Lt Gen Manjeet Singh Boparai v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma V5. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb [L GAUR) JUDGE •I IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Er.^nounc'jd on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.i195/2008(VILLAGE-BBARTHAL) RA.MB1R SHARMA .....Appellant-Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr..TaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mi.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Te\\:athia, Advocates .Mr.Anand Yadav andMs.Anita Tomar, Advocates. |/lr.Rohfas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuviiider G^dara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negl and Mr.H.S.Raute'ia, Advocate Mr.SJC.Rout,and,Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Kho-slfi,Mr.Sarnil Khosla and Mr.Dliananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rauleki, Advocate Mr.LS.Dahiya,Advocatfi Mr.Sandeep Thakhiir. Advocate Mr.Atui Tripathi, Advocate. ' Mr.N.S.Negi and MrJi.S.Rautela, .(Advocates for respondent in appeals fifed by lj0.1) versus i.'X'lON()}• (NiDIA& ANK.. Respondentf-" ' Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith.Mi'.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi .Kiran, A.d^'Qca^esfor .l..,AC/UOi Mv.Ajay Vcnrja, Ms.Beenashaw S'oni, Mr.Mukesn Kiunar. iVl.r.S..K.Sethi,Mi.Pawan Matlmr, N4i-.Ku.nal Shara:ia, ..•'\dvocaiQ for DDA .!..A.APP.412/2008& CM,No,4096/200S rCross-Obieclion::;);LA.AP?.452/2008; I...A.APP.453/2008;LA.APJ'.6«8/2008& CM.No.5990/2010(Cro^^-Olyeotions); LA.A.P]\697/200S& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/2008& C\'!.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768./2008; LA.A;P,P.7?0/?.C08; Wo. .•i.:i.!)!:/?.008 & connectedAppealsofVillageDharttial .No. ?.i;.:/2.010& c:onn(;ctedAppealsof VillageIlijwni.in . Mo. 1.11/?.0,10S .:-..niic:tlaci Appealsof VillaRt!PocNanpur -,1;,^^•, j,, ft^J i-A.AlI.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (CrOvSS-Objections)" LA APP 779/9008 CM & CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.774/2008cfe CM.No.611/200; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008-LA APP 776/9008-LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008& CM.No.940/900Q (cVo^Obecl^ns^ CM No 6^5/^0?^^^^ LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008& CMNcv61^C009 (Cross-Obiections); LA,APP.799/2008 & CM.No931/9009 CM ^ 79S^^ LA.A1^^805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008& ni '-OSS-Ob,ections); LA.APP,814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 Cros.s-Ob|ections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008-IAAPP 820/2008-L..A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/9008' XaPP 83V9008-' la.APP844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008& C^XNo7^ ' Cioss-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No,799/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV LA.APP.9.5/2008; CM.No./09/^009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA APP 973/2008- • LA,APP.974/2008& CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objeo.ion)• Ta APP 975 200s' LA.APR976/20a8; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP,986/2008& CMNoStS (Q-oss-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.17340/2008' vCtoss-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Obier^tionsV LA.APP.1032/2008& CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections)-LA APP 1046/2008- -A.APP.I047/2008;LA.APP.104S/2008&CM.N0.7Ls1/2009 £rrs-ObjeS-IAAPP 1 ^ CM.No.420/2009(Cross-Objecrions);LA.-^PP]050/9008• •-.A.APP.l 03 1/2008 & CM.No,17262/2008(Cross-Objeclions)"!AAPp'l0-9/o008-CKlNo.416/2009(Cross-Objectio"3);lA.A?P.I054a008& LA-APF.iO55/2OO8;I,A.APP,1057/2()0S& " (^-ross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No I559/701| Cross-Objections);l.A.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(Cro^s-ObjectvvisV A,:M=P.K.60/2008;1:.A,APP.1062/2008 & CM.No,546/2009(clotS" (t:> .-A,,J'P,i07.;/2008;LA.APP.1074/2008 <& CM,No.62:i/2009(Cross-Cihiecii,"'' .APP.1075./2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009fC^ollob=.,io;;sK f''^1084,/2008& CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-C3bjeclions);L,A.APP.lb86,.;900S ck CM.ilo.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.!687,/2008& CM No 6.10/9000 lU-oss-Obiections);LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2006• ^-M.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA,APP'.1108/2008 U\'1.No.jS.,9/z009(Cross-ObjectiojLs);LA.APP.]109/2008; LA.APP.111 (V'-^OOR (."M.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.APP.:1112/2008& ' (.M.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM No "896/9009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1115/2008; LA.APP.1116/2008; LA APP ir^i/^ooV-LA.APP..lI26/2()08;LA.APP.1129/2008 &. CM.No.550/2009(Cross-ObjmLis); LA.APP.113()/2008;LA./\PP.L131/2008& CM.No.566/2009(Cross-Objections)- L/\.APP,1133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008& CM".No.7442/2009('Cros.s-ObiectionsV .A..''VPr'.[1.57.^2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections):LA APP 1140/900S-LA.APP.I156/2008;LA.APP.l157/2008;LA.APP.1158,/2008& CM No 7774^009 (Cross-Objections);[.A.APP.1]59/2008; LA.APP.1161./2008; LA.APP.1166./2()08-LA.APP,1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP 1168/9008-l-A.APP.ir/0./2008;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.1172/2008;LA APp"! .A..A1'P.1175/2008; LA.APP.l178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008;LA APP 1181/9008-J^A.APP.1183/2008&CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objecii'ons); i.A../',!1.1 18^/2008; LA.APP.l185/'2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& C.M.No.70J3/2009 'M)|' i-Jo. nii'ViJOOSa toniu!ctcdA\3pn3l.solVilh.'p,eSligrlhal i.A./\.i:.(i.Mo. conncclGclApt^palso( VillafioBijwa:;nn iA.App Nr., Iij/;i0,10&coniuiciedAppealsof Vii,agt:Pochanpui-PaBe2o;?.3, . -.-J LA-APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.I191/2008;LA.APP1lOTnons-LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.1195/2008;LA APP 1197/20()s' LA.AI P.l I98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objectioiis)''lAAPP 1200/2008* LA.APP,1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.12lSo8-IaIpPmSs" CMZelsSa-'"'or''^LA.APP.1223/2008;La.app.uisnml CnInoS41S ?r ni I-A.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.I241/2008& rf ADD C^ross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2nOR- ..AI1 .1^75/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.l277/2008'LA APP 1279/7008' LA.APR1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2^8'LA.APR 28^ itsis t"sisz VsS llliiiii • ki=-SSH~SSH HS iiiiS s ill iiii !ii LA.APP.572/200Q-1a\ APPT^nmn. i . ^ ' LA./-vPP.56//2(.!ij>>; LA.APP:nTO200U^A^^^^^^^^^^^ La:^Pp'i17S^^ (Retafingto NotificationNo. F,10(30)/96/L&B/LA/I3417dated 13.12.2000

