Suresh Kumar & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm \ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ludqment ReservRriOn: igtn August 207 7 Judgment De/ive^mriOn: 19th S(-nf-f^mber.POn + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH UOI & ANOTHER Nawani, Kaomud T-. . • ••• Appellant Through: jVjr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.DeepakKhosia,Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Is. r/r r- . Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate &Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AND + LA.APP. 961/2010, LA.APP 1001/2010 R, rivi [^°-12885/2011,LA.APP. 1007/2010&CM Sl81/20U LA APR. 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010 LA APP &CM No.12865/2011,LA.APP. 5/2011, U.APP. 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011 LA APP i r r\i\ "-APP.41/20li,uIpJ:alSi; U-A™ .160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011 LA APP ?.t®^2Pl^.LA.APP. 247/2011,' LA.APP.' 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15 09 2000 r, Award No, 06/2002-2003,Vill^ge-BhalswaJahangi^^^^^^^^^ AND , • . i LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattdrs i + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011,,, LA.APP. 200/2011, 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, 244/2011, LA.APP. CM No.12871/2011, , LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ^2011, LA.APP. 323/2011 LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011 LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.l LA.APP: 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4|l4/2011. 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011 LA.APP. 408/2011 (Relating to Notification u/Sec, 4 dated

30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAIVI: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PR lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) ^DEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .1 i PRADEEP IMANDRAIQG. I. i

¶11proceed with an apologi/to the reader by referringto a notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir learned counsel for arguments with respect to the required price to be suitab 3oint of time then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had ly reduced pertaining to notificationwhich was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa jahangirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters a ;rl to a notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation ofJJ Cluster'. Tjhis was followed by a declaration "• I under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, ir market value of the acquired land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^3.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed at^l3.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2'A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ^4,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well c while assessing the fair marl s the Learned Reference Court, :et value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on •01.04.20C 0, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destinai:ions were reached inasmuch as learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing compensation,did not grant appreciationfor the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitio,n Act was isjsued on 15.09.2000, but the' learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with referenceto the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre; LA.App.No.999/2010& coimectedmatiers Pages of22 % iri) r

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of by a declaration under Section 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed fair market value of the acquired land at ^2,33,333 per .bigha which is equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs per acre. . '

¶6Dissatisfied with the a|ssessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The [.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati V.^. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair market value of the acquired land at ?11,46,670/- per acre. The difference i in same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in J Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisition destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 question was issued on 30,7.:(998and tlie learned Reference Court granting enlnancementj @ 11% per annum for the interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmafi:(:ers Court by way of the appeals above. |

¶8On behalf of the l^nd owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance w^s placed on following, documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified b/ the L&DO vide notification and cross objections mentioned dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by nibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in 'esidential commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which, is stated to be close to village BhalajswaJahangir Pun, was fixed at,^5830/- per square rr acre it was urgec eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should d compensation in sum of be entitled to enhance ?1,17,96,200/- per acre.

(b) The rate charged| by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanja> terms of the Resolution / Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby. MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar (a) ^"4,500/- per squ transporters @ ?425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 5 of22 ^ I;I ! i documents, learned cojunsel for the land owners argued that rate stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fai land comes to ^7,19,85 that even if 50% deducti r market value of developed )7/- per acre and it was urged ion is made on account of the development costs, fo|r undeveloped lands, fair I market value would come to ?8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasingthe same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ?24,76,592/-per acre,

(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, • the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ^23.72 lakh to ?28.4 lakh, which according to. learned col nsel translates to a price of ^14,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged, that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertainingto undevelopejdagriculturalland,

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunderland measuring 2-19 bigha was sold

(a) ^3 learned counsel urged th 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/-or ?11,86,169/- per bigha. it was LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatjers /! fl

¶9contended that this sale after making a reas deed should be relied upon, onabie deduction towards development cost to determine the fair hiarket value of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another- (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned .counsel for the land owners also relied ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w be sold on 05.08.1996 Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a thereunder land was agreed to ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangirPuri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence o; the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay . appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir ^ fair market value' of land in date of the agreement to sell ) ^oddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of ^1,40,000and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given'on said value, the price as on the date of the notificationunderSection4comes to n,94,782per bigha, and thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed tend for j LA.App.No.999/2010&coimectedmatters Page7of22 •if - fixing tine market value of having a vast area. Learne above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA undeveloped agricultural land ^d counsel also argued that the ..learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed. the fair market value of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court.

10.. It may be noted that wh 2n judgment was reserved in the August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition v.App.No.266/2008 titled lai Sinah Vs. UO!.& Ann in which similiararguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon, in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response counsel for the land owners 1/5 Union of Indm in which he 1" to arguments of learned the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of village Bhalswa jahangir Purl has come out in the depositionof Shri TrilokChand {Ha/qaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC,No.ll2A/2008titled Rai Sinoh as explained the topology of the area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex.PW-2/1of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri. His testimony w and Libaspur are situated, in ould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadii and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola • Saral Plpalthala are situated in' the South of villageJahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010& coiiaectedmatters Page 8 of22 iH' I

¶12I. may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory | of Delhi, published by Governmentof NCT Delhi wpuld reveal that village Bhalswa JahangirPurr is situated on.th^ eastern side of G.T.KarnaiRoad i.e. National HighwayNo.l.: \iillagesBadli, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoor side of National Highway No.l

¶13It needs to be highligh took place in the revenue es Dur (Narela) are on the western ted that whatever development :ate of village Jahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due of slum and j.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah l/s. Union nf India AD (Delhi) 46'i, resettlement colony called Ja^ villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Bawana, 1 had noted t it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period cjf emergencyi.e. the year 1975-

¶76It has to be rememberedthat the two subjectacquisitions were also for re-settlementof,:5lumand J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008/^/5//7a/7 l/^. um ^ which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.2011,when instantappeals were reserved for judgment,has since been i)ronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 1, would highlight that Alle assessing the fair market value of the land situated in io revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-WestDelhi being revenue estate of Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd Tat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters % ft •constituted a 'V at the point Road i.e. NH-1 Rohtak common point,, proceeding of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-IO; bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highlightedthat villageBhalswaJahangir Purl is outside the 'V aforesaiidand as explained hereihabove and abuts towardsthe east oil l\IH-l.

¶15In the,appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year 2000, 2001,2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-1.5/1) and the sale deed dated ,24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have, placed relianceupon as noted in sufcj-para(d) of para 8hereinabove. In. the said judgmentdated 2j3.8.2011,1have discardedthese two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs21 to 23 which are reproduced here jnder:-

¶21The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-l/B which ^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected is predicated on the 2 sale . . — is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4:2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter ~ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all reasoning that the the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was ^ f"e''g'OLJS trust by the name of 'Badha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while '">4^ No.68/2005 had'stated that to his knowledgethe land was purchased for religiouspurposeand wafe being used for a religious purpose. The sale dedd Ex,PW-l/2 has likew°sl LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattlrs I • Iff been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government ^ r _ ^ X.! II I _ • I • ^ Organization "Christian the testimony of P\A/-7 S the organization stated Organization" as per )ister Annie, the secretary of that the organization had to pay the pricefor the saipl piece of land as it was the only plot of the requ site size suitable for the requirement.ofthe organizationand is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decisionsreported as 1995 (1) see 111 Land Acou/sition Officer Eluru & Or^. 1/? /St/ Roh/ni&Ann (Refei^para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin !Rnd Acoumitinn Offirpr (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale, deed which are tendered in evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the LA.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for i5 there may be special circumstances which have led the buyej-to pay a higherprice. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circunistancesorthe fancy to buy a particularpiece of land. An informed bi studied the market and available land in the yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all area; has understood r ... y. UllUCIiLUUU Lllfci topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair marketvalue ofthe lands in the area. 1would be failing if Ido not highlightthat the 7n"? deed dated Rpfprpnr»r" ^ was accepted by the learned ,1 5 Court pertainingto the notificationdated ^7,1.2003 where-underagriculturaliand in viilage Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturistto an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ^17,74,109/- th|e price which comes to 478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other. | j 23, Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons reasons in para to hold intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported highlightedthat the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of it:s factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and ed therein could not be ice of value of land in the Te Court and the price in Eduction on account of the hence th'e price reflec treated as a good evide area, was rejected by t question, with suitable parcel of land being large, was accepted by the above would be additional - . that 2 sale deeds would advisably not be gooc evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason 1find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisitionis of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having transaction bejng the result . I would be failing not to . -- -ecision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya oeing the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.lH]o.l93/2006 Pratao Sinoh (since, deceased) thru LRs urn [t was Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th market value. The argur ie instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-l/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair lent ignores the reasoning in i-ho • • rZ, ^ LIIC itidboning ^ T i" paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed onBench, did not accept the ' its own logic as indicative nf a. . " IIIUILdtlVe fhplfn that if the price 1/3'"^ the price arrived at Jld be price arrived at with therein was reduced by would be the same as wo rpfprpnrp> fr. ^ "veo ac witn reference.to the average rate of the sale deeds , produced by the Union,ojf India i.e. the sale S LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatteb /'Hi' m (iT'Pr, produced by the Government were giving a price of ?1,3.7,000/- per bigha sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ?2,15,160/- per bigha, f would be deducted from the sum of ?3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that 1n the said judgment the year of ind notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court determined fair market x/alue as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. f2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated sale deed in question as the basis for-if it was so, sale was 1993 a Section of the Land appreciation for 2 years had required to be given, I would highlight once again, that i have hereinbefore already noted inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsicmutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa jahangir Purl.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o a jahangir Puri has been agreed, f ?18 lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003whereunder4-16 liigha i.e. 1acre land was sold at ^15,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters difficult to comprehend the abnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph of its decision, learned P^eference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opned that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an an informed willing seller special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market \yalue of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 fai Sinah 1/5. UP! & Anr. i.e. where ah abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-informed and there being,a special feature qua the land and was ^18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.7 lakhs per acre. I ne informed willing buyer without being influenced . by pariiicular land, and had thus

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 have held the same not to be market value of a large part: paid by a buyer smitten with good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. 1reiterate the same.

¶20As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh TransportIMagar, I do not find any substancein the argumentsof the learnedcounselfor the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned ReferenceCourt containedin paragraphs29 and 30 which are premisedon the decisionof the SupremeCourt reportedas ^/ LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e\/idence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.

¶21In my decision dated 2|3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh l/s. UOI & Ors.. I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme' Court in La! Chands case , with referenceto price at which ceveloped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in iaiSingh's case are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lar reference to the Bawan by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in LM. d sold by DSIDC or DDA with a Industrial Estate developed esidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same 3er which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as the value of land in thes most unreliable to determine Jbject cases.

¶30It is no doubt true, Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area as held even by the learned with development of . . Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela ResidentialSpheme, the subjectlands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which building potentiality would translate itself.

¶311hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the SupremeCourt in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality,relating itself to the value, 1promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmattdrs

¶22Highlighting that in La! Chancfs case (supra) i • Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too . inchoate wherefrorn fair market value could be crystallized.

¶23. 1 reiterate the reasoning allotted developed plots in Sa price at which DDA sold dev to hold that price at which MCD njay Gandhi Transport Nagar and Bloped plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs ca:5e (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, 1n village. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhancedwith referenc(ito L&DO rates noting that 1am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008it emerges that village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk frcjim the Tibetan;Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparatedby 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters .•11 thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessing the fair marketvalue ofthe land situated •in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications dated 24.07.1998 and 18.072003 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, I had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in. my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA./|ppeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008titled R^ajbal&Ors. l/s. Uninn of India ^ Ofs. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ^11,60 d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ^9,28,464.65per acre for Category C land pertainingto the notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuantto notification dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland,and ^17,28,512/-per acre for Category B land. In fai Singh'scase [supra], I had , S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

1.

¶2Pooth Khurd Hnlpmhi

7.8. 2000 i ( ^4.75 for Category 'A' n4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶31 lUJal I lUl txdldn Bawana /.O.i/iUUU

7.8.|2000 j i • - i • 1 n4.75 ^4.75 for Category 'A' ^4.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd ll.c i i !

1.2000 ^14.835 for .Category 'A' n4.46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters % •[1 .5. Narela

2.5 I—I o o CM ?16.165 , for Category 'A' ^5.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kaian 22, 8.2001 ?16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

7.. Alipur

¶228.2001 . ^6.745 for Category 'A' ne.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 i ! ?

16.745 for Category 'A' ^16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶2218.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' ne.43811 for Category 'B' • 10. Sanoth

7.1 2.2001 ^17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ^18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^18.655

¶14Alipur.

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶15Sanoth

¶27(

1.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' ns.94:912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan

27.]1L.2003 ^ w f jr . ^9.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C

¶27In jai Singh's case (supra) 1 had also analyzed minimum land rates enhanced by the Governmentfrom time not to be the ipse dixit of the to time, and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010& cojmectedmatters Governmentofficers and hacJ found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah l/s. UOt & Mn, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. UOI. ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinph Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005Mahender Sinah UP! & Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence various dates between the years ;o the minimum price fixed by the Government 1 had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under;-

¶50The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As Df 27.4,1990minimum price was ?4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ^10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increasein 7 years and land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t the average price increa rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years se would be 16.436%. The price 3r is by 11.2% and thereafter by ; and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. , It. sh|ows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroloorativeevidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga/rafs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

¶511need to elaboratea little more with respectto the decision in GajraJs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras'9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected' i «!1: .•f!T ( th.e_ Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agriculturalyield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigationfacilities and thus capitalized the land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based on thp said sale instances and giving benefit of industrializationthe land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered,theprices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76!l21/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights welj-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as aga that the potentiality had been Government issued Dn w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions ^ inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at no lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthat the pries was ^10,03,364/-per acre. .52. _The decision in Mahender5inoh'<; case, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference!to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court ^hich was projecting residential, conimercial industrial future exploitation of agriculturalland in Delhi}and on the issue,of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so. projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality,the same hjad not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with |which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As 1have already highlightedin para 49 above there is |a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the. market actually grows. The decisions in Ga/'raj's caise and LA.App.No;999/2010 & connected matters V f1: Mahender Singh's• case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a when prices rose by reality between 1990 . and 1997 , about

16.5% per annum thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and'the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial industrial probably there was enough availabilityof developed land and the hunger of the market got saturateqi.

¶53The empirical evic from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the. land owners, in ence in the instant case, apart respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras jrned Reference Court has given upon and for which 1have given . 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair marketvalue, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the, fair market value of agricultural lands would be ?19,16,040/-per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for ^5,39,690/-and ?70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 (?5,39,690/- + ?70,160/-) were ice ?17,74,109/- per acre as of

0.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by eitherpartiesotherthan the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time; I hold that the Learned ReferenceCourt has, rightly adopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when minimum prices were notified and. the date cif the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters y. Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to furtiier enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections,whetherfiled by the land ownersor the Union of irjidia.

¶29i leave the parties to bear their own cost. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-35 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 88/2011 SURESH KUMAR & ANR Appellants Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay, Pathak, Advocate for UOI. i CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG