Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th , August, 2025
SANJAY KALIA & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Mr. Piyush Biswas and Mr. Hriday Kathuria, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Standing Counsel
R-2
JUDGMENT
1. All the four petitioners herein have filed a reference petition under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They seek determination of compensation amount with respect to the land in question which has been acquired by the respondents.
2. The reference petition is pending since 2010 and is at the stage of final arguments.
3. It was at that stage that the petitioners filed an application before the learned Reference Court under Order VII Rule 14 CPC seeking permission to place on record several additional documents.
4. According to them, these documents have a direct bearing with respect to the issue in question i.e. “determination of compensation”.
5. According to them, these could not be filed at an earlier stage as these were not in their possession.
6. Fact, however, remains that the learned Reference Court has declined their such request and that is how they have filed the present petition under CM(M) 1545/2025 2 Article 227 of Constitution of India.
7. Though the petitioner should have been vigilant and cautious and should have placed on record these documents at the earliest available opportunity, keeping in mind the nature of the documents, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the petitioner would be permitted to place on record the documents as mentioned in application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC dated 10.03.2025.
8. However, the petitioners are burdened with cost of Rs.10,000/- for causing delay in the matter. Let such cost be deposited with the Delhi Legal Services Authority, South West and proof thereof be submitted before the learned Reference Court on date fixed.
9. The next date before the learned Reference Court is stated to be 30th instant and on that day, the learned Trial Court shall consider further request of the petitioners as to which witness or witnesses would be required by them to be summoned for proving the abovesaid documents.
10. However, it is clarified that in this regard, the petitioners would be entitled to only one opportunity as, even otherwise, the case is very old and has got delayed considerably.
11. The present petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
12. The pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE AUGUST 25, 2025/ss/shs