Gyani 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 JUDGE lN THE HlGH COURT OF DELlU AT rn:w DELHI Reserved on: November j8 2011 --· .. ---------·-·------ ---····--- -·- -··---L----·--··· :·_l_Cf:t!Y:_(.ltJ!... 2:_Qj]_ (GRID-A) L/\.i\PP.ll95/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) R/\.NBIR SHARMA l'hro;1gh: versus ..... Appellant Mr.B.s".Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Venna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvin•.icr Godara, Advocate Mr.N .S.l\fcgi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.J.\1.Azam Ansari, Advocates. l\1r Panl,,,j· \r"""'' . •. '\..\.1_1 Y I \' \,..J .. ., 'I. ... _..'-''-'-L'- 1\tlr.Rajcsh Mr.Dcepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhan::mjay Mchiawat, Advocates Mr.JtS.Rauu.:l<L /\d\ocate Mr.I.S.DahiyJ, Ach;ocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathl, ;\dvocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.!I.S.Rautela, (t\dvocates fi1r respondenl in filed by UOl) or INDIA & ANR. I) · .. .... ,x: ... J\L, · .. _. "l'hruug.h: Poddar, Senior Ad,·ocate. with lV!r .Sa:1ja} Pathak, Mr.l\;Johitran .•<tdha\· and . . Ms.K.Kaum·udi Kiran. Advr,catcs f(•:· I .AC:-'UOI Mr.Ajav Vern:>:a, Soni. Kumar, Mr S.K."lethi. Mathur. l\t1r.Kunal Shanna. Advocate fi.:-r DDA ! .'\.!\ PP 4 J ::t::oos & (Cross-·C>hjectionsJ, L.'\ .. J\.PPA52(WOiL l. "\ ... \PP AS:.l,/2008; L/\.l\ PP .588/2008 8: C\.1. i'h1. 5990/20 J 0 (Cross· Objc.c·iions); I.A.APP.6'..l7/2008 & & C!\'1.1\.)-:) 510/2009 L \ i\PP t.:\.APP.T/0/200iL. 1 / .. 1\;.'p.

11.%r:o:J.'l & coPnrcted of Bh<J'i h:.JI ; i9<1/70"IC· r.on11erted oi· Villnr,c: _I'' t\pp. ;,.,, 11! 1/010 & cor.nc·w·.d ,\ppcii'; oi Viilagc: l'ocr.;Jnpur LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LJ\.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.383512009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections):. LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; U\.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.6 15/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 · (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objectiqns); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; I.J\.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.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.J\PP.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.Nu.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993'/2008;LA.APP.l 029/2008& CM.No.l7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 031/2008 &· CM.No.l7335/2008 (Cross-Objections);

1./\./\PJ>.l 032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 046/2008; I .A.APP.l 047/2008;LA.APP.l 048/2008& C:\1.No.7851 /2009 (Cross-Objections); LA./\PP.l049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.lOS0/2008; LA.APP.l 051/2008 & CM.No.l7262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 032/2008; L/\.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l054/2008 & CM.No.l766/2009 (Cross-Objections):, LA.APP.l 055/2008;LA.APP.l057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l058/2008& CM.No.l557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l059i200R & CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); J .A.APP.l 060/2008;LA.APP.l 062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); I J\.APP.l 073/2008; LAAPP.l 074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); I . .A.APP.l 075/2008; LA.APP.l 081/200S & ·cM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1 084/2008& CM.No.l7302/2008 (Cro5s-Objcctions); LA.APP.l086/2008 & · CM.No.2448/2008 LA.APP.l087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 093'2008; A.APP.l 094/2008; LA.APP.l 095/2008; T.A.APP.IJ 03/2008 & CM.No.441 /2009 (Cross-Objections)J_,/\.APP.ll 08/2008 & C!'v1.No.383912009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.J109/2008: LA.APP.lll0/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. L\.APP.lllli2008; LA.APP.lll2/2008 & crv1.No.3831 /2009 (Cross-Objections): I ,A.APP.l113i20(l8 & CM.No.3826/2009 (C;·oss-Objections); LA.APP.lll5!20()8; LA..APf.lll6/2008; LA.APP.I121/2008; f,A.APP.ll26/2008; LA.APP.ll29i200R & r ,A.J\PP.l 1 30/2008; LA.APP. 1 13 U200k & C]VI.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); !,/\.J\PP.ll33/2008; LA.APP.l 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ll37/2008 & CM.No.l/283/2008 (Cross-Objections); L!\.APP.ll40/2008; LA.APP.Il56/2008; LA.APP.ll57i2008; LA.APP.1 158/2008 & CM.No.7774.'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 159/2008; LA.:\PP.ll61 /2008; LA.APP.ll66/2008; LA.APP. 1 167/2008 & CM.No.802/20Q9 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.ll68/2008; i .A.APP.ll70/2008; LA.APP.ll7J/2008; LA.APP.1172/2008; LA.APP.ll73/2008; l..A./\PP.l 1 75/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.ll79/2008; LA.APP.l181/2008;

1./\./\PP.ll82/2008; LA.AP.P.1183/2008& C'M.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); l./\.i\PP.I184/2008; LA.APP.ll 8512008; LA.APP.l186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 t.'l t\pp. No 't1%/?.008 !', conr.ected Arpeals of Bharth<tl t.'l No. & con:1('C\ed 1\ppeals of VillagE! [lijwas.Jn 1 /U\pp. No. ·;.1 l/.':110 connectd! 1\ppea:s of Pochanour · Page 2 ot' 29 • % (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ll90/2008; LA.APP.ll91/2008; LA.APP.ll92/2008; LA.APP.Il93/2008; LA.APP.ll94./2008; LA.APP.ll95/2008; LA.APP.ll97/2008; LA.APP.ll98/20Q8& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I200/2008; LA.APP.I202/2008; LA.APP.l203/2008; LA.APP.l21 0/2008; LA.APP.121112008; LA.APP.l212/2008; LA.APP.l21 3/2008; 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.I243/2008; LA.APP.l252/2008; I ,A.APP.l275/2008; LA.APP.l276/2008; LA.APP.l277/2008; LA.APP.l279/2008; LA .APP .1280/2008; LA.APP.l281/2008; LA .. APP .1283/2008; LA.APP .1284/2008; LA.APPJI/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; .l.A.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I 08/2009; LA.APP.l 09/2009; LA.APP.l21/2009; LA.APP.135/2009; LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.l39/2009; I ,,'\.1\PP. 140/2009; LA.APP.I43/2009; LAAPP .144/2009; LA.APP.145/2009; LA.APP.I62/2009; LA.APP.l87/2009: LA.APP.l90/2009; LA.APP.191/2009; LA.APP:l97/2009; LA.APP.l98/2009; LA.APP.199/2009; LA.APP.201/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.Zl0/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA./\PP.21l/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LAAPP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.22412009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009; I HI\.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LAAPP.295/2009; LA.APP.JOS/2009; LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009: LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.481/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2.009; LA.APP.49112009; LA.APP.493/2009; L/\.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2()09; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.506/2009; 1 A.APP.507/2009; LA ... i.\PP.509/2009.. LA.APP.Sl 0/2009; LA.APP.Sll/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.5l3/2009: LAAPP.567/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.IS/201 0; LA.APP.45/20l0; LA.APP.48/201 0; I.A./\PP.404/2010; LA.APP.U/2011: i_A./\.PP.1138/2008: LA.APP.1176/2008:

1./\./\PP .1177 /2008; I,A.APP.l201 /2008: L/\.APP.2Jl i2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.l0(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) Bs:_§gfved...9...t..Z: DeC€_fJJ ber:__Q(i_]_O Jj_ Pronounced on: Januar1J 06 2012 -------. L/t.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWASAN). DJ:VENDl]{ KUMAR Through: · ... ;.Appellant M:-.R.S.Tomar, J'vlr.Virendra Singh I 1\.11 pp. '"<> U %/.'OO!l & connected lip peals of Village flharthal 'f\.1\pp. ''JD. /.'!4/2010 & connc!cled /\ppeals of Village Hijw<JS<HI 11\./\pp fllo .lll/2 .. 010 & connectt:d ,\ppea/s of Village versus UOl & ANR LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010

1./\.APP. 100/20 l 0 l.A.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 28212010 LA.APP. 2S7/2010 LA.A .. PP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 346/20 I 0 !.i\.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010

1./\ .APP. 360/2010 I..A.APP. 405/2010 L.'\.APP. 409/2010 U\.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki l'lnd 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.Saniay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for llOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and M.r.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, '71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.8ankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. lJ/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 5L'2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 5912010 LA.APP. 70/20 tO LA.APP. 221!2010 LA APP. 223/2010. LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 246/:2010 LA.APP. 2.77/2010 LA.APP. 28112010 LA. APP. 283/201 0 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 288.'2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 296/20i0 LA .APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 351:'2010 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. 361/20"10 LA .. APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 406/20 l () · l./\.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 438/2.010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 721/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 72512010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 72Y/20 I 0 LA.AP.P. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA <\PP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 82812010 L PP. 286/20 , ./\PP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 80120.10 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Relating to Notification No. F. to(30)Y6-L&· B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. Village Bijwasan, Delhi) : r, /\pp. & connectr!d of VillugP. Bhartnill I /U\pp N<• .. /.010 & connc:r.terJ 1\ppea!s of Viliage flijwasJn AND • 11 t\p;;. J\I'J ·1 1 ;;:ww & con:wctf'd r,pp•,'uis of Village Pocha!lpt.:r Page 4 of l9 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 L/LAPPO 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORSO 0 App'ellants Through: l\tlrOBODO Sharma, 1v1r.SoKoSolanki and MroSOKORout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59. 63 to 71) versus Mr.SoBO Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LAoAppoNoo 61, 64, 65/2011) MroRajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) UN10N OF INDIA & ANR Through: 0 Respondents MroSanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, MroMohitrao Jadhav. and MsoNavlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC LA.APPO 111/2010 LA.!\PPO 160/2010 LAOAPPO 228/2010 Li\.APPO 254/2010 Li\.APPO 292/2010 L!\OAPPO 307/2010 LAO;\J>P. 395/2010 L/\ 1\PP. 420/2010 LA.APPO 466/2.010 LAOAPP. 637/2010 LAOAPP. 660/2010 LAAPP. 767/2010 LAOAPP. 919!2010 LA.APPO 65/2011 L/\.1\PPo 120/2011 Li\oi\.PP. 476/2011

1./\ .APP. 523/2011 LA.APPO 536/2011 Mr.Bnnkey Bihari Sharma, MroKunal Sharma and Mr.Somer KOSeth, Advocates for DDA: LA.APPO 154/2010 LAOAPPO 155/2010 LAOAPPO 156/2010 LA.APPO 165/2010 LA.A.PPO 209/2010 LA.APPO 215/2010 · LAOAPPO 248/2Cd 0 LA.APPO 249/2010 LAOAPPO 250/2010 LA.APPO 260/2010 LAOAPPO 26112010 LA.APPO 270/2010 LA.APPO 293/2010 LA.APPO 305/2010 LAOAPPO 306/2010 LAOAPPo 317/2010 LAAPP. 392/2010 LA.APPO 39312010 LA.APPO 396/2010 LA.APP. 397/2010 LA.APP. 412/201 0 LA.APPO 432t2010 LA.APPO 433/2010 LAOAPP. 434/2010 LA.APPO 489/2010 lAOAPPo 577/2010 LAOAPPO 635/2010 LA.APPO 639/2010 r_AOAPP. 640/2010 LAOAPP. 657/2010 LA.APPO 662/2010 LAOAPP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APPO 768/201 U LAOAPP: 784/2010 91 g;::w10 LA.APPO 1052/2010 · LA.APPO 61/2011 LAoAPP 0 64/2011 LA.APP. 116/2.011 LA.APPO 117/2011 LAoAPPO 1 19/2011 LA.APPO 121/2011 LA.APPO 129/201 LAOAPPO 429/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011 LA.APPO 521/2011 LA.APPO 522/2011 L.A.APPO 525/2011 L'\.APP. 526/201 I LA.APPO 535/2011 LA.APPO 554/201 1 LA.APPO 591/2011 1/1./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connectP.d Appeals of Village Bhanha/ IA/\po. No. /.94/2010 & connected llppeais of Viii age Bijwasan I /1..1\pp No J & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur (Relating to Notification No. F.l 0(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR . .JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012 I. Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to No.F.10(30)96-L& B!I.A/13417 dated 13.12.2000., relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. ') Acquisition process for planned development of 'JJwarka Phase-I!' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of of 13 " 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 questitJn, i .c., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants here.in in the aforesaid three vi llagcs stood acquired by the vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award . No.30/2002-2003 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 acqui!-ed IA!Ipp. No. 1 & connected llppeals.of.Village Bharthal I !lt\pn. No. & connt!cted Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA/\pp. No. & ror.nenr·!d Appeals of Village Page 6 n( 29 agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of· the !Jand Acquisition Act; 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ lac.s 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 11) 2 SCC 246; An} ani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goil and Anr., (201 0) 13 SCC 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State of Har.vana and Anr., (20 1 0) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (20 1 0) 3 SCC 661; Ran vir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofindia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La/ vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & Anr., 2002 ( 65) DIU 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 201 0(9) SCALE 41; Chakas l'S. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavtiji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra. (1.009) I 1 SCC 1 71; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of llaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana rs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (201 1) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Det:jibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, !/\ llpp. No.:! & cunnectPd Appeals of VillagE' ilh<Jrtha' : 11./\pp. No. & connect<!d Appeals of Village Bijwasan .'I.App. No 1 J 1/20.1.0 & conn<!ctr!d Appeals of Village \'V / Gu}arat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2.42.4; llaryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DIU 527 (DB); Lal Chand vs. Union of .India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Vailiyammal 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; . Kapil .Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(20 1 I) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. ;e Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 1 O ... SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi/ Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. 1\.PP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of .India, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Ram vs. Union of1ndia, 2010 ( 1 70) DLT 3 71.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by .l\1r.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 ro lhe near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by M.r.R.S.Tomar, cowisel ior appellants t.hat Dclhi-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 raiJ·way line is the tGI Airport, New Delhi 111 1\op No. l & conm•ctcd /\ppeals of Village Bhanba! I 1\.f\pp. No. & connec•.cd 1\ppeals of Village Bijwasan i /1.1\pp. 111//.010 & connected 1\ppeals of Pocf)anpu' .. Page B of 29 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 Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of I GI 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 ofViilage Bharthal and V.illage Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-! 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 sizras/map to highlight that the boundary or Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.l\1aan, 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 e illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16t 11 October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed fi·om agriculturar to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the. entire land of ViJ.lage Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 24 til October, 1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two N6t.ifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama I /1./\pp. No. l.i 'l5/Z008 & connect<!d of Village Bharthal ! 1\ 1\pp .. No. 291!/?.0lO & connecteci 1\ppC!ab of Village Bijwas.an ! 11./\pp. . .1.1.1/ZO.lO & connec.teo 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 ncar 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 _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 ret1ected therein varied from lacs to lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars ca]ll1ot 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 !l1olu 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. l 1. Assessment of market value o[ the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates tlxed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determined rates fixed by the (J-overnmcnt 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 I 11./\pp. No. l.l95/200!1 & connected /\ppea!s of Village Oharthal Ll\.1\pp. No. ?.94/?01.0 & connr.r.ted /\ppeal5 of· Village Bijwasan I 11./\pp No. l'1J/2Cl.O connP.cted /\ppP.als of Village Poch<inpur Page 10 of ZS sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above. J 2. In the written synopsis, appellant--' Impulse India Private Limited of I JA. · 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 Avttard No.2612002-2003 dated 2 3.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.J90 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 aff'ected the land in !he area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 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 qf the more recent decisions of the Hon'hle Supreme Court m Sangunthala versus Tah\·ildar. 2010(3) SCC 661 . • , d) ignores the evidence and other .frlctors which as per established law has to be considered be1ore ascertainine J' <..> the value qfthe land under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble .Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakiro Pati! versus Special Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The lion 'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deed showing higher should no! be disregarded in 1/\.,\pp. No. J 19';/2008 & llppeals of Village lt\.1\pp. No. ?94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan !1\.t,pp. No. L11i2.010 & llppeals of Village Pochanour case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 201 0(13) SCC 710, the Supreme 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. 9-7 A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the mazerial which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A 13,36, 000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Han 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Ila1:vana 2010(1) SCC .... 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment · refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 jl·amed 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 and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and .7\iot{lications of Government for land use change show that in future land can be to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in respect c.{the 74th amendment qf the Constitution lndw. w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A. by virtue of which the A1uniczjx.zl Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was - deemed a municipal area end the municipal Counsellor , was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) to apply the lmv laid down in AIR Supreme Court Ranvir .Sb,zgh and Anr vs. Union of India and refused to consider the fact that the development in the area has a direct ef}ecl :?n the price that a willing purchaser would payfor the subjecT kmd.

i) ignored the fact Respondent No. 2 · had also L/\.1\pp. No. 1195; /.008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

1.1\.1\pp. No 294/1.010 & connected Appeals of Village l/\./1pp. 1\!o. 111/2010 & 1\ppeols of Village Pochanrur \?\ /

¶13auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about 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 Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) JJoes not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of ].Jl,varka 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 o,(Delhi State. /) Ignored Notifications dated 16. l 0. 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 thepurposefor 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 C?f buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The landrs were acquired for purpose cl' putting. up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoininf{ lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in thf! near jitture. " In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. 34 712009, 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 appea:ls in these bunch of appeals. I 4. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appcJ !ants, it was urged by Mr. Anand Y adav, Advocate that the effect of !./\.1\pp. r.lc .. 119!>/:'008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 1/\./\pp No. 294/2010 &. wnnectf:d Appeals of VillJgr. BijwJSun 11\./\pp. No. lll/2010 & connened /l.ppeals of 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 of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(20 11) 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 vaiue for the acquired lands is sottght in these appeals . t 5. Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per 51-·A of 1-r.md 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 element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. ate 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 .lai La/ vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DIU 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/ J(umar 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 Duch sharp increase are explained by producing in CVidericc the seller Ll\.1\pp No. & connected Appeals of Viilage Bharthal 1/\.1\pp. No. /.911/2010 & connected Appeals of VilfaP,c Bijwasan I No. 11.1/:>010 & Appeals of Village Pochanpur 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 Swami 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-Dctcrmin.cd Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (supra) and Ra.i Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, \t was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the • objectors that the same has already been factored into, fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1 April, 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 Su:shil 1\:umar (supra) appreciation @ 1 Oo/o 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 Com1: while taking into 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.

¶17· Aftei· 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 t)aid by willing purchaser to a willing

1./\./\pp. No. & connected llppeals of Village BharthJI iAi\pp. No. 29!1/:1010 & connected flppeals of Village Bijwasan No. ; 1 'l/?.C· lO F. connec:ted /lppeals of Village Pochar.pur Page 15 of Z9 • 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 Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 20 I 0(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- ·· (i) 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: ( i i) the suitability of the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be the,y residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be,·

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

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired landfor building purpose;

(v) existence of hi;;hways, puhlic roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity qfthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of' buildings, if built on the acquired land; and ("·ii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itse(f being in deinand for building purposes, to spec !fy a few. "

¶18The 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 ·1 A.Apo. No. U<JS/?.008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I A.1\pp. No & connected Appeals of Village 13ijwilsan I /\.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Pap,e 16 of 29 which the lands were sought to he 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 determination 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 of large pieces of iand were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 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 fa either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are "o:..' 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 1\pex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to \vith advantage.

¶211\pcx Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note oft:he fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development chargcf> was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Motu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:-

1.:\.llpp. No. J 1.S5/2008 & connected llppeals of Village Bharth3: I /\.1\pp. 1\io. 2911/7010 & r.onn-::cted i\ppE!als of Vil!age I 11./\pp. ll:o. 111//.010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur "The Legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar 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 of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference 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 41t by the Apex Court in Chindha rakira Patil (Supra), which are as rollows:- "It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of 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 val-ue, 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), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in Land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand (or lavzd in the area. In rural areas unless there is any pro:s'J)(!Ct of development in the vicinity, increase in prices ·would be slow, steady and gradual, without anysudden spurts or jumps. 1/\.f,pp. No. J 1%/2.008 & of Vjilagc £lharthal '1\./\pp No. 294/2010 & connected t.,ppeals of Village Bijwasan 1/\.J\pp. No. J J li20l0 s, connected /\ppeals of VillaRe Por.har.pur .. Page 18 of zg .c"r \ 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 moreper year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance qf 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. Therefore if the increase in 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 qf thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence r-!fclear 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. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearb}' lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transacticms or acquisition). v.·here there is no evidence of an_y contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the reh"ed-orz-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the suhfect acquisition by only a few years, lhat is upto .four to .five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe. even ff h relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the ,rj,·ap is a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard 1-vhere the gap is larger. For example. determining the market value of a land acquired. in 1992, adopting the annual increase method 'Vith reference to a sale or . ./\pp. \Jo. ! 1%; 200P. e. Appeals of Village Bh.arthar ! 1\./\po. No. & Appeals of Village 8ijwasan I ,\.flpu Nn. 11.1;:>.010 & connected Appeals of Village ?ochan;::•.;r 19 ot 29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. 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 of increase. ''

¶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:-

¶25,' When d(fferent categories of lands (or lands with different situational advantages) are acquiredfor the same purpose. /(n· frJrming of a resideniial court<; have sometimes felt that determination of their value witH reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same not(fication. " Undisput.edly, 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 lacs to lacs per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.P¥/-114 to l:x.PW-1110) which . arc basically between one set of co--owners and Radha Swami Satsang, Beas 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 \vhich is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale IA!Ipp. No. 1195/2008 & con11ected Appeals of Village Bharthal

1.1\.1\pp. No. :!'l•li2010 &. cor.nected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I /\.1\pp. No. 1·11 /2010 & Appeals of Village Pochanpur n.v,••v.pJ· .. -s ....., ..... . a.lt..., I.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) 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-1/10) 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 parcei of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative pr_ice 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-1/10) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not - been got examined by the appellants. Had the 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 M.amurpur 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 br-ing used for agricultural purpose till their. acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having kno,i',rledge of prevaiJing

1./1./\pp. No. l J 95/2008 & connected of Village llharthal . IA/\pp. No. 294/2010 & r.onnected Appeals of Village Bijwasan ll\.1\pp. No. J 11/2010 & r.onnened Appeals of Village Pochanpur 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 consi.dered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.P\V-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-1/11) rei ied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ,76,55, 172.41 per acre to Sale Deed of 2i 11 January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/1 1) was situated on the Nationaf Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon ,41 including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands m 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 Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acqujred lands highlighted by Apex Court in its derision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer flyderabad Urban Development Authority llyderabad and Or:-1., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- .. 12. 1/owever, in either the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value rif' the acquired land with huilding potentiality with re,ference to the price fetched by sale in a well developed laJ'OUt in the neighborhood lt\./lpp. No. & conner.ted oi Village Bharthal I 11./\pp. Nc. 2911/:'01.0 & AppP.als of Village B1jwasan I 1\.f,pp. Nc. 1.11/1.010 & Appeals of Village Por.hanpiJr • or whether it be the determination qf the market value qf 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 for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales of plots in the layouts, relied upon by any qfthe parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have .fetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of th.e acquired lands becomes available, then what could be don·e is tn .find out the market value of the acquired land with rc;derence to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) qf 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 of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to be mi1de available in that regard. A ·small percentage. increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building arises only when there is no evidence. of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even if formed in the acquired land. " 3 1 . In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the DD/\ after acquiring the agricullural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leas-ehold rights, the Apex Court in La/ Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La/ Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in J(li 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 t/1.1\pp. No. ll%/2008 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bharthal IA/\pp. No. ?OW & connected /\ppeals of Village Bijwasan lll./1pp. No.lll/7.010 & connected /\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.

¶32Novy what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method 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-I. 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 l 0% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period interv_ening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-! and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-II, still the price fixed by the I Jand Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and thcref6rc, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does 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, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-II is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate

1.1\./\pp. Nc. 11%/2008 & connected t\ppeals of Village Bharthal

1./\./\pp. No. 294/2010 & conr.ected Appeals of V1llage Bijwasan I 1\./\pp. No. lll/?.DlO & connr!rted Appeals of Village Pochanpt;r 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 unwarranted as a cooTdinatc bench of this Court in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 1 Oo/o per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqvired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi/ Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court (£y 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismisse_d.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court 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. lst April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's mm11num rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notit!·cation in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to he an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 24 111 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide Notification of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had chang<:d bLit that by itself is not sufficient to 1/1.1\pp. No. 1195/20CR & connHted llppeals of Village Bharth;u i\pp. No. i'li\/2010 &. connected /,ppeals of Village Bijwasan IA/\po. No. :J 1..1//.0.W & connectr?d /\ppr.als of Village l'ochanpur 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 Notification 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 could have laid their hands on other sale instances in area i.n 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-1111) without leading any evidence to establish that the. quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha SHlami Sa/sang, 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 vvith the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot' be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensati<m while relying upon the af()resaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation . (H ... \'JD.C) (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 agrieultural.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 i 11./\pp. No. lJ CJ'>/20'J8 & wnnr.cted /\ppeals of Village Bharthal I 11./\pp. 1\Jo. 294/7.010 & Appeals of Village Bijwasan IAI\pp. No.1 11/2010 & connect<'o llopeals of Village Pochanpur would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government'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 Sushi/ 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 aii'd Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the si.tuation 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 t.he IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 metas vide road starti.ng from NH-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 fll' 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 l_ocational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What this Court to grant 10% increase over arid 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 Lf, 1\r:;p. No. & cornHted Appeals of Villagr! Bhorthal 1/l.llpp. No. /..94/2.010 & cormected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I t,./\pp. No: 1.1.1//.010 & connect(!d llppe<!is of Village Pochanpur settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza 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 immediate or near future, such conclusion woLdd he sufficient 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 value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is __ broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's -minimum· prices Cor 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 ITercntly 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 l increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the a1hrcsaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding 1 0% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bi_jwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of LA./\pp No & connected 1\ppeals of Village Bharth;JI I .. 1\pp. !llo. /.91/;'olo & wnnectcd 1\ppeals of Village Bijwasan · I /1.1\pp No. J ll;2010 & connected 1\ppcals of VillagP. Pochanpur the appellants of Village ·Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined @ for the . r - \'"l.-t' Category 'A' land and @ for the Category 'B' lands in question. lh-• 4 I . On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the _judgment reported in, ·Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which periC>d of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall .4f be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above c':lptioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingfy prepared. .January 06, 2012 pkb 11\.flpp. No. 11%/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal I /\.1\pp. No. & connected lip peals of Village Bijwasan . -----___.., ,.---"'--'--'-- (SUNIL GAUR) .JUDGE

111./\pp. No. lll/7.010 & connected lip peals of Village Pochanpur * + IN 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. Mr.Raghuvindcr Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.N.egi and Mr.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. versus Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates UNION OF INDIA & ANR. . .... Respondents Throtlgh: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI CORAM: Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr. Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.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 riot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In view of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. .JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb l.J\.App.N o. 119 5/2 008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 80/2010 GYANI 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 UOIILAC 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