Subhash Chander Khanna v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Al' NEW DELHI &2!ipLLqnuaiyQP2Oi2 (GRID-A) LA.APP. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-I3ITARTH.AL) RANI3IR SHARMA Appe11?nt Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, MrR.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewáthia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and IVIs.Ani•ta Tomar, Advocates. 4r.Rohtas, Advoèate. Mr.Raghuvinder Odar, Advocate Mr.N,S.Negi and Ivlr.FI.S.Rauteia, Ath'ocate Mr.S,K.Rout and,Mr.B.K.Ro'utray, Mr.M.Azam Ansri, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khoth., Mr.SatniL. Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr. I. S .Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakimr, Advocate Mr.AtuI Tripath , Advocate. Mr.N .5 .Negi and Mr.H..8 .Rautela, kAdvocates for repçrdent in appeals iflec by U01). (I" \'.rsus UNION OF INDIA & AN}'.. Respondent. • Through: Mr.SanJLy Pocidar, Seior Advocate with Mr. Sany ja Pathak. Mr.Mohitraó acthav and M.s.Navlin Swain, ivIs.K.K.aumudi Kittn, AdvQcates for 1..AC/IJ0I Mv.Aj ay \Terma, ivIs .13 eenashaw Son.i, Ivlt:.Mukesti Kuinar. Mr,S .K. Seth, .Mr.Pawan Mathur, tvtr.Kunal Shar:na. .\dvooatq for DDA A. APP. 41 2i20O & CM .N L o.40,96!200 (Cr3-Obction); LA.A P? ,452/20dS; I Li•'..APP.453/2008; LA.AP] p.688/2008 & CM:No.5990/201 0 (Cro .Objections);

1.,A.APP.697/2008 & CM.No.433/2009 (Cross-Obje(Aions); 1,A.APP.70L'2008 & CM .No.5 10/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768t2008; LA.APP."O/2C0; :.A.App. No. i1/2005 & connected Appeals of Viflage aharthat '...pp. Nn.94/2 O2O & connectedAppeals of Village l3ijwas.ln App. No. i:i tj2OO & .rinectc Appeals of Viflage Pc'chanpur 'age 1. 017.9 / --, - LA.APp.77 ] /2008 & CM.No.425/7009 (CrossObjectjofls); LA.APP.772/2008 LA.App773/2008 & CM.No38351'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP774,'20g & CM.No.6 1 1 /20()9 (Cross-Objections). LA.APP775/2008. LA.App.776/208. LA.APP777/2008; I.A.APp.782/2O()8 & CM.N094Ø/7009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 783/2OO8 LA.App 784/2008 LA.App. 785/2008; LA.App.798/2008 & CM No. 6 1 5/2009 (CrossOhjectjofls); . LA.APP. 799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009 ( Cross-Objectjols); LA.APP805/2008; LA.App. 806/2008; LA.App. 8 1 3/2008 & CM .No. I 795/2009 (CrossOl)jectjofls); LA.App8 I 4/2008 & CM.NO.806/2009 ( CrossObjectjoIs); LA.App.8 I 8/2008; I.A.APP. S I 9/2008; LA.APp. 820/2008; 1 A.APP.829,'20O8;

1,A.APP.830/2008. LA.APP832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008. LA.APP. 844/2008 LA.App.845/2008. LA.ApJ).873/2008 & CM.No. 779/20 11 ( Cross-ObjectioJs); LA.App 892/2008 & CM.No. 799/2009 (Cross-Objectiofls); - LA.App899/2008. LA.APp.901/2008. LA.App.91 5/2008; LA.APp.95 1/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (CrossObjectjO11). LA.APP.959/2008. LA.App.973/2008. LA.APp.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (CrossObjectjofls); LA.APp.975/2008. LA.APP 976/2008; LA.APp.978/2008; LA.App.986/2008 & CM,No.572/2009 CrossObjections);LApp993/2008 029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 Cross-Objections); LA.App. 1031/2008 & CM.No, 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections). LA.APP W32/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.App.1046/2008. LA.App 1 047/7008•IA APP 1048/2008& CMNo.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objectiolls); I A APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App. 1050/2008; LA. APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cro;sObjectjofl5);, pp 02/2OO8• LA .APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.4 16/2009 (CrOssObjectio1s);LAApf 1054/2008 & CM .No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App. lOSS/2Oo8LApp 1057/2008 & (.'M.No 752,/2011 (Cross-Objections). LA.App I 058/2008& CM.N. 155 7/2() 1 1 (Cros-Ohjectjofls); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. l7259/2OO8(CrosObjectjis); LA.App iO6O/2008;LA APP 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (CI'OssObjectir); LA.App, 1073/2008; LA.App 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/209 (Cross-OjcfjO). I .A.pp I 075/2008-LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM•NO.462/2OO9(Cj•OSSObje(i A .APP. I 084/2008& CM.NC). 17302/2008 (Cross -Ol)jectjOfl5). I ,A APP. I 086/2o, & CM.No7448/2008 (Cross-ObjeCt(). LA.App 087/2008& CM.No61 )/2009 (CrossQbjectjoIs); LA.App 1093/2008; A.APP. I 094/2Oo8 LA.App I 09S/20• LA.APP 1103/2008 & CM.No.44 1/2009 (CrossObjectioJlS).j APP 1108/2008 & C\'J.NO3 839/2009 (Cross-01)jeCtjOflS); LA.App 1109/2008-L A.APP. 1110/2008 & .3828/2009 (Cross-Objectjoiis); LA.App.1 111/2008; LA.Ap'p 1112/2008 & (:M.No.383 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/21q (CfossObjectio11s); LA.Appl 115/2008; LA.App.1 116/2008; UA.Appj i21/20O8 LA.APP. .1126/2008; LA.APP 1129/2008 &. CM.No 550,/2009 (CfOSSObjCCjO); I .A.API) 1130/2008 LA.App1 13 1/2008 & CM.N0566,'2009 (Cross..Objectj; ..A.APP 11 33/2008-LA.App 1 135/2008 & CM.NO.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,App 1137/2008 & CM.No 17283/2008 (CrossObject1O115). LA.APP. 1140/2008; L.A,Appl 156/2008; LA..App.1 157/2008; LA.App.1 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/209 (Cross-Objectjoiis); LA.App 1159/2008; LA.App, 1161/2008; LA APP I 166/2008• LA.App, 1167/2008 & CM.NO.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.App. 1168/2008; LA.APPI 170/2008; LA.APP.H7L/2008; LA.App.1 172/2008; LA.App.j 173/2008;

1.A.APp117517008. LA.App1178/2OO. LA.APP. 1179/2008' - LA.App,l 181/2008• LA APP. 11 $2/2008• LA.App 11 83/2008& CM.N06933,2009 (Cross-Object,115). i.A.1;pp 11 84/200g LA.APP 1185/2008. LA.APP. 11 86/2008& CM.No.701 3/2009 A..'pp No. 11.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Villge Bllarthal .A.icp. No. 294/20 to & conn(cd Appeals of Village fiijwasan i.Al, Nc. ..... /Qjj & coi(cted Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 2 & 29. LA.ApP.79/2009• LA.APP,73/2009 LA. APP. 42/2009 LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP. 1280/200 CM.No.3 841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; LA.APP. 121 2i'2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross Objections) LA.APp. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 124 1/2008& LA.APp.1275/2008; LA.APP.1277/200R. LA APT' 1OI'wo. LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 121 1/2008; LA.APP. 1 1 98/2008& CM.No;6935/2009(CrOss..Objectjofls); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1 192/2008: & CM.No.7103/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 ; LA.APP.1281/2008; I LA.APP.95/2009 & LA.APP.3 3/2009; LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; 11A.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 197/2009; LA.APP 202/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.App.21 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009;

