Bimla v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm -J • IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % fudament Reserved On: W August 2011 ludament Delivered On: 19^^ September. 2017 + RAJ SINGH LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection) Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and ivir.N.S.Negi, Advocate. /s. UOI & ANOTHER Through: Mr.Sanjc & jvlr.Sa Nawani, Kaomud ... Respondents y Poddar, Senior Advocate ijay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Ivir.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AN + LA.APP. 961/2010, No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100 LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA. 1036/2010 & CIV| No.12865/: LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM 7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP. Oil, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP. 6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM No.6740/2011,LA.APP. 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP! 142/2011, 163/2011 248/2011, 375/2011, 394/2011, 407/2011. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 160/2013 246/2011 298/2011 386/2011 397/2011 (Relating to Notification u/S Award No. 06/2002-2003, Villa LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. ec.

15.09.2000 ge-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) & AN D LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatte'rs + ClA.APP. 57/2011 & 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No. LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 CM No.12871/201 LA.APP. 132/2011, 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, ^2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, 8/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, 15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. y LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u, Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi Sec.

30.07.1998 & lage-Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

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

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment shbuld be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. L

¶1I proceed with an apolog notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir learned counsel for arguments with respect to the required price to be suitab / to the reader by referring to a 3oint of time then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had y reduced pertaining, to notificationwhich was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhaiswajahangirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 2 of22 J tq a notification

15.09,2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, ir market value of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ?13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed at ^13.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, in tl-e lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or ?14,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoras well as the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on 01.04.20(|0, notified vide Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing compensation, did not grant cippreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the .learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the price?13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 3 of22 J f

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in same reve Jahangir Purl was acquired p under Section of the Lar

30.07.1998, for the same pub JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 lue estate of village Bhalswa ursuant to a notification issued d Acquisition Act 1894, lie purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of by a declaration under Section 1998. After following due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01

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

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.inA/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?11,46,670/- per acre. The difference : in same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. Collector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment m @ 11% per annum for well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 connected maters Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above.

¶8On behalf of land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on following documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification

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

(b) The rate charged commercial plot In Sanja; terms of the Resolutior by MCD for allotment of ' Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705

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

21.02.2005, vyhereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are hietre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatiers Page 5 of 22: documents, learned co argued that rate unsel for land owners stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fai land comes to ^17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti development costs, fo on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between ?23.7: according to learned coi ^14,36,36,363 per acre suitable deduction col pertaining to undevelope bigha was sold

(g) ?3 learned counsel urged th • market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ?24,76,592/- per acre

(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the for land owners also auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99(ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, " the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square "e in Jahangir Puri at a price lakh to ?28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of counsel urged that Id be effected therefrom d agricultural land,

(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunderland measuring 2-19 2,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ?56,93,163/-or m,£6,169/- per bigha. It was \ LA.App.No.999/2010&, connectedmaters c> contended that this sale after mai<ing a reas development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another deed should be relied upon, onable deduction towards ermine the fair market value ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed

24.03.2000 V' (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in Mamurpur was sold to R village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o the said village as of the i.e.,5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir revenue estate of village >adha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ?26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon,

(e) Learned.counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly^ whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08,1996

(3) ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that land was in the revenue estate of Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell Poddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of ?1,40,000and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the notificationunderSection4 comesto n,94,782per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price of similarland is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat):ers fixing marl<et value of having a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C marl<et value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 Court.

¶10It may be noted that wh above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA 1/5. UP! & Ann in which simil •<2/ V undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the 3llector has assessed fair price much higher than the one so has learned Reference len judgment was reserved in the 19^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition >k.App.No.266/2008 titled lai Singh ar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response to the arguments of learned counsel for the land owners, the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

¶11The topography of villeige Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the deposition of Shri TrilokChand {HalqaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh las explained the topology of the 1/5 Union of India in which he h area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated in ould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the Eiast, villagesSamaipurBadii and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of village Jahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters

¶12I may additionally note that lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoor^ur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

¶13It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post ds in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the area was of a kind where to urbanization was of a weak acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah I/5. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, resettlement colony called Jaf it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975-

¶76It has to be rememberedthat the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement of.slum and J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Sinah l/s". UO! S,

12.8.2011 had yet to be Anr. which was reserved on pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 1 would highlight that hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu t Delhi being revenue estate of ^ Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalarj, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area Bawana, I had noted t LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mati ers ^constituted a 'V at the point Road i.e. NH-1 RohtaI< common point, proceeding Mandi. It needs to be highligl Puri is outside the 'V aforesE 2000, 200i, 2002 and 2003. of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi ited that village Bhalswa Jahangir id'and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

¶15In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notifications issued in the year In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) sale deed

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these ms recorded in paragraphs 21 to two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argumentiis predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable of ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the, evidence to determine fair market value agricultural lands, for all reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered sale the villages In question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was js trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religiouspurpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters V been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S Organization" as per ister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women circumstance, personal to the vendee. i.e. there was a special

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see ,717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Rohini &Ann (RefeH para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC i^oiici. Raufuddin l/s. Land Acouisitinn nffirpr (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for reason there may which have led the buye true test is the price wF buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bu studied the market and be special circumstances •to pay a higher price. The ich a well informed willing need by any special cy to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood topologyof the area ano the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair marl<etvalue of the lands in the I do not highlight that the upon the sale deed dated accepted by learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as against thje price which comes to ^63.478 lakhs per acre jfor Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds area. 1would be failing i Union of India had relied

20.5.2002, which was V LA.App.No.999/2010Sa connectedmattdrs Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-]./3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fancifui price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t Reference Court, with \ reasons in para a reasons to hold that

19.12.2008 disposing o matter being LA.App.h (since deceased) thru L highlighted that the sale had purchased 8 bigha land for expansion of il ignored by the learnec ground that L&T had a 1 hence price reflec treated as a good evide Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as tY market value. The argur in the decision of the Di\ 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed or ie reasoning of the learned vhich I concur, afore-noted bove would be additional sale deeds would advisably not be gooc evidence wherefrom fair market value of subjecjt lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer, I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya Deing the decision a batch of appeals, lead

0.193/2006 Pratap Sinah Rs Vs. UOJ & Ors. It was deed therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural s factory which had been Reference Court on ancy for the said land and :ed therein could not be nee of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable dsduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the he instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair lent ignores the reasoning ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative therein was reduced by would be the same as wo of the market value, but found that if the price 1/3''^ the price arrived at uld be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds i LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters produced by the Governjmentwere giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigha sale deed under which L&T had purchaspd the land gave the price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ?2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ?2,15,160/- per bigha, f 1/3'"'^ would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated from sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the sale was 1993 a Section of the Land

24.7.1995

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

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

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the a Jahangir Puri has been agreed f ^18 lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o ?15,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, .it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4, abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ^18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was fl8 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.7 lakhs per acre. I ne years down the line the price fell id to highlight that in paragraph of its decision, learned Reference Court, while I ' examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the sale) price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer without being influenced by particular land, and had thus

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where an abnormally high p have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with an informed willing seller special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision 008 lai Sinah Vs. UP! & Ann i.e. "ice for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither buyer nor the seller being well-informed and there being a Special feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reite "ate the same.

¶20As regards auction rates of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, I do not find its of the learned counsel for the th the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised oh the decision of the Supreme Court reported as La! situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen land owners concur wit LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Chand 1/5. Unioh of India 2009

(15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e ^idence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.

¶21In my decision

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah 1/5. UP! & Ors.. I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case with reference to price at which ceveloped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in lai Singh's case are extracted hereunder:- |

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai render this evidence as the value of land in the s

¶30It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area would be what would 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which most unreliable to determine Libject cases. as held even by the learned with development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question be value to which building potentiality would translate itself.

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

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

¶23. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which jviCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when iease-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La/ Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed discarded with reference to village RIthala where lands were acquired for Rohini Residential Scheme, I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi

758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.

¶25From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil village Burari is on the east of indeed the plan for Delhi lages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir. Puri and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous iurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters V thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable. market value of the land situated jcquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of had considered material on record i.e. evidence in my decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. l/s. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ^11,60 land, n0,44,522.73 per ac

¶26While assessing the fair in village Burari, which was a

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A re for Category B land ^9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification

24.7.1998. notification

18.07.2002 The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/- per acre for CategoryAland and n7,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. Ir •iai Singh's case {supra), I had assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as unden-S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

¶1Pooth Khurd

7.8 2000 n4.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'

¶2Holambi Kalan

7.8. 2000 ?14.75

¶3j Bawana

7.8. 2000 ?14.75 for Category 'A' ?14.38125 for Category 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.c .2000 ?14.835 for ,Category 'A' ^4.46413 for Category 'B' LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters

¶5Narela

2.5 .2001 n6.165 . for Category 'A' n5.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan 22 8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶7Alipur

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ?

16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 n8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 n8.655 ,

¶15Sanoth

¶27L.2003 n9.435 for Category 'A' as.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Kalan

27.; L.2003 ^9.435 for Category 'A' ns.94912 for Category 'B' ^8.47539 for Category 'C

¶27In jai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time to time and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojinected matters Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Singh Vs. UP! & Ann. 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander 1/5. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. (JO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 i^ahender Singh Vs. UOi & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t various dates between the years • the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricdiltural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ^4.65 lakhs per acre whi of 1.4.1997 i.e. the incre ch rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as ase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increa rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years as of

1.4.2001. It. sh between the year 199C 5e would be 16.436%. The price r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e., ows that due to urbanization, and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the -• • • Gairats case (supra), wh above. ! I ,

¶51I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Djscussing the evidence pertaining^to fair market value of agricultural land in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 village Holambi Kalan as Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Court discussed valuation on basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in surrounding areas including potentiality, in para onwards the Court discussed the, matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to ^^10,03,364/- per acre (flefer para 31). The Court then considered ,the prices notified by the Government as per policy

1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in when Government issued minimum price notification w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ?10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthatthe pric^ was ^0,03,364/-per acre.

¶52The decision in Mahender Sinoh's case, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference! to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan forjoelhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court Which was projecting residential, cornmercial industrial future exploitation of agriculturalland in Delhi|and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so. projecting la potentiality, the same hnds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality of the notification with , concerned, virtually no c evidencedby the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which Division Bench was . - -evelopment had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploitedthe potential. As I have already highlightedin n:=ir3 /I Q i . . ^ para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The c LA.App.No;999/2010& connectedmatte a gap between what would be et growth and what the market ecisions in Gairafs case rs L Mahender Singh's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about

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

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

0.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by eitherpartiesotherthan the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that Learned I Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principleand has relied upon the correct ev dence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasingthe price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters I . Section 4 of tine Land Acquis furtlier enhance the compe dismiss all appeals and cross land owners or the Union of I

¶29I leave the parties to bea SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm ition Act and finding no scope to nsation or to reduce the same objections, whether filed by the ndia. r their own cost. -j— d (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.999/2010& coimectedmatte:TS

$-34 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI M + LA.APP. 57/2011 & C.M.No.12871/2011 (cross-objection) BIMLA Appellant Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MRJUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG