Delhi HC Dismisses Centre’s Appeal As Time-Barred | Says No Sufficient Cause For 1035-Day Delay | Upholds Enhanced Hauz Khas Land Compensation | Finds No Interference Needed On Merits
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on grounds of an inordinate delay of 1035 days in filing the appeal. The Court refused to condone the delay and held that "the Land Acquisition Appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." The matter pertained to compensation enhancement for land acquired in Hauz Khas for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) project. The Court further found that even on merits, the enhancement awarded by the Reference Court was justified and did not warrant interference.
The matter arose from a dispute regarding the compensation amount for the compulsory acquisition of a 1882.79 square meter portion of institutional land located at Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The land was acquired for the Central Secretariat-Qutub Minar Corridor of the Delhi Metro Rail Project, Phase II. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30 November 2007, followed by a declaration under Sections 6 and 17 on 7 February 2008. Possession was taken on 5 June 2008.
An Award (No. 11 of 2009-2010) was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) on 5 February 2010, determining the market value at Rs. 3,219 per square meter. The lessee of the land (Respondent No.1) filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the valuation. The learned Reference Court, by its judgment dated 8 August 2018, enhanced the market value to Rs. 5,500 per square meter. It apportioned 75% of this value (Rs. 4,125/sq. m.) to the lessee and 25% to the lessor Delhi Development Authority (DDA), treating it as leasehold land.
The Reference Court also awarded solatium at 30% and interest at 12% per annum from the date of notification to the date of the Award or date of possession, whichever was earlier. Additional interest at 9% for one year and 15% thereafter until deposit in court was also granted under Section 28 of the Act. The claim of the lessee for compensation for trees and plants on the land was rejected.
On 26 October 2021, a Coordinate Bench stayed the execution of the enhanced award, subject to deposit of the amount. DMRC subsequently deposited the enhanced compensation on 8 July 2019.
The Union of India (Appellant) challenged the enhancement, contending that the Reference Court erred in basing the increased compensation on Hauz Khas rates rather than Malviya Nagar rates, as initially applied by the LAC. The Appellant relied on judgments such as Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal, arguing that guesstimation must be based on evidence and rational assessment.
Respondent No.1 contended that Hauz Khas is a Category 'B' colony, while Malviya Nagar is Category 'C', and that the Reference Court rightly applied the principle of guesstimation using available data, since the LAC failed to rely on comparable institutional land rates. Respondent No.1 also submitted that the enhanced rate was reasonable, given the location, potential, and earlier awards for similar portions of land.
DMRC submitted that it had complied with court directions by depositing the awarded amount and took no other position on the merits.
The Court first addressed the issue of delay. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1035 days. The Appellant cited reasons including time taken for approvals, legal opinions, clarifications, and COVID-19 lockdown. However, the Court recorded "the Application for condonation of delay as has been drafted by the Appellant has given no appropriate explanation except for mentioning various dates. No cogent reasons sufficient for the delay have also been given."
It further stated, "for the period of more than 2 years from June, 2019 to September, 2021, no explanation has been given at all other than a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation."
Referring to various precedents, including Postmaster General v. Living Media, (2012) 3 SCC 563 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, the Court observed, "delay cannot be condoned mechanically merely because the Government is a party."
The Court quoted from Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513: "The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Where negligence, inaction and lack of bona fides is writ large, limitation although harsh has to be applied as it stands."
On merits, the Court recorded that the Reference Court examined competing contentions regarding the value of land. The LAC had relied on institutional rates of Malviya Nagar due to unavailability of Hauz Khas institutional rates and applied a 12% annual escalation from 2000 to 2007. The Reference Court found that Malviya Nagar, being a Category 'C' area, had significantly lower circle rates than Hauz Khas.
The Court recorded that, "the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation awarded from Rs. 4,292/- per sq. m. to Rs. 5,500/- per sq. m., which is approximately 28% increase." This enhancement, it stated, was justified based on the land's location on the Outer Ring Road, future potential, and existing market indicators.
The principle of "guesstimation" was extensively discussed, citing New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Harnand Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1691, where the Supreme Court stated, "Guesstimation hinges on the Court's ability to exercise informed judgment and expertise in assessing the market value of land, especially when the evidence does not tender a straightforward answer."
The Reference Court’s rejection of the lessee’s claims for trees and structures was also affirmed as the lessee failed to produce any supporting evidence.
The Court held, "This Court finds that no sufficient explanation or cause has been given for the delay of 1035 days in filing the Appeal. CM APPL. 37684/2021 is therefore dismissed."
Justice Ganju clarified that the findings of the Reference Court regarding the enhancement of compensation were not erroneous. It was held that: “The learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation awarded from Rs.4,292/- per sq. m. to Rs.5,500/- per sq. m., which is approximately 28% increase... in the absence of any perversity in the judgment, no interference was warranted.”
It was also observed that the apportionment of 75:25 between lessee and lessor had not been challenged by any party and had attained finality.
The court further recorded: "The learned Reference Court has awarded Rs.5,500/- per sq. m. In view of the aforegoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity with the guesstimate/guesstimation undertaken by the learned Reference Court."
Accordingly, it held: "The Appeal is accordingly dismissed as being barred by time as well as on merits. All pending Applications also stand closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advocates for Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. Bheem Sain Jain, Advocate
Case Title: Union of India v. Laxman Public School & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5100
Case Number: LA.APP. 93/2021
Bench: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