1.A.APP.224/2009 LA.APP.227/2009; (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.24 1/2009; LA.APP 249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009 LA.App.367/2009. 1,A.APP.437/2009;

1.A .APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009 LA.APp.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009 LA. APP.494/2009• LA.APP.495/2009; 1A .APP.5O7/2O09 LA.APP.508/2009 LA.APP.511/7009• LA.APP.512/2009: IJ.A.PP.572/2009 LA.APP. 15/2010; 4 AnTs AflA (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued tinder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. / 26/2002-7003 dated, 23.10.2002 Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) December &omunced on:.JanugjO2oj2 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWASAN) DL\/ENDER KUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.VirendraSingii I /\.App No .119/2oo8 & connected Appeis of Vage Bhartha A.App. Nc). 294/2010 & connected ApreaIc of ViDage Oijwasan No :1,2010 & connected Appea's of ViIlge Pochanpur LA.APP.222/2çj9. LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP .245/2 009; LA.APP.295/2OO9 LA.APP.447/2009. LA.APP.480/2009 LA.APp.491/2OQ9 LA.APP. 503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009• LA.APP.5 13/2009; LA.APp.45/201 0; L,/'.'w/2() I U; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP. 11 77/2008; LA.APP.1 201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 - - -- - '_I IV'jO, LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008; LA. APP.3 7/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 (Cross.Objectjons); LA.APP.74/2009; CM.No.953/201 1 (Cross-Objections) ; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009: LA.APJ'. 137/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.-APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.App.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM Nn Q7fl/fli 1 ....................... ' I LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.App.20 1/2009; CM.No. 7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APp.223/2009; CM.No. 7206/2009 LA.ApP.246/2009 LA.APP.3 05/2009; [..A.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.48 1/2009; LA .APP.493/2009; LA.APP.5O6/2OO9 1A.APP.5 10/2009; 1A.APp.567/200• - LA.A?P.48/201 0; LA.APP.1 I 76/2)O8; Advocates .Mr.S .K. Solanki and Mr.S .K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46,49. 50-69, 73,75, 76) versus U0I & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanj ay Kurnar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for U0I/LAC Mr. S.K. Solanki and Mr.S .K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by 1101. Mi'. Virendra Singh, Advocate in R.-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA: LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.A.PP, 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA..APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 JA.APP. 59/2010 LAA.PP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 24212010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285i'2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 2941201() LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 .LA.APP. 345/2Ø1() LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 •• LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 I.A.APP. 353/2t10 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/200 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP.760/2010 LA.APP 359/2910 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2910 LA.APP. 405112010 L.A.APP. 406/20I() LA.APJ. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 40912010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 72212010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.A.PP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726'2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2910 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 75912010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 82/20 IC) L.A.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 771 12010 LA.APP, 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. 75/:2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 1.3.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Laud Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No, 28/2002-2003: Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND I.ipp. No. ;L195,/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .A App. No. 24/2O1G & connected Appeals of Village 8ijwasan i.App. No. i.11/2010 & c:onnectod Appeals of Village Pochanour Pege 4 of 29 0/ - - 0 (GR1 1)-C) LA.APP 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPIJR) Appellants Mr.B .D. Sharma, Mr. S.K. Solankj and Mr.SKROut, Advocates fOr appellant (in R-!6, 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.APPNO 61, 64, 65,'201 1) Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Advocate for appellant in R22) Respondents

Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sarijay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navljn Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey .Biharj Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shari-na and Mr. Sorner K. Seth, Advocates for DDA. SFFIAj RAM AND ORS. Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through LA.App. 111/2010 LA.App 160/2010 LA.App. 228/2010 LA.App. 254/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 307/2010 LA.APP. 395/2010 A.APP. 420/2010 .LA.App 466/2010

1.A.APp. 637/2010 i..A.APp 660/2010 LA.AFp. 767/2010 LA.App 919/2010 LA.App. 65/2011 LA .APP. 120/2011 LA...APP 476/2011 •1.A.App 523/2011 Li\.APp. 536/2011 LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.App. 165/2010 LA.APP, 248/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.App. 293/2010 LA.App. 317/2010 LA.APP. 396/2010 LA.App. 432/2010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 63 9/20 10 LA.App. 662/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.App. 1052/2010 LA.App. I l6/201 I LA.App. 121/2011 LA.App. 485/201 1 LA.App, 525/2011 LA.APP. 55412011• LA.App. 155/2010 LA.App. 209/2010 LA.AP,P. 249/2010 LA.APp. 261/2010 LA..App. 3051201.0 LA.App. 392/2010 LA.APp. 397/2010 LA.App. .433/2010 LA.App. 577/2010 LA.APp. 640/2010 LA.App. 741/2010 LA.App. 784/2010 LA.APP. 61/2011 LA.App. 117/2011 LA.App. 129/2011 LA.App 521/2011. LA..App. 526/20 ii LA.APp 591/2011 LA,.App. 156/2010 .LA.AI'p. 2 1 5/2010 LA.APP.250I7010 LA.App 270/2010 LA.App. 306/2010 LA.App. 393/2010 LA.App. 412/2010 LA.APP. 434/2010 LA.App. 635,'20 10 LA.App 657/111-0 10 LA.APP, 758/2010 LA.App. 918/2010 LA.App.64/201] LA.APp. 119/201 1 LA.App. 429/2011 LA.App. 522/2011 LA.APP. 535/2011 U.App. No. I i95/200g & cornected AppeaI; of Vill.ge Bharthal LA.A)p. 'L'. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .I\./\p, No. I i/2Q10 & connectl Appea:. ef Village Pochanpur (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96L& B/LA/1341 7 dated

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

06.01.2012 Since, the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals Pertaining to No1icatjon IVo.F, ]0(3096-L& B/LA11341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasari and .Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dwarka Phase.- ii' in I)elhi, commenced with the issuance of ATot1f1CtjOn of 3th December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisi'...ion /.ct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur. Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003 Award Nb.28/2002-2003;and Award No.30/2002..2003 granting compensation @ ].3.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field •-. with top SOIl) and @ 12.32 lacs per acre for Block. 'B' (without top soil). Dissatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquired l.A.App. No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No. :1.11/20:1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ;s( , \\ agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Aci, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ Z15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A and @ Z13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon 3, the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; Anj ani Molu Dessa! vs. Stale of Goa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Rain and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) .& Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, i's. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; chindhu Fakira Pail

(I)) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaigaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! i's. Union of india, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union cf India. & AzrJ, 2002 (65) DRJ I (DB); (Jdho Dass vs. Statç of Haiyana & (ks., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Qiakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(9) SCAI E 362; A vinash Dhavaji Naik vs. Stale. of Maharashira, (2009) 1 SCC 171; Atma Sing/i (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of liar ana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) Nc. 4143/2003 titled as Sint. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Landi4cquisition Officer & Anr vs M.K ..Rfiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, i\fpp No 11.9/2008 " connected Appeals of Village Bharthl i\.ADp. N o.p.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasari 1\.App. No. ii 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur D RA ~ R t Gu/arat and Anr, AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010)11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai .Jivanbluzi Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Vaiiiyammal and Anr i's. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Aliahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Màhesh 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. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Out. Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of india, decided on

2.6.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Rain i's. Union of india decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Ram vs. Union o/indza, 2010

(170) DLT 371. On the strength of the aforesa.i.d decisions, at the very. Outset, it 1 was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned arguing.counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be 1 first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must he1 adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone. It was pointed out by I\4r.R.S.Tomar, counsel for.appellants that .I)elhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, New Delhi No. 1195/2008& connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A Ap. No ..294/20i0 & connected Appeals of Village Wjwasan lA.p2, No. 11l2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I. and Part-TI again divides the agricultural land into..two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr. S .K. Solanii learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of.\Jillage Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for 'developrnQnt of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands. on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was, drawn to the a/cs sizras/map to highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous. . S. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed 'to. appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16th October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriôuitural to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification 0f24th October, 1994. .

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Refèrence Court by relying upon P. Rama l."\.APD. Nu. 1195/2008 & connected'Appeais of Village Bharthal I A.App. No. 29/2010 & coriiected Appeals of Village Bijwasan .'..App. No. J.L1/2010 & coonecied Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page .9 of 29 Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana &. Ors., 20 10(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. Reliance was placed by Mr.BD.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs and merely because ofthe 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 iai.d down by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr.,. (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars oughtto he taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to 157 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 minimiim rates/circle rates for deteimining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous. Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, Iearne4 counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& .1)0 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 LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA/pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeal, of Vulage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected.Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 10 of 29. sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PD{s) as referred to above.

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

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceeding.y Civil Writ petition Na. 19012 of2006 (Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

7.7.2007) b,) Does not account for the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years before the No tfIcation under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Valuing the land on the basis of the. letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Government of Naio,'al, Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of' the more recent decisions of the Hori'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) SCC661. ignores the evidenced :othèr factors which as per established law has to be considered before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition, e,) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale 1)eed produced &efore the trial court whereas as per the law established by the Hon 'he Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land Acqui'ition .QflIcer, Civil Apeal No. 5475 of 2007. The lion 'ble Supreme Court has cpec/'Ically held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in LA./pp. No. 1.195/2008 & cormected Appeals ofViflage Bhartha? J\.Aop. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasari i..A;p. No. 1.13/2010 & Connected Appeak of Village Pochanpur Page ii of 29 case the average sale price is lower. Further in 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 averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adJudicatingpon compensation upon a certan land. O Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC N0,97A12006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and 13, 36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the HOn 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Hai'yana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actual

framed on 2 7.2.2007. .finding on the isste No.] g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Noqflcation of the Municzpal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and IVotifications of Government .for land use change how that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial and oti er permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mentIon that the appellant lead evidence in respect of the 74th amendment of the Constitution of India, w. e.f 1.6.1993 JX A, by virtue (?f which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situäted was deemed a municia/ area and the municipa1 counsellor was elected from there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to aj.ply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir S'ingh and Anr vs. Union of Jidia and refused to consider the fact that the development in the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser would pay for the subject land. 1) Ignored the .faci that Respondent No. •2 had also [I\.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal t./\.App. No. 294/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L.A.App. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur auctioned similarly situated land as commercial bloc/cs at the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. I) The valuation of the subject land is even lowçr than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 jbr similarly situated land. k,) Does not takeinto account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. it is reiterated that the land use of Village. Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. ) l Ignored Notiflcations dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

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

¶13In the brief Synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347,12009 the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. .14. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of fJ\.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IJ\.App. No. 294/202,0 & connected Appeals of VillageBjiwasan .t.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Makes!, Datiatray Thirt/,ka,. vs. State of lWaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra ('Major Genera) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-J)etermjned Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of cOmpensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

1.5. Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51 of Land Acquisition. Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence for determjiatjon of the market value unless and until the same is rroperiy connected with the land. in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, ploximity to the village etc are also lequired to be considered,

and the sale instances relied upon by the Responden disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the décisons in Jai La! vs. Union of India. 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors i's. Union of India, (1997) .11 SCC 423; La! C'h.and vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union f India,. decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a shOrt period cannot be taken to he reaiitic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller iso. & connected Appeals of Vill4ge Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App, No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ) -4.. / and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-I)etermined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! C'hand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by • Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the RespQndents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1st April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference. Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation 0a 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for ftirther enhancement from the .price.of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so,.the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the Reference C.urt while taking into consideration the appreciatio.n 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in. , line while granting appreciation ® 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

1.7. After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment, the evidence on record and .thed,ecisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing LA.App. Na. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village aharthal IA.Aop. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.Aop. No, 111/2010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . . . . • Page 15 of 29. / seller and the best evidence is . the comparable sale instances. \Vhile dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered., in assessing the market value thereof, snds reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "('i) the situation of the acquired land vis-avis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational religious or any other kind of importance or because (?f its explosive population; ai) . the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercIal or industrial, as the case may be; ('iii) possibility of obtaining wate,A and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that iand, ('iv,) absence of statutory impediments or the li/ce for using the acquired land for building purpose; existence. of highways, public, roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extenciuns in the vicinity or close proximity oft/ic acquired land, benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land' which may become available to the occupiers. of buildings, if built on the acquired land,. and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to speci afew."

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose 'for l.A.App. No. .115/2003 & connected 'Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. rio. 294,2010 & connected Appeals of VillaNe Bliwasan LA.App NO. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Pag'16 of 29 OY I /I which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. it has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensatiOn for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in A/ma Singh (supra) that the exemplars oIsmall pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially whenexemplars of large pieces of were not available. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (201 1) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the cOmpensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands. and the acquiied land. It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agucultural land for a particularpurpose But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can.be referred to with advantage. Apex COurt in Va! yammal (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deductiOn of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai (Sujra) deserve attention, which are as under:- AJpp No, 3195/2008& cc'mocted Appeals of Village Bhai'thal .. . IA App. No. 294/2010 & conectea Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App No, 111/2010 & c000ected Appeals of Village Pochanpur "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect qf two sales are markedly different, it can Only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. " It would be worthwhile totake note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Ghindha Fakira Patil (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 absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility, taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reason qble prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value." Principles to dQtermine the market value of the .:aquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural. Gas. Corporation Ltd.

(ONGc) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase, in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, i and the demand for land , in the area, In rural' areas unless there is any prospect of develo1b;nent in the viciniiy increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. A.\pp. No. 3)95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No 294/2010'& connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I..Aj)çjp. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the, escalation.s 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 qf 1% or 2% per . annum. There is thus a sign ifi cant 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 annun. 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 spec jfic evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. . Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining, the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years ('as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there , is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions qfcom.arable 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 upto four 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' jew years, may. become . unsafe and unreliable standard where. the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or .1.App. No, 195/2008& conneced Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 794/2010 & connected Appeals of Village ffljwasan i.,.App No. 111/200 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart .frorn the likelihood of occurrence: cf varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the veiy standard of increas.e." This Court isniindfii1 of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods.. What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When different categories of lands (or lands with dlfferent situational advantages) are acquired for the same puipose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value, with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a unlform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notfIcation." Undisputedly; in these appeals sale exemplars in and aroun.d acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwas.an. of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village "Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale I)eeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. , Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-illO) which are basically between one set of co-owners and .Radha Swami Saisang, ieas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which. is required to he answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds L4.App. No 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lJApp. No. 294/20:10 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwa.san I.A.Ap. No. 1i1./?.010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . - --- - • V (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/l0) indicate that its price varies from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars Sale I)eed,s (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and sitUatiOn of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel-of land of these sale exemplars with acquired lan4 in question, is lacking - Therefore these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing represefltative price for the acquired lands in questioI. The - special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has not been brought out as the pUrchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale e-xemplrs been got exathined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why e had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy - of the purchaser, i.e.-, Radha Swami Satsang, Beas' who had purchased more-than-33 Bjhas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale l)eed executed on Maich, 2000 was also subject matter in LA App No 266/2008 titled as .Jai Singh vs. Un-ion qf India, decided on 2:3.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raf Sing/i vs. Union of-India, decided On

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

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. Thu, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing i,.A. No 19/2008 & connected Appeals of ViIage Elharthal No. 294/2010 & connected Appoals of Village Bijwasan • A.App. No. U 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/.10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. So far as the sale exemplar of \Tillage Samalkha (Ex PW-1/1 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of i,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 27th1 January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-111 1) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-i/1 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the struetute thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot he treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question. . . . . Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity,, now it is required to he considered . as to whether adoption. of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to -be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question. Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Office!' Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- ".12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the deterininqtion of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in t,è n.ighborhood LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bi;wasan IJ\.App.No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . f-- or whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with.reference to the price which the plots could have fetched if sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary no4flcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots. in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(]) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 115th of the market value qf the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there, is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even ifjormed in. the acquired land."