26.^2002-2003dt?T23JO.io!'H/wtegt^^^^^ Oy y 0 (GRID-B) Re^rved on: Decp.mhpy08. 201 / Pionouncedon:January 06, 2012 LA.A.PP.294./2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) l.)ilVi;-NDERKUMAR , " -,M , ,, . Appellant hiough: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh '^•-App NO, ,t-'V2008>4 connmeriAppealsof V.llngeBhartha! UJ. &(.cnnectnjAppoiil;of Villago!Bij.va.san -•••Vl'.Nu . corn,MoriAppwl.-;ofViliagnPochanpur Page 3 of 7.9 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (inR-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.A.PP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. t.,A.APP. i.A.APP. i.A.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP.

1...A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L.A.APP, LA.APP, I...A.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 52/2010 56/20] 0 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287,/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010

723./2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Ihrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.VirendraSingh,Advocatein R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma,, Mr.Kunal Shtirma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA LA.APP. 53/2010 LA LA.APP. 57/2010 LA LA.APP. 221/2010 LA LA.APP. 246/2010 LA LA.APP. 283/2010 LA LA.APP. 288/2010 LA LA.APP. 296/2010 LA LA.APP. 347/2010 LA LA.APP. 351/2010 LA LA.APP. 356/2010 LA LA.APP. 742/2010 LA LA.APP. 361/2010 LA LA.APP. 406/2010 LA LA.APP. 438/2010 LA LA.APP. 724/2010 LA LA.APP. 729/2010 LA LA.APP. 759/2010 LA LA.APP. 286/2010 LA LA.APP". 80/2010 LA C.M •No. 964/2011 (Cross- .APP. 49/2010 .APP. 54/2010 •APP. 59/2010 .APP. 223./2010 .APP. 277/2010 .APP. 284/2010 .APP. 289/2010 •APP. 313/2010 -APP. 348/2010 .APP. 352/2010 .APP. 357/2010 •APP. 760/2010 .APP. 362/2010 -APP. 407/2010 .APP, 588/2010 ..APP. 725/2010 •APP. 731/2010 .APP. 764/2010 .APP. 364/2010 .APP. 99./2010 •objections) LA.APP. La. APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AP.P. LA.APP. LA.APP. .LA..APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA,.APP. LA..A.PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & 51/2010 55/2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 359/2010 . 363/2010 408/2010 722/2010 726'2010 732/2010 828/2010 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/i3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No.

28./2002-2003,Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND IA "pp. No. 11:J;V2008& connsctpdAppealsofVillaga Bharthai •-A App. No connocUidAppnnlsofVillage Dijwasan !...App, iMo, 13:/2010&comiectpdAppealsof VillagePochan.D'jr ' r>nge4of29 % ii- (GRID-C) Reservedon: December /.-S', 2011 Prwiounced on: January 06. 7.017 I.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through; Appellants Mr.BTJ.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64,65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav.Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for U017LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mi-.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth.Advocare. forDDA. LA.APP LA.APP I.A.APP I.A.APP LA.APP I.A.,APP I.A.APP i..A..APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.A]>P. 111/2010 160/2010 228/20] 0 . 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 . 466/2010 . 637/2010 . 660/2010 .'767/2010 • . 919/2010 65/2011 120/20] 1 476/2011 523/2011 53672011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA,APP. LA,APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/20]] 52572011 554/2011 LA^APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L,A.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. I.A.APP, 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305,/20[0 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 .577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 591/201 1 LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP,' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/20 J 0 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434,/2010 635/2010 657,/20!0 758/2010

918./2010 64/2011 119/20]! 429/2011 .522,/2011 535/2011 A/: ^ nn ; ViHagoB,jwas.n ^•'I'l-J1 i, 2010&.:onntu-U.dAppculi'of VillagePochanpur Page .5 of 'is (>/;70 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/134.17 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the healing oi these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to ^ Notijlcationm.F.]0(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planned developmentof 'LhvarkaPhase-^ //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13'" December, 2000 Section 4 of the Land Acquisiion./.ct,'18S)4, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block, comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaid three n villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@^13.82 lacs per acre for '• Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (\vithouttopsoil). '•!. Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentof marketvalueoftheiracquired I.A.Apf),iVo. 119i/?,008&. connyctc.dAppealsof Viilap.eBharthal :.A.App. Mo. &conriectKdAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App, Mo. ;i 11/20:10&conrRctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ . \l agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ^15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?]3.36 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 enhancementof compensationsought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the'rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, ^ KarnatakaHousingBoard vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessoi vs. State of Goa and Am.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors V5. State ofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunikala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(LandAcquisition) Ors., (2010)3 SCe 661; RanvirSingh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patii

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rarna Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass kv. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALFi 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors v.v. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003' titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs" M.K. RafiqSaheh, (2011) 7 see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjihhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, IAA:,I) No :n.9'),.'Z008X; ronneclcd Ap;yjal5or Village Bharthal I No. r5'i/2010& '.•or.nectcri Appe/iisofVili,igeBijwasan IA.Aup. No. i.,1•^/20^0&conncctndAppealsnf VillagePochanpur •; Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v.9. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. SpecialTehsildar (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(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh vs. ^ Delhi DevelopmentAuthority& Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram rv. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia,2010

(170) r3LT371.

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

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellanisthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,Nev/ Delhi No. 1.195/^008 coniiectL'clAppeajsofVillageBharthal .AAp;., Mo. &ccnnnctocJAppnalsof Village Uijwasan i.A..".pp.No. 11.1/2010& connpctodAppealsofvillagePochanpur PagG 6 of 29 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meteis wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarkaSub-Cit}/ Part-I and Pait-Il 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 VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanl^ilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Anport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere ^ also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand DhoolSiras were • also acqun-ed for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/mo.^to highlighrthatthe boundaiy of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mj.B.S.Maan,learnedcounsei for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricuitura] in spite of Notificationof 16^'^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notificationof24'"' Ociober,1994

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Roiit,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been vviongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama I Ni-,. rj05/200lia connnclcidA|!peaisofVillageBharthal :A.AdP-Ki-;. Z9-1/;)010a comoctcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan i•^./^pp. No. l.U/VQio&co.'neci.i;clAppealsofVillaBe PoL-hanpur " • • Pago9 of 29 \ Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCX^ 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in IJdho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and ^ merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for determining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Vlr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the I.& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is l-A.App.No.1195/2008 & conncctod Appeals of.VillageBharthal l.A.App. No. 29''r/2010 & connccled Appesls of Village Bijwasan lA.App. Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page10of29 r> sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageuSamalkhaor alternativelyon tlie basisofthe L& DO ratesofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above. i2. In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited ol LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) ignores the acbwwledgement on the part of the respondmt about the Award No.26/20G2-2003dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006 • (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant'dated

7.7.2007) h) Doe^ not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the area,for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory^ofDelhi is not in accordanceyvith the law laid ckmm by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions oj the Hon'ble Supreme Court SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC661. m d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as r,er ^ establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value oftheSale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas ver the law establLmedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chmda Fakira Patil versm Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007 The Honye Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale ^Jeeu shminghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin I Apr;,e;,IsofViHagelihartha! -A.APIJ.No. ^94/^010a connoclcdAppoiiisof VillageBijwasar, '•'••".pp. ^;o. 1iJA^oiO&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' Pags 11 of t case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingof different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupona certanland. f Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalue ofthe land is w.uch higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockAand ^13,36.000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v^. State of Har^mna 2010(1) see 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actualfinding on the issue No 1 framed on 27.2.2007. •g) Evaluatedthe land as agricidturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal'was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentsfor land use change show that in future land can be sulojected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It is alsopertinentto mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74''"amendment of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A bv virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated M^as deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Svureme Court3j,67, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developm.entin tne area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland. 0 Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also !A.Afjp. No. Uy5/;,008a connectedAppealsof VillageBharthai A.App. No. 29'V2010&connccledAppealsof VillageBljwasan lA.App. No. U1/20,1Q&connector.)Ap,.oalsof VillagePochanpur PagtlZ of 29 auctionedsimilarlysituatedland as commercialblocks at the rate ofabout K2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis MMlyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectland is even lowerthan the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2 .for swiilarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthepossibility,ofchangeof the use ofthe landalthoughthe land M>as acquiredfor development purposes of Dw>arka Phase II. It is 'nTTf DhoolSiras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be ""(^'DdhrsttT"^ I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 101994 although they clearly establish the commercial ^"""Sunthalav. Tahrildar u i / / purposefor Wlvch land is acquired is a relevant factor. While t P'°P'"'*y "''Vdred the fact tr builP buildingpotentialityto be used ./ buildingpurposes mimmediateor mnearfuture needs to beconsidered ^ •nlThe presence ofa number of buildings on the lands X ! by "he mgs aie to he treated as house sites. The lands 7varten'Z '°r ''TT '•^'''^^"tial hoZe if^ '"'"Sconsideredas house sue, the adjoininglands have the potentialof beuigputin betteruseas housesitesin thenearfuture."

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the fectiialdetailshave been providedwitliaprayerthat tl," appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with the eo-appel:lantsof th-otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals. '4. Supplementingthe aforesaidargun^entsadvancedon behalfofa,e appellants,.t was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof PF-V>. ni./20l0& connectedAppealsof VillagePochannur urbanizationofthe lands in the Villages in question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh DattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia <& Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevantto determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesrelieduponby the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation rcflectmgjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquired,lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof [.and AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of, the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence for determinationof the market value unless and,until the, same is pioperly connected with the land in question, and element,ofspecial fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature, sjtua.tionof tlie property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesrelied upon by the Respondentsdisclosingcon-ect mai'ket value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ^ ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRl 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and,Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.d56/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase m price in a short period cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connsctedAppealsofVNI igeBharthal i.A.App. Mo. ;'.94/2010& connected AppealsofVillag;!Bijvi^asan lA.App.iMo. l.u/?.0.10&connecU?dAppealsof VillagePochnnpiir Pg^g140^9 and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalenttrend in the market wouldpay such a higher pay as reflectedin 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-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench of this Court in SushilKumar (supra)and Raj Singh (supra). 16; So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-Qbjectorsthat the same has already been factoredinto, while.fixingthe minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on r' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the Relerence Court while taking into consideration the appreciation 12%) per annum and the same deserves to be brought in liiie Vvhile granting appreciation @ 10%) per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17yVfter considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugnedjudgment, the evidenceon record and Ihe-decisionscited, what emergesis thatthe true marketvalue of the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto a willing LA.App. N(!, ll'Jb/200>!& connected AppealsofVillageBharlhal l-A.Aop. !\](j. 29'1/2010& connectndAppealsol VillagG Bijwasan 1A App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 15 of2? M seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue 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., 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a.-visthe cityor the town or villagewhich had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousorany otherkindofimportanceor because of Its explosivepopulation;

(n) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buddings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be-

(ni) possibilityofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland:

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandforbuildingpurpose:

(v) existence, of highways, public roads, layouts of bin,dingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the Vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) bmefixs or advantages of educational institutions hecuth care centres, or the like in the surrounding' areas of the acquired land which may become . availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuiUon the acquired land; and

(Vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland Itself being in demandfor building purposes to specify afew. " . ^ C '

¶18The potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon alargenumberof factors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for I^VApp. f.lrj. I.l3,y?.008!4 connectedAppeal;;of-Vi;lagc-Sliarlhal A.,,i.p.No. Jolo&connecledAppnalsofViila-je!3ijw.isan I. .'.PP No. iii,zuiO& coiinoclcdAppealof VillagePoclianour Page le of 29 whicli the lands were sought lo be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra). While reiteratingthe relevantfectors for detemiination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmciSingh (supra)that the exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especially when exemplarsoflargepiecesofland were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC

714.,The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellants'is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as legards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquiredland.

¶20It is a well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of proving the true market value ofthe acquired land is on.the State v.>ho has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpuipose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the 41^- Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage.

¶21Apex CourtmValliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe ikct that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held diat deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent .observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserveattention,v/hich are as under:- •A./'.pp No. 119.V2008&ccnnpctedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA App. K'o. mnOlO&roni.jcteaAppealsofVillageSijwawn lA.App No ,11.1./,•'0.10&conr'ectsciAppealsof Vill,ieePochannui-Page 17 of 2!) "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 bonafide transaction, M'ill be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands M^hoseprices 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 otherprice depressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. " \

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note of the clinchingobservations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira PatU (Supra), which are as follows:- • , . , , 'It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonableprudentpersons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the marketyahie. "

¶23Principlesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and NaturalGas CorporationLtd. (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availabilityof land for developmeniin the area, and. the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be sIom\ steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. IA.A|)p. iMu. J]DV''008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal :/-..App.Mu. ?94/2010& connectedAppealsofs/illageBijwasan lA.Aop. No. lja/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu^ Pa"el8of29 On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. 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 half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied M'ould 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 nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a feM! years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method ~^vith reference to a sale or A.Ap'p ^io. Si corineciociAppealsol ViJIagi;Bhartluil A.Apix N;j. ?,94/:!010& connc-cledAppealsofViliage Biiwasan A.App IN;). .IU/2O1O& connected Appeals of Viliage Poctuinpur 0? acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is hecause, over the course ofyears, the >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase."

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- ''Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, • say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with referenceto previousstatus or situation.shouldbe avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification." -iS. Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bhartlial, Village Bijwasan of tlie period in questionare not availableand the solitaiysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur. i.e., the seven Sale [.)eedsvide whieh religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSauang,Beas liad purchased the agiicultural land in Village Poclianpurat aprice which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacsperacre. •

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds(Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, beas 111 respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of ihe land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required 10 be answered. Evidently,aforesaidsale e.xemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds IA.App. No 11S5/2C08S cooncctedAopealsof VilljigeBharthal I'».Ap|). Wo &connectGdAppt-aKof VillageBijwasan IA.Apn. r.)o. 1:l,?cnoa conncctodAppealsof villagePochanpur (kx.PW-I/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetliat its price varies from ?S2 lacs 10 ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantagesattached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question.The specal need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brouglitout as the purchaser/vendeeof these agricultaralland has not been got examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaidsale exemplars been got examined,then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay suchahigl, pricefor these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami sat,ang. Beas v/ho had purchasedmore than S.'S Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide .Sale Deed executedon 25'' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas MSingh vs. Union ofIndia, 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 aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthat the same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instatrtmatters, thouglrthe land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence •hat the acquiredlandswere beingused for agriculturalputposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomesevidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledgeof prevailing IM.

1.1/.'Oin^ Appt,r,IsolVillagePochanpur Pnge 21 of 29 marketprice of the land in questionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Hx.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantprice of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ttx.PW-1/11)vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon I includingtube 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 representativeprice for the acquired lands in question.

¶29T.eft with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it rs required to be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in • question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under

¶12However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetchedby saleofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tke neighborhood lA.App. No. 3195/2008& conneclGdAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan IA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur p^gp 22 of29 or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts rehedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthe publicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched oy the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it wasput and increaseits value by .a small percentage having regard to the degree of its ^ buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto be made available in that regard Asmall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th ofthe m.arket value of the landfound out accordingto its actual user since resort to the method ofgiving increasedvalue for . such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. '

¶31In view of the difficultiesmadaptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and iransferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in L"l Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/I>re-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped fi-eehold lands. Following the dictum of lal Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessing'the market,value of •AApp. No. 119,y2008&connoctodAppeal.,ofVillageBharthal AApp. NO. 2M 2010&connectedAppealsofVillaB?Bijwl an I..A.APP,No. &connected.ppeaLsofVillage s the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DetenninedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue ofthe land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-L It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the yeai 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the l.andAcquisitionCollectoris more thanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap Is of 4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap bet-weenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Phase-Ilis ofsixteenyearsand therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of deteni^ining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No, ]195/2008&conntctedAppealsofVillageEharlhal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwajan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur escalationoverthe marketvalue ofthe nearbyland ofthe previous3'ears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwan-anted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SiishilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in CiushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's mmimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'' April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24* October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be 111ban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut thatby itselfis not sufficientto IA.App. No. 119;-,/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp. Mo. 2.M/2010&^connectodAppeals"of VillageBIjwasan l-A.App. No. lU/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur /it) presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being •/ consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. .37. Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been mcreasemprice due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe jj. acquired lands upon cha:nge of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area • in question;But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat.thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplar of VillageSamallcha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands ^ and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haiyana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the mmimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland 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 1A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthr^l lA.App, No. 294/2010&connecterlAppealsof VillageBijwasan W.App. No. 111/2010&connecteriAppealsofVillagePochanpur would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in JaiSingh(Supra)as well as in SushilKumar(Supra)and Ifind no reason to take a differentview than the one whichhad been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38This Court is of the consideredview that the ReferenceCoxirt in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural t landsin Delhito fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsin question. Mndingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere being no evidencethat the potentialand the situation ofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But Ifind thatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityofthe IGI Airpoit,Indian Oil and Bharat PetroleumDepots a,nd of Railway line passingthrough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityofthe acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionofthe ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the lA.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. Mo. l:u/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur settled legal position aptly highlightedby 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 possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up btiildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sifficient to hold that the acquired land had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein price attributable to such building potentiality. " '

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto provide a definite value qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhaithal and Village Bijwasan..However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lA.App, No, 119^/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 2M/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' t-the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perj^^orthe Category 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per b^^forthe'Category'B'' lands in question. January 06, 2012 pkb 1^^-* 4!. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siamtorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. f7(9/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, lor whichperiod'ofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Iheseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶421he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar (jenerai of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. (SUINILGAIjR; JUDGE f .!-y• 1 ^ It-iAAnp. Mo. 11'.)V2008&. connectodAppealsofVillaRHBharthal I App N.J. &connocledAppealsof Villagefiiiwasan "'Apt. K'o iU,':>OiOS, <-onncctO:dAppr..il5ofVillagi-Pochanpur 2!) ol .?.9 AT NEW DELHI ' la. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSHARMA ^"tirough: Mr.B.S.MaanMrAmrfM -••-Appellant Ms.SmitaMaan MrRSv Tewathia,AdviIS; Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocate. ^ -RoJitas,Advocate Advocate A Mr.R.s,Toma,-. .Advocatefor ,• w , Mr.B.D.siiarma.MrSKSol» <• M.^S.ICRoot,Advocate Z versus IJNIONofINDIA&aNR Ms-NavlfeSwah Advocatesforllcmoi CORaM: ? HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESUNILGAUR % ORBjVP

12.01.2012 ^^«o.752^01^ Ordero«..ICr'oit" in J!"""' .««.. LA.App.No. Page .1 45-i- ""TSljm GAIJ8) JANrjARY12, 2012 .nJDG pkb ' . • 3E T • 1195/2008 ~—='-=^-"===®®siissiv 'P'a.ge2 -•" V the application.AdvanceoonA-^ The typogiaphicaierror DO'rted ont h-*; t-h decision of^ 6''' r ' ^ ^e.^pondentin the ^^^^on oi" 6 January, 2012 rhot no; 40 of LA,App.Nfo J!95/700? i ' • '^hd in paragraph Fl-^o. nvi/^uos be read as 'pe-acrf' Kr correctionsbe carriedoutforthwith. , '" Viewoftheat.re.aid,thisappHcation..and.disposedof. N

% + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 250/2010 Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LT GEN MANJEET SINGH BOPARAI Appellant Through; Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61,64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R- 22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR