Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation For Acquisition Of Lands Adjoining Yamuna River After 32 Years
The Delhi High Court recently enhanced the compensation for land acquisition payable with respect to flood-prone Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu areas of the national capital.In doing so, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in her 171-page order observed that the potentiality of these areas has to be seen not from actual use but to what use they can be put in foreseeable...
The Delhi High Court recently enhanced the compensation for land acquisition payable with respect to flood-prone Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu areas of the national capital.
In doing so, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in her 171-page order observed that the potentiality of these areas has to be seen not from actual use but to what use they can be put in foreseeable future.
For context, the Union government sought to acquire the land for channelisation of river Yamuna. A notification in this regard was issued under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 back in 1989. Awards were passed between 1992-93.
The landowners challenged the award on three primary contentions:
(i) location of land and its potentiality- it was contended that the lands were adjoining posh colonies like Jasola, Maharani Bagh.
(ii) exemplars were not considered;
(iii) land being 'Sailabi' cannot have much potentiality is not a correct analysis- evidence was placed on record showing agricultural activities on some lands.
The Reference Court under the LA Act enhanced the compensation to Rs.89,600/-. Being dissatisfied with the 'low assessment', the landowners approached the High Court.
The government argued that the subject lands were situated in the “Forward Bund” area and are prone to flooding— thus not capable of being utilised either for agriculture nor for constructing a building.
The High Court rejected this contention citing the Site Inspection Report of 2006 as per which flooding happens only on occasion. It said,
“No evidence at all was produced by the Respondents that acquired land gets/remains repeatedly submerged…Given the amount of water logging in any part of Delhi during heavy rains, this aspect would also get diluted.”
The Court also observed that the potentiality 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. In any event and in the context of ever-expanding city like Delhi, history shows that where once development takes place in a particular area, it usually has a ripple effect in adjoining areas. Development is not an overnight process but a gradual one. The presence of development in areas adjoining the acquired land are good parameters of potentiality,” it said.
The Court then noted the Location Plan which shows proximity of the land in question with Jasola and Behlolpur Khadar, where rates of approximately Rs. 4,948/- per sq. yards and Rs. 2.5 lakhs per Bighas respectively, were awarded for acquisition.
“These villages are also abutting the river Yamuna,” the Court noted.
It relied on Union of India v. Bal Ram and Anr. (2010) where the Supreme Court had held that while taking into consideration the lands coming under different villages which had been acquired for the same purpose and whether the nature and quality of the lands is by and large similar, there was no justification to make any distinction between the lands lying in different villages.
“In matters of compulsory acquisition, the Government needs to keep in mind that the villagers whose land is acquired are not willing parties but are parties who are compelled to sell their lands to the State for public purpose. Thus, failing to award similar compensation in similar areas would lead to discrimination between the land owners,” said the Court.
It also rejected the government's contention that the land is submergible or 'Sailabi' in nature. It cited material placed on record, indicating that the land was being used for agricultural purposes.
As such, the Court enhanced the compensation payable for the four areas to Rs. 2,07,500/- per Bigha.
Appearance: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates for Appellant; 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 Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA.
Case title: Bed Ram v. UoI & Anr. (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1349
Case no.: LA.APP. 59/2007 (and batch)