Ram Devi & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. '. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. :r. JN THE HH:;H COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November iS. 2011 --·-. -- ------ -- --· --- -----·- ---·---- -· Pronounced on: ----·- ------------·---- ·---- (GRJD-A) LA.APP.l195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) R/\NBJR SI-lARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. versus Mr.Raghuvindcr Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Ivlr.B.K.Routray, .l'vlr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mchlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.P.autela, Advocaie Mr.LS.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.I LS.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak. Mr.Mohitrao .iadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain. Ms.K.Kaumudi Kirar:, Advocates f()r LAC/UOJ Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Becnashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar. Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocmc for DDA L!\.APP.4l2/2008 & CM.No.409M2008 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.452/2008: LA.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.G88/2008 & CM.No.5990/201 0 (Cross-Objections); L!\./\PP.697/2008 & CM.No.433/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.701/200X & CM.No.51 0/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 76X/2008: LA.APP.770/200g:

1.1\.1\pp. No. & connected Appeals of Viii;Jge Bharthal I 1\.1\pp. No. 7.94/7.010 & connected App(•als oi· Village

111.1\pp. No. 111/7010 & connected of Village rochanpur 1 of 29 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008: LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LJ\.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.93112009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008: LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.l795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1 .A.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.S 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; J.A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.90112008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 112008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.l 029/2008& CM.No.l7340/2008 (Cross-Objections): I .A.APP.l 03112008 & CM.No.l7335/2008 (Cross-Objections);

1./\.APP.I 032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 046/2008; LA.APP. I 04 7/2008; LA.APP .I 048/2008& CM.No. 7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I 049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LJ\.APP.l 050/2008; LA.APP. I 05112008 & · CM.No.l7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LJ\.APP.l 052/2008; LA.A PP.l 053/2008 & Cl\1.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.l\PP.l 054/2008 & CM.No.l766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 059/2008 & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I 060/2008;LA.APP.l 062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 073/2008; LA.APP.l 074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); l.A.APP. I 075/2008; LA.APP.l 08112008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 093/2008; A.APP.l 094/2008; LA.APP.l 095/2008; LA.APP.I 103/2008 & CM.No.441!2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.ll08/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ll 09/2008: LA.APP.lll 0/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.llll/2008; LA.APP.ll12/2008 & CM.No.383 112009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.lll3/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l115/2008; LA.APP.lll6/2008; LA.APP.ll21/2008; LA.APP.l126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.IJ30/2008; LA.APP.1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA./\PP.l133/2008; LA.APP.ll35/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ll 37/2008 & CM.No.l7283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ll40/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.ll57/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No. 7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ll59/2008; LA.APP.ll6112008; LA.APP.ll66/2008; LA.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ll68/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP. 1 17112008; LA.APP. 1 172/2008; LA.APP.ll73/2008; LA.APP.l175/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.ll79/2008; LA.APP.ll8112008; LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6.933/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 184/2008; LA.APP.ll85/2008; LA.APP.ll86/2008& CM.No.7013/2009

111./\pp. No. 1.195/7008 & connected Appeals of Villilp,e Bharthill

1./\.IIJ:·P· No. 294/7.010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan

1.11./\pp. No. ll.l/7.010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur y % (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.II90/2008; LA.APP.ll91/2008; LA.APP.ll92/2008; LA.APP.ll93/2008; LA.APP.I194/2008; LA.APP.ll95/2008; LA.APP.Il97/2008; LAAPP.l198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l200/2008: LA.APP.1202/2008; LA.APP.1203/2008: LA.APP.l210/2008; LA.APP.l211/2008; LA.APP.l212/2008; LA.APP.l213/2008; LA.APP.l223/2008; LA.APP.l225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; L/\.APP.l275/2008; LA.APP.l276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008; LA./\PP.l280/2008; LA.APP.128112008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.l284/2008; LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No./46/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); L/\.1\PP.l 08/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009; L/\./\PP.136/2009; LA.APP.l37/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.139/2009; LA/\PP.140/2009; LA.APP.l43/2009; LA.APP.144/2009; LA.APP.l45/2009; LA.APP.l62/2009; LA.APP.l87/2009; LA.APP.l90/2009; LA.APP.l9112009; LA .APP .197/2009; LA.APP.l98/2009; LA.APP .199/2009; LA.APP .20 1/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections); L/\.i\PP.21112009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA .APP .241/2009; LA.APP .245/2009; LA.APP .246/2009; · LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.JOS/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; L/\.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.48112009; I "A.APP .489/2009; LA.APP .490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP .493/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.506/2009; L/\.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.510/2009: L/\.APP.Sll/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.567/2009; LA.i\PP.572/2009: LA.APP.15/2010; LA.APP.45/2010; LA./\PP.48/2010; L/\./\PP.404/20 I 0; LA.APP.IJ/2011; LA.APP.ll38/2008; LA.APP.ll76/2008; I.A./\PP.Il77/2008: LA.APP.120112008; LA.APP.231i2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08, 20 11_ Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BI.JWASAN) DEVENDER KUMAR ..... Appellant ·rhrough: Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh I A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal L/\.App. No. 7,94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I A.App. No. J .11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur versus lJOI & ANR LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LAAPP. I 00/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LAAPP. 287/2010 l.A.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.J\PP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 360/20 I 0 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 75/2010 & Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOIILAC l\1r.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. LA.APP. 1112010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 5112010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 28112010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 35112010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 36112010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/20 I 0 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 73112010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 80/201 0 LA.APP. 99/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.1 0(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & A ward No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND

1./\./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bharthal

1./\./\pp. No. 294/7.010 & connected /\ppe<Jis of Village Bijwasan I 1\./\pp. No. 111/7.010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur .. % (GRJD-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 L/\.1\PP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. ..... Appellants Through: versus Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20,23 to 26, 29, 30, 33,36 to 40,44 to 49, 59,63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC LA.APP. 111/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APP. 395/2010 LA.APP. 420/2010 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP. 919/2010 LA.APP. 65/2011 LA.APP. 120/2011 LA.APP. 4 76/2011 LA.APP. 523/2011 LA.APP. 536/2011 Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr. Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP. 215/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 . LA.APP. 250/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.APP. 270/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010 LA.APP. 305/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 317/2010 LA.APP. 392/2010 LA.APP. 393/2010 LA.APP. 396/2010 LA.APP. 397/2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.APP. 432/2010 LA.APP. 433/2010 LA.APP. 434/2010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 577/2010 LA.APP. 635/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 640/2010 LA.APP. 657/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.APP. 784/2010 LA.APP. 918/2010 LA.APP. 1052/2010 LA.APP. 6112011 LA.APP. 64/2011 LA.APP. 116/2011 LA.APP. 117/2011 LA.APP. 119/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 129/2011 LA.APP. 429/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011 LA.APP. 521/2011 LA.APP. 522/2011 LA.APP. 525/2011 LA.APP. 526/2011 LA.APP. 535/2011 LA.APP. 554/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011 l/\.1\pp. No. 1.1.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal L/\.1\pp. No. 7.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village flijwasan L/\.1\pp. No. lll/2010 & connected /\ppcals of Village Pochanpur • ,/ (Relating to Notification No. F.1 0(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & !\ward No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'B.LE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O Dfili'R ..1."-

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Notification No.Fl0(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur arc being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dwarka Phase- !!' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13 1h December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Poehanpur .

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein m the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award No.J0/2002-2003 granting compensation @ lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field -·· with top soil) and @ lacs per acre for Block 'B' (without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquired L/1./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected llppeals of Village Bharthal l/1./\pp. No. 294/7.010 & connected llppeals of Village Bijwasan L/1./\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected llppeals of Village Pochanpur .. agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the !.and Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ {15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and@ {13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (20 1 l) 2 SCC 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofl/aryana and Anr., (20 1 0) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (LandAcquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (fiince deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Jiaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 1 I SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. lndu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition O.fficer & Anr vs. M.K. Rajiq Saheb, (20 11) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, IAApp. No. 1 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. No. 7.911/7.010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010 & Appeals of Villagf' .. I \/ Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union o.llndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La/ Chand vs. Union o.llndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority,

(2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs, State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; /(apil Mehra General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(20 J 1) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Sural Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi/ Kumar vs. Union o.l India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and Rhule Ram vs. Union ofindia, 2010

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, counsel for appellants that Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, New Delhi

111./\pp. No. 1.195/2008 & connected lip peals of Village Bharthal

1.11./\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 11\./\pp. No. 11.1./201.0 & connected Appeals of Viii<Jge Pochanpur \., ! and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Vi.llages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for. the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for developme.nt of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizraslmap to highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16th October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 24 111 October, 1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by .Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama 1 /1./lpp. No. 1195/2008 & connected IIJ:!peals of Village Bharthal 1 11./\pp. No. /.94/1.010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bijwasan L/1./\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur .Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 201 0(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from lacs to lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in An}ani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for detennining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market vaiue of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates tixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is L/\.1\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal L/\.1\pp. No. 7.94/?010 & connected /\ppcals of Village Bijwasan L/\.1\pp. No. ll.l/2010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur Par,c 10 of 29 I ' I '/ . ?- sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-! or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant-Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.2612002-2003 dated

¶23J 0.2002 being flawed in the course qf the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.190 12 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

¶77.2007) b) Does not account for the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years the Notification under ,S'ection 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

¶119. 2001 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the ffon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per established law has to be considered before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Ron 'ble Supreme Court in the recent case qf C"bzinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 qf 2007. The llon'ble Supreme Court has spec(fically held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in ll\.1\pp. No. ll%/2008 & connected 1\ppeals of Village Bharthal li\.1\pp. No. 294/20.10 & connected 1\ppea\s of Village Bijwasan ll\.1\pp. No. lll/2010 & connected 1\ppeals of Village Pochanpur \ / '/ case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana M(;lu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 201 0(1 3) SCC 710, the Suprewze Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and in Block Bin violation of the law laid down by the llon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of IJaryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) }: . .'valuated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed qnd these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land use change show that in future land can be suNected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in respect of the 74th amendment of the Constitution of India, w.ef 1.6.1993 IX A. by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated. was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) RefU;sed to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of india and refused to consider the fact that the development in the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser would pay for the subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also

1.1\.1\pp. No. 1.195/7.008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

1./\./\pp. No. 294/7.010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L/\.App. No . .1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur \ auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about

¶26 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Re.spondent No. 2 .for similarly situated land k) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of1Jelhi State. l) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number qf buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose qf putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential qf being put in better use as house sites in the near future. "

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of

1./\./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

1./\./\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan

1./\./\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Or,\', Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51--A of ].,and Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant· evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and clement of special Caney of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct - market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai La/ vs. Union of India. 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; La/ Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi/ Kumar vs. Union oflndia, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained hy producing in evidence the seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. No. 7.911/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 11.1/7.010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur \ I / and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swan1i Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO. rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La/ Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi/ Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Responde)1ts/cross-objcctors that the same has aiready been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1st !\ pril, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi/ Kumar (supra) appreciation (fy 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the 41t Reference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation@ 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the pricE! paid by willing purchaser to a willing

1./\./\pp. No. 1195/2.008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 1 1\./\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village llijwas<•n I /\.1\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur \ / I seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho JJass vs. State of Har.vana & Ors., 2010(9) SCJ\LE 41 in these words:- ''(l) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population,·

(ii) the suitability of the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(iii) obtaining water and electric supply for occupants qfbuildings to be put up on that land;

(iv) absence o.f statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired landfor building purpose:

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages qf educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas. qf the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, built on the acquired land,· and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itse(l being in demand for building purposes, to specfjj' ajevv. ·· t 8. The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For:the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for

111.1\pp. No. 11%/2088 & connected 1\ppcals of V•liage i3harthal t/\.1\pp. No. /.'J!lf/.010 & co;,nectcd 1\ppeals of Villap,c llijwasan '.1\.1\pp. No. 111/2010 & conncctc,d 1\ppcals of Village Pochanpur Par,e 16 of 29 \ j which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for detennination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars oflarge pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (20 11) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference · either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospeCts, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation • awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40o/o towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in An}ani Molu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- I /l.i\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connectP.d Appeals of VHiage I /\.1\po. No. 294/2010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bijwasan L/\.1\pp. No. lli/2010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur ... \ "'·' "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest q{ the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction. 1'vill be considered. Where however there are several sales qfsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect qf two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made e by the 1\pcx Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- • "it is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect qf the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value. as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value."

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), arc as under:- "Primarily. the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation. of the land, nature qf development in surriJUnding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slovv, steady and gradual. without any sudden spurts or jumps. 1 /\.1\pp. No. J 1.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I /\.1\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bijwasan

1./\./\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur \ On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. if the increase zn market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around ha?f of it, that is about 5% to 7. 5% per annum. This rule of thumb to the general trend in the nineties. to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase. or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. · . Nonnally, recourse is taken to the mode determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved n1arket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a jew years. that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even tf it relates to a neighbouring land What may be a reli'able standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 199 2, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or IAApp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA/\pp. No. 294/2010 & connectr!d Appeals of Village Bijwasan I 1\./\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected IIppe<) Is of Village Pochanpur . .. \ acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pi£(alls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood qf occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard qfincrease . . ,

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods. What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- " When categories of lands (or lands with different situational advantages) are acquired/or the same purpose. say fhr fc>rming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a un?form rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notification. "

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars m and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from <52 lacs to <62 lacs per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-114 to Ex.PW-1/10) which are basically between one set of co-owners and Radha Swami Satsang, Be as in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds

1./\./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal L/\.1\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 1/\./\pp. No. 11..1./2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur \. "" 6' ' ' (Ex.PW-114 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from lacs to lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars--- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land m question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-114 to Ex.PW-1110) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale Deed executed on 25th March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing lli.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected of Village Bharthal LA App No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan tA.fqJp. No .ll.l/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l'ochanpur market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1111) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of l, 76,55,1 72.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 2i 11 January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. [n view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30. Parameters governing fixation 'of market value ·of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported asP. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderahad Urban Development Authority Hyderahad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "/2. I fowever. in either the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale qf plots in a well developed layout in tfie neighborhood I II flpp. No. 1 J 95/2008 & connected lip peals of Villap,c 13harthal - I !1./\pp. No. 7911/7010 & connected of Villap,c 13ijwasan i !1./\pp. No. 11 J/7.010 & connectPd lip peals of V11iap,c l'ochanpur Page 22 of 7.9 \ or whether it he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable fhr the Court to find out what will be the price }etched or to be fetched by the sales qf plots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched if sold on the date of the puhlication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further, where no evidence ofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then ,,vhat could be done is to .find out the market value qf the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of puhlication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree qf its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed J/5th of the market value qf the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence qf sales qf building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand. as such, for building plots even ifformed in the acquired land. " 3 l. In view or the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the DD/\ after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and 41) transferring perpetuaJ·Jeasehold rights, the Apex Court in La/ Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to reiy upon the allotment rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lanas .. Following the dictum of La/ Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi/ Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of I /U\pp. No. 11%//008 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bharthal I /U\pp. No. }'Jil/2010 & connected /\ppcals of Village Bijwasan · I 1\.t\pp. No. 1lli 7010 & conncctr>d /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur \/ the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question. Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase n1.cthod would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-1. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-! and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-II; still the price tixed hy the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aturesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted bv the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument docs not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La/ Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a . ' reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phasc-J and Dwarka Phase-11 is of sixteen years and tlu.:reforc, i.t would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate 1/\./\pp. No. 1l9S/2008 & connected of Village Bharthal ! /\.1\pp. No. 2.94/201.0 & connected /\ppcals of Village Bijwasan 1/\./\pp. No. 1.11/201.0 & connected Appeals of· Village Pochanpur .. \ / • escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar ' learned semor counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwananted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation (@ I 0% per annum. After having perused the decision in Swdtil Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market. value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon .._\'ushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent arc dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Cmnt is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. 1st April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's m1111mum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the NotiiJ,cation in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 24 111 October, l 994 declaring agricultural iands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide af(xesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land usc of the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to 1/\.App. No. 1195/7008 & connected Appeals of Village llharthal t./\.AIJ;>. No. 29-1/2.010 & connecteli Appeals of Village llitwasan I.A.App. No. 11.1/20.1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur \ presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose. 3 7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of NotiEcation under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account. of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance ·of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 J) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1111) arc comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1111) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensation while relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referred dictum of the 1\pcx Court in 1-Jaryana State Industrial Development Corporation (IlS/DC) (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what

111./\pp. No. 11 'JS/7008 & connectc.d lip peal> of Village llharthal

111./\pp. 1\!o. & connected llppeais of Vil!age £lijwasan L/1./\pp. No.1 11/2010 & connected llppeals of Village Pochanpur Page 7.6 of 29 \ would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, (]overnment's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Swdtil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural -· lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from Nl-I-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court. on account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, ce11ainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Cow1 to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the I 11.1\p;:>. No & connected /\ppcals of Villar,e Bharthal I J\.1\pp No. /..911//.01.0 & connected Appeals of Villar,e Bijwasan

111./\,:,o. No. ll.l./7.01.0 & connectc>d lip peals of Villar,c Pochanpur Par,c 27 of 29 \ settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apcxt Court in Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- .. When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the imn-zediate or near future, such conclusion 1t'ould be to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."

¶39Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite val uc qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is e broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands di ff'crcntly and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordi.ngly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding l 0% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of 1/\.1\pp. No. 1l9:i/2008 & connected /\ppcals of Villap,c Bharthal 1/\./\pp. No. 29'1/2010 & connected of Villap,c Bijwasan 1/\.1\pp. No. lll/2010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur \ thL' or \'ii!Jgc Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent :"t:; ... ,:. ! the market value of the acquired lands of these -ll. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, stdt utnry bene fiLs as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOJ 2001 (93) DLT 569 arc gramcd. except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for v\ hich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall e be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the a(oresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar C:icncral or this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. .January 06, 2012 pkb 1 /\.1\pp. No. lJ & connected lip peals of Villap,e 13harthal 1 r· .. /\pp. No. 7911/701.0 & connected 1\ppr,als of Village Bijwasan 1 11./\pp. No. 111/7.010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur I . -- -= .... -- = (SUNIL GAUR) .JUUGE ,. ! ., • I \ J • * TN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. versus Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and l\.1r.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates UNION OF INDIA & ANR. . .... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI. Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shanna and Mr. Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6 111 January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.i\pp.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 \ ' • of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appeiiants. Accordingly, this application is allov;cd and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.l"o. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corTcctions be canied out forthwith. In \ icv\ of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. JANUARY 12,2012 pkb · :TSlJNIL GAUR) JUDGE U\.1\pp.No. 1195/2008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: December 08, 2011/ ;.:: Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 70/2010 RAM DEVI & ANR versus UOI&ANR CORAM: Through: Through: ..... Appellant Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38,41-46,49,50-69,73,75, 76) ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR