Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. MS Akhtar, Advocates for Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing v. LAXMAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR

Judgment

1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as “LA Act”] seeking to challenge the Judgment dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02, Saket Court, South District, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”].

2. By the Impugned Judgment, the Reference Court has partly allowed the Petition under Section 18 of the LA Act and enhanced the compensation due to Respondent No.1 and DDA from Rs.4,292/- per sq.mtr. to Rs.5,500 per sq.mtr. Other antecedent directions were also passed with respect to solatium and interest.

3. By an order dated 26.10.2021, a Coordinate Bench of this Court Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:29:06 LA.APP. 93/2021 Page 1 of 32 stayed the Impugned Judgment, subject to the deposit of the amount awarded.

4. The Respondent No.2/Delhi Metro Rail Corporation [DMRC] has filed an Affidavit dated 19.04.2022 stating that the enhanced compensation as directed was deposited before the learned Reference Court on

08.07.2019.

5. Briefly, the facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 30.11.2007 for acquisition of land admeasuring 1882.79 sq.m. being the south-east part of the property called Laxman Public School, Hauz Khas, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "acquired land"]. The land was acquired for the purpose of setting up part of the Central Secretariat - Qutub Minar Corridor of Delhi line called MRTS Project, Phase II for Respondent No.2/DMRC.

6. Pursuant thereto, the notification under Section 6 and Section 17 of the Act was issued on 07.02.2008 in respect of the acquired land. Possession of the land was taken on 05.06.2008.

7. The Land Acquisition Collector [hereinafter referred to as “LAC”] made and pronounced an Award No.11 of 2009-2010 on 05.02.2010, under Section 11 of the Act, assessing the market value of the land at Rs.3219 per sq.m. in addition to granting other statutory benefits [hereinafter referred to as the "Award"].

8. The Award was challenged before the learned Reference Court by Respondent No.1. In pursuance of this challenge, the learned Reference Court by the Impugned Judgment enhanced the market value of land to Rs.5,500/- per sq.m. and held that the Respondent No.1 is entitled to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:29:06 LA.APP. 93/2021 Page 2 of 32 receive 75% of the market value which would be Rs.4,125/- per sq.m., as the lessee of the land, while 25% of the awarded amount was granted to the lessor - Delhi Development Authority [DDA], in view of the fact that the acquired land is lease hold land. The learned Reference Court also held that since the Respondent No.1 failed to prove its entitlement in respect of trees and plants, the claim for the same was rejected.

9. The Impugned Judgment enhanced the total compensation to Rs.5,500/- per sq.m. and awarded 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification up to the date of the Award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier, 9% additional interest on the excess amount was also awarded for one year and 15% until the amount is deposited in the Court under Section 28 of the LA Act. DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL:

10. The Appeal has been filed by the Appellant after a delay of 1035 days. The Appellant has contended that the delay was caused on account of approvals of the competent authority; taking of legal opinions, on account of the legal cell obtaining clarifications and documents and for sanction for the Court fee, which caused the delay. In addition, the Appellant has also stated that the imposition of the lockdown for the COVID-19 pandemic added to the delay.

11. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 on the other hand has submitted that the Appellant has failed to give any adequate explanation for inordinate delay in filing of the present Appeal. It is contended that no documents to substantiate the averments as set out for the delay have been placed on record either. In addition, it is stated that if the period of limitation expired prior to the imposition of the lockdown on 15.03.2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 19:29:06 LA.APP. 93/2021 Page 3 of 32 the extension of time as set out by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) NO.3/2020, In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation1 case could not be obtained. Thus, it is contended that the Appeal is required to be dismissed on this ground alone.

12. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 further stated that it is a settled law that delay cannot mechanically be condoned and that there is no separate period of limitation for Government/Government departments. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bherulal2 and Deputy Conservator of Forests v. Timblo Irmaos Ltd. & Ors.3 It is averred that a liberal approach in condoning the delay cannot be used to defeat the substantial law applicable under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as “Limitation Act”] which has to be construed strictly. If the right remedy is not exercised for a long time, it must come to an end. The Respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the following judgments: Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs & Ors. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA)4 and University of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors.5 in this regard. CONTENTIONS ON MERIT:

13. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the LAC had rightly applied the rates as affixed by the Land and Development Officer [L&DO] for the Malviya Nagar area. However, the learned Reference Court has wrongly enhanced the compensation to be awarded to the Respondent No.1 based on the rates as applicable to Hauz Khas. It is