¶31In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the I)DA after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Qiand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon thé.allotment rates/Pre-J)eterrnjned Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehoJd lands. F011owing the dictum of La! (hand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Sing/i (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of LA.App, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal LA,App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 113/2010 & connected ppeals of Village Pochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Detenjned Rates fot alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required. tobe seen is Whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessng• the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka. Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/crossobjector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is tken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-Il, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Cliand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt p1 ogressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years;may beconie unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. in the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IT is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining, the market v1ue by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal t.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A./\pp. No, 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annunt 0 After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying —: upon Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court , 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and. as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation ofthe minimumprice for the agricultural land by the Government w e f St Api ii, 2000 till the date of Notificafion in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or I not. . Adoption of Government's minimum rates Of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agriculti.iral land by virtue of Notification of 241h October, 1994 declaring agricultural lan4s in these three villages in question to be urban. It is trWe that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthal li\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected AppealsolVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochahpur (o. presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami. Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year. .1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in \Tillage Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance. of \Tillage Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-l/l 1) without leading any evidence to establish thatthe quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/.11) cannot be treated to. be sufficient ground to grant higher compensation while relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referred dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development corporation ('HSIDC) . (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light -of the minimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land in l)elhi, which general1y factor.s in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact That there is a gap between what A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

1.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur would he expected to be the market groh and what the market had / actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis Tor , assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to. take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Sing/i (Supra) and Sushi! Kurnar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village i3ijwasan, dfthere being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the -.IGI Airport, Indian Oil and. Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 fi orn Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Pai t II, dividing the acquiied lands in two portions, and there being Fairn Houses in the vicinity of the acquired land-siias somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the LA.App. No. 1195/2008 - & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals-of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of ViI!age Pochanpur settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mfrza Nausherwan Khan vs. collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality." Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat. them • with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum • prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over.and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquirediands in question. Accordingly, thesc appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants 'of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.APP. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Póchanpur it the appellants of Village Pochan.pur are also a1lowd tr t1i I.LI indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined 16,50,000/ per a-e-te—:- 'WOTA for the Category 'A' land and @ 14,69;600/ per b for the Cátèoiy 'B' lands lfl.question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act,. 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no intetest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to reiiiit the conipensatiori amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Ceurt, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordihgly, prepared. - (SUMLGAUR) .J1JDGF. January 06, 2012 pl< b . 7 ç• ,

1.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Vllae 8hathal .App, No. 294/2010 & connected ApPeals 0fViHageBjjwasan f.A1,ç. No. 11,1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.App. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Througl: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amjt Maan, Mr.Jaj Prakash, Ms.Srnjta Maan, Mr.RS.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvjnder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Nej and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr. S .K.Rout, Mr.B .K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) r.Sud anshu Tornar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanlcj and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav and Ms.Navljn SWain, Ms.K.Kaunidj Kiran, Advocates for LAC/EJQJ Mr.Ajay Venna, Mr. S.K.Sethj, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari .Sharma, Mr.Kunai Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % QER _

12.01.2012 72/2O9c0rrecti This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order 0f6th January, 2012. - Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 of the application. Advance cojyof this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should he 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no 40 of LA App No 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre' Necessary con ectlons*be earned out forthwith In view of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. 1SUNIL GAUR) • JUDGE JANUARY 12 9 2012 .1 1 1;A.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 2

11~~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 18,2011 Pronounced on. January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 248/2010 SUBHASH CHANDER KHANNA 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 U1ON OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: 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: I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR