ncludes the acquired land was thereafter taken into posesion on the recomendation of Respondent No.2/DA while 1,430 Bigha 10 Biswa land was de - notified. Thus, it is avered by the Apelant that the remaining land which includes the acquired land was clearly not submergible or "Sailab

land. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the Reference Court inspected the site on 2.06.201 and observed that the land as situated in the heart of the city and that the land —appears to b for agricultural purposes" .

18.10.1 Relying on the notification dated 1 3 .1.1959 pertaining to vilage Kilokari, it was contended that at that time a uniform rate of compensation was awarded by the LAC for diferent types of land, i.e., GM Nala, Sailab i , Chahi and Rosli and compensation of Rs.26,0/ - per Bigha was awarded irespective of the type of land. Learned Counsel contends that LAC has used the term "S ailabi' to describe the land pertaining to vilage Kilokari, the term "Khadar' to describe the land of v nd "Sailabi to describe the land situated in vilage Behlolpur. Thus, these terms have ben

used interchangeably. Since Khadar also means low aluvial land fit for cultivation, the type of land in al thre vilages is the same, thus the compensation canot be varied.

18.10.2 The Appellant's witnesses Sharma [ in LA.AP.

5 9 /20 ], in his cros examination has contended that he has never witnesed any floding or water loging 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.AP.372/207 captioned Bhopal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. [Award No.16/92 - 93 dated 19.06.192] [hereinafter refered to as —Bhopal Singh case"] pased for vilage Nangli Razapur wherein it is noted that the entire land is being irigated by the Yamuna River and since it is irigated, there is no question of the same being "Sailabi ' in nature.

18.1 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s have

relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjani Molu Des s ai Vs. State of Goa & Anr . 8 to submit that for calculating compensation highest exemplar is to be considered by the Court and not by averaging the diferent types of sale prices . Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Oficer Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb 9 to submit that sale instances of solitary sale ded or smal pieces of land can be relied upon while determining the amount of compensation. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra & Ors. Vs. State of Utar Pradesh & Anr.

8 (2010) 13 SC 710

9 (201) 7 SC 714

10 (2017) 9 SC 426

to submit that benefit of higher compensation should be granted to even those landowners who could not aproach the court . Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Cordinate bench of this Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India

& Anr. 1 to submit that for determination of market value of land when no sale ded is available principle of escalation is to be aplied. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s further relie d upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Trishala Jain & Anr. Vs. State of Utaranchal & Anr. to submit that concept of guestimation is to be used for determining the market value of the land when no sale ded is available principle of escalation is to be aplied . CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2/DA

. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 /DA has contended that LAC in the Award has specificaly recorded that the acquired land is situated betwen two "Forward Bunds" and the river Yamuna , and that there were no constructions on the land and only a few tres were found available on the land at the time of its acquisition.

.1 The LAC relied on an ofice order dated 03.05.190 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. 27,34/ - per Bigha on the basis of minimum price as notified on 03.05.1989 given the nature of the land.

1 201 SC Online Del 325

12 (201) 6 SC 47

.2 It was further contended that the market value of the land as asesed by learned Reference Court is at Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha . Learned Reference Court gave findings that the acquired land situated in the riverbed on the —Forward Bund" wil be covered with water during some parts of the year and land may be cultivable for remaining parts of the year. The Apelants/Claimants have failed to le a d 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, canot be compared with other developed lands. Further, isolated constructions on the acquired land canot lead to an inference that land can be used for building structures or that the land is comparable to other lands faling outside the

—Forward Bund" area . .3 The Respondents have also relied upon a site inspection report, and photographs of the area and a spot report dated 21.1.206 which was prepared by the learned Reference Court along with spot note [hereinafter

colectively refered to as the "Site Report"]. Relying on this Site Report, it was contended that the site inspection found that the land "apears to be under cultivation". However, when the water level of the Yamuna cros es 204 mark, the land gets submerged in water depending on the amount of discharge from the river. In adition, the Site Report states that there are no substantial development s on the land near the site for agricultural purposes. It is thus contended that the land is unfit for development.

.4 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the learned Reference Court by order dated 04.01.201 had rejected the evidence

relied upon by the Apelants to claim higher compensation. The Apelants had exhibited a sale ded dated l7.03.198 of land of aproximately 1 Bigha

sold from vilage Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,50/ - . Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a posibility that the sale ded 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 a nd prior to the isuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act.

.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 paye in 198 nor did he inform about purchasing a parcel of land for sum of Rs. 2,07,50/ - to the income tax authority.

.5 It was contended that, the testimony of PW - 4, Mr. S.P. Singh [ Asistant at Ofice of DA ] canot be relied upon to ases the market value of the subject land as PW - 4 admits in his cros - 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 aloted to Akshar Dham Mandir, nor the date of acquisition and consequently he canot be said to be aware of the prevailing market rate of the area. Further, the testimony of PW - 5, Mr. Anwar Abasi [ Asistant Manager Tol Plaza, DND Flyway ] canot be relied upon as he failed to prove the authenticity of the Sale agrements and site plans.

.6 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that Respondent No.1/UOI had aduced 5 sale deds [Exhibit R1 to R5] in evidence , of land situated in the same area as acquired land and sold around

the same time when the notification was isued. These exhibited sale deds reflected average market value was at Rs. 18,736/ - per Bigha . .7 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 contends that burden lies on the Apelants 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 aduce cogent evidence, the claim ought to have ben rejected. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Tandon v Alahabad Development Authority & Anr . 13 to submit that the burden of prof lies upon the Claimant to prove that the amount of compensation awarded by the Colector is inadequate . .8 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 relies on the Tinde y case to submit that when land has similar potentiality and location advantages, it must be similarly valued. The corect aproach is to ascertain what a wiling vendor and a wiling purchaser would reasonably transact at, keping in mind the principles of fairnes and justice . It is wel - setled that the burden lies on

t he claimant to aduce evidence showing that the land has high potential value.

.9 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that no development has ben 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 Apelant/PW - 7, Bed Ram in his testimony has deposed that some portion of the land in

13 204 (10) SC 745

vilage Kilokari was developed as New Friends Colony, Maharani Bagh and Kalindi Colony and he admited that there is no abadi around the petrol pump and the two shops and that there is a drainage in vilage Kilokari but it is far away from acquired land. F urther, testimony of PW - 6, Mr. P.K. Mena sugests that land is capable of being used for cultivation only when it is not covered by the Yamuna river.

.9.1 It is contended that the testimony of AW - 1, Mr. Karan Singh in LA AP.54/201 reflects that he never raised an objection to the term "Sailab

used for the acquired land and he never aplied to the MCD seking sanction of the layout plan for the subject land. Learned Counsel submits that the government did not alow any construction to be raised other than a petrol pump and the two shops of marble on the land of vilage Kilokari. Learned Counsel submits that al these goes to sugest that subject la nd has no potential to build structures.

.10 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the argument of the Apelants that the subject land fals 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 loging and floding as it was situated in the —Forwar Bund" area. He further submits that Apelants have not placed on record any evidence to show that the land can be used for agriculture or residential purposes. Further, the Apelant is his testimony has admited that except for a petrol pump and the two shops , there is no abadi around the subject land and til date there has ben no development on the subject land which suports the

fact that subject land is qualitatively distinguishable from the land on which posh colonies are developed.

.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the land owners have failed to show other comparable sale deds and that the l and owners have failed to show that the acquired land is similar in nature and potentiality to other comparable same vilage or neighbouring vilage.

Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Mohd. Raofudin v. Land Acquisition Oficer 14 . .12 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the Apelants 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 aceptable criteria for grant of similar rate. Reliance is placed upon Kanwar Singh & Ors v UOI 15 to submit that the Supreme Court has held that mere contiguity of two vilages canot be adopted to determine the market value of two vilages unles similarity and advantages of both the lands are proved.

.12.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 refutes the contention of the Apelants claiming parity with market value of the land situated at vilage Behlolpur Khadar which has ben asesed at Rs. 2.5 lakhs per Bigha in case of Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v UOI & Anr .; LAC No.75/208 and Vilage Jasola at Rs. 4,948 per sq. yard in the case of Jagdish Gulati v. UOI ; LAC No. 24/1. Learned Senior Counsel submits that market value of

14 (209) 14 SC 367

15 198 (8) SC 136

the land asesed, as mentioned above, by the learned Reference Court was made by ignoring and overloking the market value as determined by this Court and thus is a nulity. 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 & Parekani Rubers Ltd. v State of Kerala 16 to submit that lands must be asesed at fair and reasonable market value of the land and to much emphasis on claimant's right to co 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 Parishad v Asha Ram (dead) through LRs and Others 17 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 stil be asesed. However, there is n o material on record showing development on the subject land on the date of the notification or at the time of posesion of the land. No evidence has ben led showing any aplication made for change of land use from agricultural to residential purpos es, nor is there any such prayer in the documents on record. Learned Counsel submits that mere proximity to developed colonies canot by itself establish potentiality. Once the land is found to lack building potentiality, no benefit of higher

16 191 (4) SC 195

17 2021 (17) SC 289

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. 89,60/ - per Bigha . CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/UOI

. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that no evidence has ben b r ought on record by the Apelant s to atribute 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 ben brought on recor d to show any development on the acquired land either on the date of the notification or on the date of posesion of the land.

.1 Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that as per t he Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 [hereinafter referred to , permision from the authority is mandatory to change the nature of land use and no such permision for change of land use from agriculture to building purposes has ben b r ought on record by the Apelants to evidence any "change of user" aplication.

.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 keping in mind what a wiling vendor ma y reasonably except to obtain from a wiling 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.

.3 Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the learned Reference Court while pasing the Impugned Judgment has corectly relied upon Tindey case, wherein the land of vilage, 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 acordingly.

.4 Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that the evidence led by the Apelants at best suports that acquired land is used for agriculture purposes only and not for construction of a building. Acquisition of the land for building purposes canot be suficient circumstance to presume land has building potentiality. Acordingly, the acquired land has no building potentiality and hence, no aditional compensation should be granted.

REJOINDER BY APELANTS

. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the characterisation of the land as "Sailabi' does not per se negate its development potential. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that out of total acquired land, pockets of land may have ben prone to floding but not the entire acquired land. Sidharth Nagar and Ganga Vihar, similarly situated as acquired land, have ben fuly developed. Therefore, the argument that "Sailabi ' l and s lacks potentiality is untenable.

.1 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s 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 25.01.195. It is contended that the posesion was taken by the

Respondents and hence the argument of the Respondents that the entire land being "S ailabi ' land canot be used for development purposes is misplaced.

.2 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that for market value of land to be asesed at higher value , reliance is placed upon testimony of PW - 3/Mr. Vinod Kumar (land purchaser) who purchased Bigha and 1 biswa of land in vilage Kilokari through Sale ded dated l7.03.198 for consideration of Rs. 2,07,50/ - [hereinafter refered to as "17.03.198 Exemplar"]. The sale ded is dated one year and thre months prior to the date of notification of the subject land and is thus a relevant exemplar. The alegation that the sale ded is inflated to secure higher compensation is without basis. Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s clarif y that only one Bigha or 3,025 square yards was purcha sed by PW - 3, and the transaction stands unimpeached and the criticism regarding the purchaser not being an Income Tax paye is irelevant and speculative.

.3 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Apelant s submit that the 17.03.198 Exemplar was rejected by the learned Reference Court on asumption that landowners had prior knowledge about the acquisition , which

is not corect. In this regard , l earned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Apelant s places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahamaya General Finance Company v. State of Utar Pradesh & Ors. wherein a similar speculative finding that the Apelants had prior knowledge of the acquisition which was adopted by the learned Reference Court without any reasons , was disaproved by the Supreme Court.

18 (2014) 1 5 SC 290

.4 Learned Senior Counsel /Learned Counsel for the Apelant s 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 17.03.198 Exemplar, which testimony remains unimpeachable.

.5 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Apelant s 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 vilage 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

[aproximately] and the same compensation must be awarded to vilage Kilokari, vilage Nangli Razapur and vilage Khizrabad . .6 Learned Senior Counsel / l earned Counsel for the Apelant s further distinguished the Tindey case. It was submited 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 vilage Khizrabad , whereas the present case is of vilage Kilokari. In adition, it was submited that in the Tindey case, there is a clear finding of the Court that no evidence was led and thus, the Cordina te Bench of this Court relied upon in earlier notification and aded escalation at the rate of 12% per anum to arive at the final value given the fact that there were exemplars provided. No reliance could have ben placed by the learned Reference Court i n the Tindey case.

SUR - REJOINDER

2 2 . 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 betwen two "Forward Bunds" and the river and thus, any distinction canot be sought to be drawn betwen the acquired land and the land which was de - notified under Section 48 of the LA Act on 25.01.195. In adition, it was contended that there is no evidence was led by the Apelant s to show future building potentiality.

THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

. As stated above, the Kilokari A ward was pased on 19.06.192 by the LAC for the acquisition of land admeasuring 26 Bighas and 5 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of vilage, Kilokari for development of Delhi

chanelization of river Yamuna . The LAC while asesing the market value relied upon various similar awards pased for the land within the vicinity of the acquired land and also relied upon the Ofice Order of 190 wherein the minimum price for agricultural land had ben fixed at Rs. 1.5 lacs per acre as on 27.04.190 and treat ing the land as "Sailabi ' land situated betwen two —F orward B unds " by discounting 15% per anum, LAC asesed the market value at Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha . .1 Similarly, the award no. 18/192 - 93 was pased for acquisition of 874 Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of vilage Khizrabad

[hereinafter referred to as " Khizrabad Award']. The LAC si consideration the Ofice Order of 190 and discounting it as in the Kilokari Award, asesed the fair market value for the land at Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha.

23.2

The award no. 16/192 - 93 for land admeasuring 209 Bighas and 10 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of vilage Nangli Razapur as notified was also pased on 19.06. [hereinafter referred Award']. The LAC found that the ki market value of the land, as it did in the case of Kilokari and Khizrabad Award as Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha.

.3 In the case of land situated in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu, the award no. 13/192 was pased in the acquisition of 1563 Bighas and 1 Biswas in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu [hereinafter ref Mendu Award'] . The clasification in the Garhi Mendu Award of the land was of floded land and the LAC asesed the market value of the land at Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha.

23.4

The Apelant s chalenged this determination by filing a Reference Petition s under Section 18 of the LA Act. The Apelant s claimed the value of acquired land at about Rs 10,0/ - per square yard and avered that the land i s not situated under the riverbed.

23.5

The f olowing isues were framed by the l earned Reference Court in Atar Singh case and Bed Ram Reference Court case :

(i)

Whether the provisions of the DLR Act is aplicable to the land in dispute, if so, to what efect?

(i)

What was the market value of the acquired land as on the date of isuance of notification u nder s ection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 ?

(i)

To what enhancement in compensation, the Apelant is entitled to?

¶236 An aditional isue 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 posesion has ben taken subsequently, for the period during which the procedings for the acquisition of land were held up on acount of an y stay or injunction? " .7 No evidence was led by the Respondent No.2 /DA in his suport before the learned Reference Court. However, evidence in suport of their contentions was led by the Apelant and the Respondent No.1/UOI.

2 3 .8 The learned Reference Court held that no evidence has ben led by the Apelant to show acquired land was not situated in "Forward Bund" area and hence it canot be compared with other lands. It was held that the land in vilage, Khizrabad and acquired land both fal in the "Forward Bund" area and are comparative lands. Since the rate of land in vilage, Khizrabad has ben asesed at rate of Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha and is "Sailabi' land in LAC No. 13 of 2004 titled " Sri Ram v. UOI ', LAC No. 18 of 2 "Atar Singh v UOI ' and LAC No. 19 of 205 titled "Bed Ram Vs. UOI ' has also ben asesed at the rate Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha , the acquired land being similarly situated is asesed at the same rate. Learned Reference Court also relied on the judgment pased by this Court in Tindey case for vilage Khizrabad , to give a finding that the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha . Other antecedent directions were also pased with respect to solatium and interest in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v UOI 19 .

19 (201) 7 SC 21

. Before the learned Reference Court, the Apelant had argued that vilage Kilokari is near the posh areas of New Friends Colony, Jamia Islamia University and Jasola vilage and that there was no evidence to show that the land was not situated in a "Forward Bund" area. Reliance was also placed by the Apelant on the judgment in Dhom i Singh & Anr. v. UOI 20 wherein this Court enhanced the compensation of the land acquired for vilage Jasola by Rs.2,240/ - per square yard , which was land acquired in vilage Kilokari by an Award in 1981 . 2 4 .1 The Respondents/DA and UOI on the other hand had contended that the DLR Act is aplicable to the acquired land and had also relied on exemplars of the land to submit that the LAC had corectly asesed the valuation for the acquired land at Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha.

2 5 . The learned Reference Court gave a finding that the DLR Act was not aplicable to the acquired land. It further relied upon the sale deds/exemplars as placed on record by the Apelant and the Respondent/DA the details whereof are set out below : Apelants : S.No.

Ex.No.

Date of

Sale ded

Vilage

Area of land

Total

C onsideration

with stamp duty

¶1Ex.P1

1 7 . 0 3. 198

Kilokari

1 Bigha

1 Bis wa

2 , 07 , 5 0/ -

20 Judgment dated

19.10.201 in RFA 408/1986 œ Delhi High Court

Respondents : S.No.

Ex.No.

Date of

Sale ded

Vilage

Area of land

Total

C onsiderati on with stamp duty

¶1Ex.R1

6.4.87

Kilokari

1 Big ha

43,20/ -

¶2Ex.R2

1.1.85

Kilokari

1 Bigha

9 Biswa

5 2 ,920/ -

¶3Ex.R3

9.9.83

Kilokari

1 Big ha

2,160/ -

¶4Ex.R4

/31 .3.84

Kilokari

5 Bigha

12 Biswa

15,120 / - 1 Bigha 13 Biswa

¶5Ex.R5

28/

31.3.8 Kilokari

9 B igha

19,40/ -

.1 The learned Reference Court further held that the land is situated in the "Forward Bund" in river b e d and is "Sailabi' in nature. The learned Reference Court found that the exemplar given by the Apelant did not apear to be reliable while Ex. R2 to R5 also apear that they have ben undervalued to save stamp duty. The learned Reference Court then relied on the judgment in the Tindey case as asesed in terms of the Award No. 19/192 - 93 which was also notified along with vilage Kilokari and granted compensation at the same rate as was granted for vilage Khizrabad in the Tindey case at Rs.89,60 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 apears to be similarly situated as in the case of land acquired in vilage Khizrabad . Considering the location of vilage Kilokari, there is no reason to asume that rate of land in vilage Kilokari would be les than in vilage Khizrahad . There apears to be no reason as t o why the rate of land asesed in Award No. 19/92 - 93 involving the same date of notification in vilage Khizrabad may not be adopted i n present case . 1 may also mention that for asesment of land (other than situated in forward bund in river bed) which is not covered under the provisions of DLR Act, a

marginal increase in compensation can be granted on acount of urbanization when the same is compared with land to which provisions of D L R Act arc aplicable. However in the present case as the land is situated in forward bund area in the river bed, the posibility of any distinct advantage is remote and the fact that the vilage Kilokari had ben urbanized may not be of much consequence . Any benefit on acount of u r banization was also denied by Hon'ble on acount of urba nization of vilage Khizrabad though the same was claimed to have ben 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 vilage Kilokari at any higher rate that asesed in vilage Khizrabad . I am therefore of the view that it shal be fair to ases the market value of land @ Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha folowing the rate of land asesed by this Court in vilage Khizrabad wherein the land had ben acquired for same purpo se and involves the same date of notification …"

[Emphasis suplied]

ANAYLSIS & FINDINGS

2 6 . As stated above, the learned Ref spot' inspection of the site and Impugned Judgment.

. At this stage , it is aposite to set out that the Apeals listed before this Court were in relation to four vilages i.e., Khizrabad , Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu. It is aposite to set out the details by way of a tabular chart below:

S.No.

Total No. of Cases

Vilage Name

Award No. & Date

Rate as Awarded by Reference Court

Rate as awarded by Predecesor Bench of this Court on

07.06.201

Khizrabad

18/192 - 93

19.06.192

Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha

Kilokari

14/192 - 93

17.06.193

Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha

Nangli 16/192 - 93

Rs.89,60/ -Rs.89,60/ -

The Apeals

. Learned Counsel for the parties contended that the reasoning of the learned Reference Court is par i materia in the Impugned Orders in relation to these vilages and thus al 14 Apeals can be heard together and with the consent of the parties LA.AP. 59/207 captioned being Bed Ram v. UOI & Anr. was argued as the lead mater.

. P ursuant to the SC J udgment , t he Apelant s esentialy relied upon the evidence which was already available with the learned Reference Court albeit both in the Bed Ram case as wel as in conected maters. The Apelant s have also relied upon the exemplars in the form of sale deds which were available on record, including of vilage Behlolpur Khadar and vilage Jasola.

.1 T he 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 aditionaly contended that the burden of prof in such cases is on the Claimants to show the value of the land.

.2 The parties agred 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 cros - examination on the sale exemplars necesary a s the Respondents made their submisions contradictin g these exemplars.

Razapur

19.06.192

per Bigha

G arhi M endu

13/192 - 93

19.06.192

Rs.90,102/ - per Bigha

Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha

Vilage Khizrabad

30.

The learned Reference Court pased a judgment in the LAC No. 18 of 2005 titled " Atar Singh v UOI ' on 25.09.206 [hereinafter refered to as the " Khizrabad Judgment"]. The Khizrabad Judgment in esence made the calculations with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tindey case to award Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha . The 21 cases that have ben decided are set out below:

S. No.

Case No. & Case Title

1. LA.AP. 40/207

Dharam Ver vs. UOI & Anr.

2. LA.AP. 42/207

Sri Ram &Anr. vs. UOI & Anr.

3. LA.AP. 43/207

Bed Ram vs. UOI & Anr.

4. LA.AP. 4/207

Atar Singh vs. UOI & Anr.

5. LA.AP. 293/207

Jagbir Singh vs. UOI & Anr

6. LA.AP. 72/2016

Raghubar Dayal @ Raghuber Singh @ Raghbar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr

7. LA.AP. 35/208

Munshi Deceased Through LRs & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr

8. LA.AP. 647/209

Mehar Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr

9. LA.AP. 650/209

Prem Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr

10.

LA.AP. 31/2010

Mamraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.

LA.AP. 314/2010

Lakhmi Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.

12.

LA.AP. 315/2010

Jagan vs. Union of India & Anr.

13.

LA.AP. 316/2010

Ramesh Decd Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.

14.

LA.AP. 69/2010

Nain Singh Decsd. Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr

15.

LA.AP. 13/2012

Budhan Decsd. Thru LRs vs. Union of India & Ors

16.

LA.AP. 37/2012

Daroga Decsd. Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors

17.

LA.AP. 85/2015

Lakhmi Chand & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr

18.

LA.AP. 14/2016

Nain Singh (Deceased) Thr His LRs vs. Union of India

19.

LA.AP. 131/2018

Union of India vs. Mamchand (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors

20.

LA.AP. 204/2018

Om Prakash (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of

India & Anr

21.

LA.AP. 4/2019

Union of India vs Raghubar Dayal @ Raghbar Singh & Ors.

Vilage Kilokari

3 1 . The judgment in the Bed Ram Reference Court case relied upon the Atar Singh and the Tindey case to calculate the compensation in these maters were listed before this Court in respect of the revenue estate of vilage

Kilokari , which are set out below : S. No.

Case No. & Case Title

1. LA.AP. 58/207

Duli Chand vs. UOI &Anr.

2. LA.AP. 59/207

Lead mater

Bed Ram vs. vs. UOI & Anr.

3. LA.AP. 38/2015

Fakir Chand (Deceased) Thr. Lr & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.

4. LA.AP. 39/2015

Hukum Singh Since Deceased Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.

5. LA.AP. 14/2019

Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr

6. LA.AP. 230/202

Salek Ram (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.

7. LA.AP. 36/202

Sita Ram (Deceased) Thr. LR Chavan &Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

8. LA.AP. 61/207

Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr.

9. LA.AP. 62/207

Ganga Ram &Anr vs. UOI &Anr

10. LA.AP. 63/207

Sato Devi & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr

1. LA.AP. 64/207

Angori Devi (D) Thru. LR vs. UOI &Anr

12. LA.AP. 65/207

Raj Pal vs. UOI & Anr

13. LA.AP. 6/207

Kailash Sharma &Anr. vs. UOI &Anr

14. LA.AP. 73/207

Tek Chand vs. UOI &Anr

15. LA.AP. 87/207

Pritam Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr

16. LA.AP. 412/207

Giriraj & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr

17. LA.AP. 89/207

Balbir Singh vs. UOI &Anr

18. LA.AP. 130/209

Shri Bhik Ram vs. Union of India & Ors.

19. LA.AP. 91/207

Bhim Singh Decd. Thr. LRs & Or vs. UOI &Anr

20. LA.AP. 50/208

Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr

21. LA.AP. 748/208

Dal Chand & Ors. vs. U.O.I & Ors.

2. LA.AP. 89/209

Om Prakash (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Ors.

23. LA.AP. 528/209

Sher Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI &Anr.

24. LA.AP. 53/209

Bahadur DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr

25. LA.AP. 59/209

Pehlad vs. Union of India &Anr

26. LA.AP. 595/209

Prem Raj & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr

27. LA.AP. 101/2010

Rato Devi Decd Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr

28. LA.AP. 380/2010

Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. UOI and Anr.

29. LA.AP. 765/2010

Dal Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.

30. LA.AP. 827/2010

Bhop Singh Decd Thr LRs vs. UOI &Anr

31. LA.AP. 1070/2010

Ram Kishan Decd Thru LRs & Ors. vs. UOI &Anr.

32. LA.AP. 15/201

Musadi Decsd Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Ors.

3. LA.AP. 29/201

Dal Chand &Anr vs. Union of India

34. LA.AP. 39/201

Uma Dhawan & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr.

35. LA.AP. 54/201

Karan Singh vs. Union of India &Anr

36. LA.AP. 15/201

Jaspal Singh (Dec) Thr LRs vs. UOI &Anr

37. LA.AP. 156/201

Bed Ram vs. UOI &Anr.

38. LA.AP. 251/201

Hari Chand vs Union of India & Ors

39. LA.AP. 5/2012

Surjan & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors

40. LA.AP. 6/2012

Gian Chand Decsd. Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr

41. LA.AP. 10/2012

Anant Ram &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr

42. LA.AP. 218/2012

Net Ram Through LRs and Anr vs. UOI &Anr

43. LA.AP. 23/2012

Hari Singh Through LRs vs. UOI &Anr.

4. LA.AP. 49/2013

Samarta Decsd. Thru LRs and Ors vs. UOI and Anr

45. LA.AP. 51/2013

Net Ram vs. UOI &Anr

46. LA.AP. 86/2015

Jugal Kishore & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr

47. LA.AP. 423/2015

Hari Kishan (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr

48. LA.AP. 426/2015

Nathu (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr

49. LA.AP. 45/2015

Nathu (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr

50. LA.AP. 173/2016

Ram Sarop Through LRs vs. UOI and Anr

51. LA.AP. 196/2016

Budh Ram @ Budh Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr

52. LA.AP. 292/2016

Hari Kishan Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr

53. LA.AP. 1/2017

Shashi Kumar vs. Union of India &Anr

54. LA.AP. 287/2017

Mehar Chand & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr

5. LA.AP. 209/2018

Virender &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr

56. LA.AP. 245/2018

Union of India vs. Budh Ram @ Budh Singh (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors

57. LA.AP. 246/2018

Union of India vs. Hari Kishan (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors

58. LA.AP. 247/2018

Union of India vs. Ram Sarop (Dec) Thr LRs & Ors

59. LA.AP. 49/2019

Union of India vs. Hanso (Deceased) Thr LRs &Anr

60. LA.AP. 130/2019

Dal Chand Sharma & Ors vs. Union of India &Anr

61. LA.AP. 137/2019

Bhop Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr

62. LA.AP. 298/202

Jai Bhagwan Deceased Through His Legal Heirs and Ors vs. Union of India and Anr.

3 1 .1 T hese Apeals emanate either from the Impugned Judgment or judgments pased by the Reference Court thereafter , relying on the Impugned Judgment . Vilage Nangli Razapur

3 2 . So far as concerns the vilage Nangli Razapur , t he lead mater for this vilage is LA.AP. 372/207 captioned Bhopal Singh vs. UOI & Anr. The learned Reference Court by a judgment dated

29.08.207 in LAC No. 2/198 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 vilage Kilokari at Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha . The learned Reference Court in this mater relied on the judgment in the Atar Singh case in respect of vilage Khizrabad to hold that the compensation should be awarded. The learned Reference Court discuse d the sale exemplars relied in the Bed Ram

Reference Court case of vilage Kilokari , referencing the fact that the land

was situated in the —Forward Bund" area . The details of the 48 cases in relation to vilage Nangli Razapur are set out below:

S. No.

Case No. & Case Title

1. LA.AP. 91/2010

Kehar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.

2. LA.AP. 1234/208

Hans Raj Decd. Thr LRs vs. UOI & Anr

3. LA.AP. 1235/208

Surya Prakash & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr

4. LA.AP. 607/209

Neki Ram vs. UOI

5. LA.AP. 372/207

Lead Mater

Bhopal Singh vs. UOI &Anr

6. LA.AP. 501/208

Zile Singh (Deceased) Through LRs vs. UOI & Anr

7. LA.AP. 508/208

Jagwati vs. UOI & Anr

8. LA.AP. 509/208

Bir Singh vs. UOI & Anr

9. LA.AP. 564/208

Aman Singh vs. UOI & Anr

10.

LA.AP. 565/208

Shashi Verma vs. UOI & Anr

LA.AP. 609/208

Nimant Rana & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr

12.

LA.AP. 631/208

Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr

13.

LA.AP. 737/208

Inder Singh vs. U.O.I & Anr

14.

LA.AP. 739/208

Ramesh Basistha vs. U.O.I & Ors

15.

LA.AP. 816/208

Kishan Sahai Thru LRs vs. UOI & Anr

16.

LA.AP. 817/208

Jagbir & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr

17.

LA.AP. 876/208

Rishal Singh Decd. Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Anr

18.

LA.AP. 96/208

Raj Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.

19.

LA.AP. 92/208

Ajet Singh vs. UOI & Ors.

20.

LA.AP. 94/208

Hari Singh vs. UOI & Anr

21.

LA.AP. 95/208

Prem Singh vs. UOI & Anr

LA.AP. 96/208

Rajender Prashad & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr

23.

LA.AP. 136/208

Jaswant Singh Rana (Deceased) Thr. LRs vs. UOI & Anr

24.

LA.AP. 1204/208

Devender Kumar Triguna vs. UOI & Anr.

25.

LA.AP. 1238/208

Chinta vs. UOI &Anr.

26.

LA.AP. 50/209

Guni Ram Decsd. Through LRs vs. Union of India & Ors.

27.

LA.AP. 51/209

Ranjit Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India & Anr

28.

LA.AP. 52/209

Jagdip Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India &Anr

29.

LA.AP. 56/209

Atar Singh DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr

30.

LA.AP. 560/209

Ajit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.

31.

LA.AP. 576/209

Narender Kumar Triguna vs. Union of India &Anr

32.

LA.AP. 580/209

Kesar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India &Anr

LA.AP. 253/2010

Ram Pat vs. Union of India & Anr.

34.

LA.AP. 263/2010

Ramesh &Anr vs. Union of India &Anr

35.

LA.AP. 264/2010

Hari Singh DecdThr LRs vs. Union of India &Anr

36.

LA.AP. 454/2010

Daya Kishan Decd Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr.

37.

LA.AP. 67/2010

Om Prakash &Anr vs. Union of India & Ors.

38.

LA.AP. 678/2010

Shri Chanderman @ Chander Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.

39.

LA.AP. 679/2010

Ram Singh Decsd Thr LRs & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors.

40.

LA.AP. 682/2010

Mol Chand Decd Thr LRs vs. Union of India and Ors.

41.

LA.AP. 683/2010

Yash Pal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

42.

LA.AP. 140/201

Ranjet Singh Decd Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr

43.

LA.AP. 708/201

Lekh Ram vs. Union of India & Anr

LA.AP. 716/201

Gopal Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Anr

45.

LA.AP. 390/2015

Virender Singh (Since Mising) Thr. LRs & Ors vs. Union of India &

Anr

46.

LA.AP. 18/2016

Mahipal (Deceased) Thr LRs vs. Union of India & Anr

47.

LA.AP. 19/2016

Chatar Singh vs. Union of India & Anr

48.

LA.AP. 256/2017

Poja vs. Union of India & Anr

Vilage Garhi Mendu

3 3 . As stated in paragraph

9.3 above, the learned Reference Court had enhanced the market value of the land as acquired from Rs. 27,34/ - per Bigha to Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha in the lead mater in this vilage being LA.AP.

1038/208 captioned UOI vs. Khazan Singh & Ors. by a judgment dated

26.07.207 [hereinafter refered 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 31.05.20 0 7 pased in LAC No. 34/1 of 206 by the learned Reference Court . The details of 13 maters in relation to vilage Gar h i M en du which were listed before this Court as below : S. No.

Case No. & Case Title in High Court

1. LA.AP. 143/208

UOI &Anr. vs. Bhohti Deceased Through LRs

2. LA.AP. 1038/208

UOI vs. Khazan Singh & Ors.

3. LA.AP. 1040/208

UOI vs. Champa Devi Decd. Thr LRs.

4. LA.AP. 1042/208

UOI vs. Richa Ram & Ors.

5. LA.AP. 1043/208

UOI vs. Phol Singh & Ors.

6. LA.AP. 141/208

UOI vs. Mansa Ram Decd. Thr. LRs & Ors.

7. LA.AP. 142/208

UOI vs Kishori @ Bhola Decd. Thr. LRs & Ors.

8. LA.AP. 14/208

UOI &Anr vs. Nathu & Ors.

9. LA.AP. 145/208

UOI vs. Balbir & Ors.

10.

LA.AP. 146/208

UOI vs. Hari Kishan Decd. Thr LRs & Ors.

LA.AP. 147/208

UOI &Anr vs Sohan Thr. His LRs

12.

LA.AP. 148/208

UOI vs. Khazan Singh Decd. Thr. LRs

13.

LA.AP. 618/209

Badley vs. UOI &Anr

3 3 .1 The Garhi Mendu Judgment was chalenged by the Apelants before this Court. B y an order dated 07.06.201, this Court directed that the fair market value per Bigha of the lands in the revenue estate of Garhi Mendu would be Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha and not Rs. 90,102/ - per Bigha as awarded by the learned Reference Court. The amount of compensation for vilage Garhi Mendu was kept at parity to Rs.89,60/ - per Bigha in view of the amounts awarded for the adjoining vilages of Kilokari , Khizrabad and Nangli Razapur . The relevant extract of order dated 07.06.201 is set out below:

—8. Since in the decisions pronounced Khizrabad , Kilokari and Nangli Rajapur I have upheld the market value determined by the learned Reference Court for said vilages @ ০89,60/ - per bigha by asigning the minimum value to the lands, I se no scope to further reduce the market value of the lands in vilage Ghari Mendu and by way of an ilustration may simply state that on the poverty index, those who are listed as Below Po verty Line would have no scope for further sub - clasifica tion as 'Below Poverty Line' and 'Litle Below Poverty Line'.

¶9I acordingly hold that the fair market value of the subject lands in vilage Ghari Mendu as of 23.6.1989 would be ০89,60/ - per bigha and not ০90,102/ - per bigha worked out by the learned Reference Court .

¶10Acordingly, LA Ap.No.618/209 filed by Badley seking enhancement of compensation is dismised.

¶1The Land Acquisition Apeals filed by Union of India are partly alowed by modifying the Reference Order and - to be the fair market value per bigha of the subject lands in vilage Ghari Mendu which are the subject maters of the apeals filed by Union of India and nedles 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. Un ion of India 93 (201) DLT 569. Cros objectio ns in said appeals filed by the land owners are

[Emphasis Suplied]

3 4 . T he Impugned J udgment has ben made aplicabl e in respect of the lands comprised in the revenue estate of vilage Kilokari, Khizrabad , Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu . It is clarified that not al agricultural land in the revenue estate of these thre vilages was acquired , some part of land in these vilages were also de - notified under Section 48 of the LA Act.

The Award

35.

The Kilokari Award which was pased for land admeasuring 26 Bighas and 5 Biswas pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, relied upon the Ofice Order dated 03.05.190 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 aply to al cases where land had ben notified under Section 4 of the LA Act after 27.04.190. The Kilokari Award sets out that since the notification in the present case was isued on 23.06.1989, the guidelines isued prior to 190 were to be used after working out a pro rata discount of compensation at the rate of 15% per anum was calculated as Rs.27,34/ - per Bigha and the Award was made acordingly.

.1 The Kilokari Award further recorded the existence of 251 Safeda tres, 6 Shehtot tres, 3 Amrod tres, 4 Nem tres and 1 Shesham tre along with a tubewel and a wal on the land. It further states that other than boundary wal and one temple [which w as 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 isued prior to 190, at the rate of 15% per anum on this price of Rs.1.5 lacs per acre , after working out the pro - rata discount of compensation works out to Rs.27,34/ - per bigha i.e. Rs.1,31,251/ - per acre . Therefore, I ases the true and fair market value of the land as per policy at Rs.27,34/ - per bigha and award acordingly. No other type of tre is available in any of the khasra under acquisition excepting some Safeda tre and a few below mentioned, w hich are asesed as below:

251 Safeda Tre @ 10/ -

25,10/ -6 Shahtot @ 50/ -

30/ -3 Amrod @ 50/ -

150/ -4 Nem @ 125/ -

50/ -1 Shisham @ 20/ -

20/ -

Total:

26,250/ - As regards tube wel/wel only one old wel is recorded in zamabandi and that to is un - usable for any purpose. So , no compensation deserves to be awarded. Regarding structures only boundary wal were e re cted 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 posesion was also not taken . "

[Emphasis Suplied]

The Reference Court Judgments

. The first asesment of the market value for the acquired land was done by the learned Reference Court in Atar Singh case , wherein learned Reference Court had asesed the market value of the acquired land in vilage

Khizrabad as Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha . Relying on the judgement in the Atar Singh case , the learned Reference Court also decided other cases pertaining to the vilage Khizrabad . 3 6 .1 Since the land in vilage Kilokari was also located in the "Forward Bund" in river bed and apear ed to be similarly situated as in the case of land acquired in vilage Khizrabad , the judgement in the Atar Singh case was relied on by the learned Reference Court in LAC 1/203 captioned Bed Ram v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 18.10.206 [ the Impugned Judgment]

and the market value for the vilage Kilokari was asesed at the rate of Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha as wel . .2 The land under acquisition in the vilage Nangli Razapur was also found to be similarly situated to the land under acquisition in vilage Kilokari and thus, learned Reference Court in LAC 2/198 captioned Bhopal Singh v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 29.08.207 relied upon the Atar Singh

case and Bed Ram Reference Court case ( the Impugned Judgment) and asesed the market value of land in vilage Nangli Razapur at the rate of Rs. 89,60/ - per Bigha.

3 6 .3 The market value of the acquired land in vilage Garhi Mendu was asesed by the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 96/01/206 captioned as Khazan Singh v. Union of India decided on 26.07.207 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 34/1/06 captioned as Smt . Chawli Devi (decd.) thr o u gh her LRs v. Union of India & Anr. decided on

31.05.207 which had also asesed the market value of the land in the vilage Garhi Mendu. The l earned Reference Court in the Chawli Devi case relied

upon the judgment of Bed Ram Reference Court c ase and Sri Ram & Anr v. Union of India and Anr . 21 to categorize the land of vilage Garhi Mendu to be similarly situated with the land of vilage Khizrabad and Kilokari. The l earned Reference Court , however, relied upon Rameshwar Solanki and Anr. v. UOI & Anr. 2 to marginaly 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 wel as th i s Court in the Bed Ram case judgment pased on 07.06.201 has found the lands in vilage Kilokari, Nangli Razapur , Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu to be similarly situated for the purposes of award of compensation.

The Aditional Evidence

37.

As stated above, emphasis was placed by the learned Senior Counsel/learned Counsel for the Apelants that in terms of the location of land, the award by the Reference Court was not comensurate with the potentiality of the land. Reliance was also placed o n the awards given for vilages Jasola and Behlolpur Khadar . Relying on the Afidavit 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 vilage Behlo lpur Khadar , which was adjoining and acquired by the same notification was Rs.2.5 lacs per Bigha , and since this area was adjoining vilage Behlolpur Khadar , similar compensation should have ben awarded. The witnes also placed reliance on the Khasra Girdawari showing the land

21 LAC 13/204 decided on 25.09.206

2 57 (195) DLT 4 1 0

of the Apelant as wel as the map of the location of the land. The witnes relied on the judgment dated 04.01.201 pased in LAC 75/208 captioned Smt. Sudesh Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr. 23 [hereinafter refered to as the —Behlolpur Khadar Reference Court Judgment"] captioned S.S. Dhilon v. Union of India & Anr. 24 to submit that these awards have not ben chalenged by the Respondent.

. Two witneses were produced by the Apelants before this Court , Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. Kailash Sharma [AW - 1 in LA.AP. 54/201 and AW - 1 in LA.AP. 59/207 respectively] . Mr. Karan Singh deposed on the Khasra Girdavari showing notification of the land of the Apelants. He further deposed that the compensation for the adjoining vil l age 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 vilage Behlolpur Khadar as wel as the judgment in Jagdish Gulati cas e which awarded Rs. 49, 4 1,0/ - p e r Bigha for land situated in the vilage Jasola. In adition, 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 he i.e., L.A.AP NO. 54 OF 201 titled Karan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors, was treated as the lead case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as Civil Apeal No. 1236 of and it is on the basis of these aditional documents (the Eicher map showing the location of the land of the instant Apelant, the khasra Girdawri showing cultivation on the land of the Apelant herein, Judgments/ Awards by the Court of the LD.ADJ @ Rs.250 per Sq Yard in the adjoining Vilage 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 oportunity to the Apelant herein to file these

23 LAC 75/208: Judgment dated 04.01.201 œDistrict Courts

24 LAC 27/2012: Judgment dated

03.12.2014

documents before this Hon'ble court for being considered prior to adjudging the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Apelant 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 pased by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was extended to al other Apelants who were before the Hon'ble Supreme court then and are now before this Hon'ble Court.

¶5That the Copy of the Eicher map showing the location of the land of the Apelant is marked as Exhibit AW1/2 (already filed in L.A.AP NO. 54 OF 201 at page number 47.)

¶6That the true copy of the Khasra girdawari showing the land of the Apelant herein as being used for agricultural purposes is marked as Exhibit AW1/3

(already filed in L.A.AP NO. 54 OF 201 at page number 350 - 359.) (Original is in the posesion of the Apelant and can be produced as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court)."

[Emphasis suplied]

3 8 .1 In his cros - examination conducted on 23.01.2016 by the Respondents the witnes deposed that the nomenclature of the land was 'Sailabi' , which when translated meant flod in the English translation filed. The witnes 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 caried out on the land. He further deposed that there were several established institutions like the women polytech nic, CRI staf quarters which came into existence in the vicinity of the acquired land in the period from 1965 - 75. In adition , h e deposed that the Ei c her Map was filed to show the pro x imity 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 cros - 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 8, Taimur Nagar, Near New Friends Colony. New Delhi 1065, On SA.

My land which has ben acquired by the Government bears K ha sra N o. 8 6 0 in Revenue Estate of Vilage Kilokri.

Q. What is the meaning of flod mentioned in Khasra Girdawari at

runing pages 350 - 359 in LA. AP. 54/201 (Ex. AW 1 /3).

A ns . The translator who - did translation of Khasra Girdawari has described the Urdu word Sailabi as "flood English. (Voluntered). This Khasra Girdawari also mentions details of the cultivation caried out in the particular years.

The Eicher Map (Ex. AW1/2) filed by me along with my afidavit was prepared in the year 2012. (Vol u ntered) if required, I can produce the original bok carying this map also. I was not at al asociated with the preparation of this Eicher Map (Ex. AW1/2). (Voluntered) It was filed only to show the proximity of my land to Kalindi Colony. I never apli ed to the MCD seking 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 -

¶70The Women Polytechnic in Maharani Bagh came into b eing aproximately in the year 1978 - 80. CRI Staf Quarters came into existence in the year 1975 - 76 Akshardham Temple also came into existence about 10 - 12 years back Comon Wealth Garnes were held, in the year 2010.

Acording to me, the 'posh colony' means a colony which has al the civic amenities and facilities for the convenience of the residents. Acording to me, the word 'Sailabi' means the area which is in close proximity to the river Yamuna and has ben categor ised as su ch . The other col oni es a t Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, N e w Friends Colony have ben categorized as plain land. I have never raised any objection to the word "Sailibi'

Case details

Parties and counsel

1 of 171 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.