Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation For Acquisition Of Lands Adjoining Yamuna River After 32 Years

The Delhi High Court has enhanced the compensation for acquisition of flood-prone lands adjoining yamuna river i.e. Khizrabad, Kilokari, Nangli Razapur and Garhi Mendu holding that their potentiality has to be seen not from actual use but to what use can it be put in foreseeable future.

The Court was considering a slew of Letters Patent Appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgement of the Reference Court enhancing the market value of the acquired land in 2006.

The bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held, ".....The Appellants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,07,500/- per Bigha. 75.1 Since the Appellants have already received compensation at the rate of Rs. 89,600/- per Bigha, the balance amounts shall be paid to the Appellants along with interest and all other statutory benefits, in accordance with law...."

The Appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta while the Respondents were represented by Standing Counsel Sanjay Pathak.

Facts of the Case

The land was acquired for land development of Delhi in relation to the channelisation of the river Yamuna, by a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued in 1989. The notification sets out in detail that for acquisition of land admeasuring about 3500 hectares of land starting from a point 1 km upstream, Wazirabad Barrage road along eastern Yamuna marginal bund till it meets the boundary of Union Territory upto point it meets newly constructed NOIDA Bridge then along the Northern Boundary of the Bridge upto Agra Canal then along the eastern boundary of Agra canal upto Okhla head-works and along the Eastern Boundary of regularised unauthorised colonies of Batla House Joga Bai, Village Zakir Nagar, Hinrerbad village and then along the eastern boundary of Women Polytechnic, Central Road Research Institute, Kalindi Colony till it meets Ring Road the Eastern Boundary of Ring road till meets Indraprastha Power House then along the Eastern Boundary of Power House and then along the bund upto the point it meets old Railway bridge and then along the road joining Ring Road crossing 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 running parallel to Wazirabad Barrage on the Northern side upto starting point excepting the following 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.

Counsel for the Appellants divided their submissions into 3 primary contentions:

(i) location of land and its potentiality; arguing that the villages are touching the borders of posh colonies like Friends Colony and Maharani Bagh

(ii) submissions of exemplars; arguing that the present of the March 17, 1988 Exemplar not considered despite being available.

(iii) land being ‘Sailabi’ cannot have much potentiality is not a correct analysis; evidence of land being used for agricultural purposes was produced.

Reasoning By Court

The Court stated that that the emphasis laid by the Government on the land being flooded or in the two ‘Forward Bunds’ is not supported by evidence.

"The Site Inspection Report of 2006 makes a reference to looding happening on occasion; however, this too is based on the statement of the officials and without any documentary evidence. Given the amount of water logging in any part of Delhi during heavy rains, this aspect would also get diluted", the Court held.

It also accepted the contention of the Appellants that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot Hotel etc. 

".....even though the nature of the land was different, the LAC stillawarded the same amount of Rs. 27,344/- per Bigha whether the land was “flooded” as in the case of Garhi Mendu or “khaddar” as in the case of Khizrabad and Nangli Razapur or ‘Sailabi’ as in the case of Kilokari. The categorization of all these lands in view of their potentiality and proximity to developed colonies as assessed by the LAC is the same", the Court held.

It majorly held that the potentiality of these villages has to be seen not from actual use but to what use can it be put in foreseeable future.

"The proximity to developed/posh colonies was not denied but in fact admitted by the Respondents. The potentiality has to be seen not from actual use but to what use can it be put in foreseeable future. The land was clearly being used for agricultural purposes whether we consider Site Inspection Report or Appellant’s evidence [Bed Ram son’s evidence]. No evidence at all what produced by the Respondents that acquired land gets/remains repeatedly submerged", the Court held.

It also stated that in the present case, the presence of the March 17, 1988 Exemplar being available has been proved as  uncontroverted evidence has been placed on record by the Appellants which reflects that the land was being used for agricultural purposes and there need not look any further.

The compensation was accordingly enhanced and the Appeals were disposed of.

Cause Title: Bed Ram v. UOI & Anr (2025:DHC:8766)

Appearances:

Appellants- Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, Advocate Bhagwat Pd. Gupta Advocate Rajesh Gupta, Advocate Ganga Ram Upadhyay

Respondents- Standing Counsel Sanjay Pathak, Advocate K.K. Kiran Pathak, Advocate Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocate Mohd. Sueb

Akhtar, Advocate Divakar Kapil

Click here to read/ download Order