Iqbal Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

29.03.2012 CM No. 5419/2012 ru/S 151 CPC) Delay of 703 days' in re-filingthe accompanyingappeal is sought to be condonedby this application,which is supportedby affidavit of learned counsel for the appellant. Upon Notice, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, •m Advocates for respondentsNo. 1 & 2 respectively,state that only oppositionto this applicationis that for the period of delay, the appellantsoughtnot be grantedintereston the compensationamount in the event of their succeeding in the appeal. Since the reasons disclosed in Paragraph No. ^3 of the application does not display gross negligence, therefore, this applicationis allowed and the delay of 703 days' in re-filingthe accompanyingappeal is condonedwhile making it clearthat for the delayedperiod,the appellantshallnotbe grantedinterestin the event ofsucceedinginthe appeal. LA. APPNo.78/2012 Page1 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. «r With aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of LA.APP. 78/2012 The instant appeal relates to Village - Pochanpur, where vide Notificationof 13^*^ December,2000, the land of the appellantstood acquired under Section 4 of the I^and Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned order of November, 2009 while upholding the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Cpllector to the appellant, has denied any enhancement r-thereupon. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent-VOI, states that the subject matter ofthis appeal stands covered by the decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr.' rendered on 6^^ January, 2012, wherein compensation amount in respect of lands acquired in Village Pochampur has been enhanced to @ ^16,50,000/- per acre for the Category 'A' land and @ ^14,69,600/- per acre in respect of Category 'B' lands. Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that case of the appellant is at par with Ranbir Sharma (Supra). In the light of above, this appeal is allowed in terms,of decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutory benefits and proportionate costs, while declining the interest for the delayed period. This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. MARCH 29,2012/rs L GAUR) JUDGE LA. APP No.78/2012 Page 2 % RANB^RSHA.RA4A, ! Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita : Maan, Mx.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates I MrAnand Yadav and Ms..r\nitaTomar, Advocates. ; Mr.Rohtas,Advocate. ! i Mr.RaghuvinderGodara,Advocate I Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate : Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.MAzamAnsari, Advocates. ' ]\4r.PankajVivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla ' andMr.DhananjayMehlav/at,Advocates j Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate ! Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate ; Mr.Sandeep Thaldaur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor : respondent in appeals filed by UOT) versus ! v-JNlO^iJ01' INDIA& ANR. . Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, I Ms.K.KaunuidiKiran,AdvocatesforLAC/UOI I Mr.AJayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.Mukesh ' Kumar,Mi.S.K.Sethi;Mr.FawanMathur, ^4r,Kunal I Sharma. Advocate for DDA • I LA.APP|.412/20()8& CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.452/2008; La.AP1|.453/2008,LA.APP.688/2008& CM.N'o.5990/2010(Cross-Objections); LA.APPj.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008: I iA.App.No. Iiys/2C08;& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal I(X.App. No. ?.9.:./2.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App, No. l:l.l/?.010&connucladAppealsofVillage;Pochanpur PafiiU o1 Z9 IN TtiE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI j I I Reserved on: November 18, 2011 : Pronounced on: Januaiy 06; 2012 ^ ; (GRID-A) LA.AEP.1195/2008(WLLAGE-BHARTHAL) A ^ CM.No.425/2009 (Crois-Objections)'LA.APP772/900J? CMNo^^n/S^&CM.No.S835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& 1A (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.^^^).940/2009 (Cross-Obiectionsv' CM>fo(^fs/X^VrLA.APP.7;85/2008;LA.APP.798/2008& LM.No^l5/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.799/2008 & CM No 931/2009 ,^^'A™05/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APp:8I3/2008& LM.No^795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Closs-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP'819/2008-LA APP 890/9008 LA.APP.b9/2008; LAAPP.830/2008 LA.APF832™ LAAPP900.' LA.APP844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;'LA.API^.8^8& C^7no779^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM'No799/2009 rOro.. Oh/ t V LA.APP:S!"L's;'sri: la.app|Ssf laapp"^?^;^:o8: LA.APR976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008;LA.APp:.986/2oSri CM No 572^9 LA:APP:|o1S8VAA'pp:fo4^ LAlmjoM CM No 75^2^0?? ""f ^:^-^^^-f«5:5/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & rrv.^. mJ . \ ^^^^oss-Objections); LA.APP.'1058/2008& CMNo 1557/2011 Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.l7259/9008rrrn^Vni / • CMN,??l82009 rrZ '' 0/20O8 & CMNo38h^9 =LA.APP.Iin/2008;LA.APP.Il12/2008& nu^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1113/2008& CMNo3826/2000 ffpf?fo'SoLA.APP.1115/2008; LA.APP.Il16/2008; La!aPP119^^ LA.APP.l12b/2008; LA.APP.1129/2008& CMNo550/9009 fCro<^s OhWi' / ict'^n if °V•^^APP•1157/2008; LA.APP.iI5V008& La:aPPSi:p™~== I • i- • lA.Ar,p No. TITOS&colnnoctedAppealsofVillageBharthal ! ofVillage ' • ' -A.Af,p,Mc,,11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ! Page 2 of 29, %0 liHBili !»SK1|S5™ TA APP-TT/onnn o ^ /'+0/2UII (Lross-Objections); LA.APP 59/200<^ LA.APP.79/2o:9;Ia.A^S^^O^T' ill Biii iPH l!i= sis ii= •••• 26-..00.,-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi) (GRID-B) Reservedon: December 08. 2011 Pronouncedon: Janunrv 06 ?n'l2 I- .LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN)^• ^ ' I DBVENDERKUMAR ' a . . I .p, , . Appellant |- liirough: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh l^^.App NO. ms/200sS. connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ' ...•vpp. No. ?.g.t/2010&ccnn;ectGdAppealsofVillageBijwasan L-.App.No. J;.l/?.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Advocates , Mr.S.K.Sol^kiand Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LAAPP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP-, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. 152/2010 156/2010 !100/2010 1242/2010 1282/2010 1287/2010 1295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 ;727/2010 ' !750/2010 i964/2010 ;77/2010 175/2010 & ; Respondents. Through: Adr.Sanja)' Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kujiiar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,-andllV&.Navlin Swain, Advocates forUOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Ro'utray,Advocatesin appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra^ingh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bi|iar 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.APP. 53/2010 LA.APlK 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/20J 0 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP.356/2010 LA.XPP.357/2010 LA.APP.358/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 ' LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.4PP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APll 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 LA.APP. 724/20] 0 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP, 99/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objeptions) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& BXA/i3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No.

28./2002i2003; Village Bijwasan, Delhi) ! i ANID IA.App. No. 1195/20088i connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal L.'\,App. No. 29.1/;'.0ic & iconnucted Appeals of Village Dijwasan . 1A.App. No. ;i] j./?.010 & 'connectcd Appeals of Village Pochanour % (GRID-C) Reserved on: Dp.cp.mher18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2017 LA.APP,111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPOR) SEHAJRAM AND ORS. Through: ' Appellants Mr.B.D.Sharroa,Mr.S.K.Soladdand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor 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,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.6i;, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) ; i versus UNIONQF INDIA ANR ' Through; s, Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr-SaryayKum^rPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavIinSwain,Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. I : 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. 1H/20|0 1^0/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 • 919/2010

6.5/2011 120/2011 476/201] 523^.01r 536/201] 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 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011-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. IaI'- IA « f AOiOa connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan . . "P'N«-ai/2010&connectedAppealscfVillagepochanpur 155/2010 ,209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 .392/2010 .397/2010 ..433/2010 .577/2010 . 640/2010 ,741/2010 ?84/2010 61/2011 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011 526/2011 ^^1/2011 la!app. la.app. la.app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AI^P LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APR 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, la.app. LA.APP. la.app. la.app. LA.APP. LA.APP, la.app. 156/2010 215/2010 •250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010

657./2010 758/2010

918./2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/2011 Page S of % (RelatingI to Notification No. F.10(30)96^& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.20Q0issuedunder Section4ofthie Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,jVillagePochanpur,Delhi) I CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER !

06.01.2012 : ^ 1 • I .1. Since,the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch: of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learnedcounsbl for the partiespresentat the hearihg of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/12417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages |0harthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commcinorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-11 in Delhi, commenced with the issuance^;of Notific.ation of 13^^' Decemberl^ 2000 under Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining1to vast tract of agricultural lahd^' in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. I

¶3Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthree villagesstcpodacquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003: Award No.|28/2,002-2003;andAward No.j0/2002-2003granting compensation@'^13.82 lacs per acre for '• Block 'A' |(level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(^withoutop soil). i

¶4Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarke|valueoftheiracquired I !.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal AApp. NO. 294/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan i ' IV\.App,No. Ul/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' : • ' . agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of I {i the Land AcquisitionAct, iS'P^'and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgmenthad enlianced compensation@if15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and @ ^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal,,and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhayeibeendismissed.

¶5In; these appeals,furtherenhancementof compensationsoughtby the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Piftylacp per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirtylacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions'in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board V5. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246; AnjaniMoluDessaiys. State of Goa andAm.,

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

(2010) 1 sec 444; Sangunthala (Bead), through LRs. Vs. Special lehsilddr (LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)>3 SeC 661; RanvirSingh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SCI3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nmd (since deceased)through LRs i4 Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRT 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. Sti^te of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) iSCALB 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. Sial^ of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 sec :171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana, Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W.Pj.(C)No. 4143/2003-titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficer&Anr vs., M.K. RqftqSaheb,(2011) 7 SC.C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.Apn No. :L19!)/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 7.9'i/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App, No. lXl/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur PaKe7of29 Gujarat^ and Ani\, AIR 2001' SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 115-, RisalSingh & Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Aitr.,2006 (89) DRJ 52j7 (DB);LaiChandvs'. Union ofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769;^ GeneralManager,'Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs', Rameshhhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC,745; ValUyammalandAm vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 jSC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (20p4| 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; I • j 'v Kapil Mehra (Major General) <& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(201:1)DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., ;decided on 24.04.2008; Om ' Frakash,(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal <&. Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar V5. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled1as vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371. i

¶6Oh the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mi-.B,S.Maan,learnedarguing';''counselfor the appellants thatthe locationand situationofthe acquirpdagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be ' i adjudgecikeeping in view the developmentiilv the area over a periodof time and!the same carmot be limited to the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat ,Delhi-Rqwari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes tliroughthe land ofVillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,Nev/ Delhi No. 1195/2008St connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App. Mo. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I <; and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters )vide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv iWurtitowardsDwarkaSub-Cit)^ Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Easternside, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarjii Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by A^r.S.K.Solanl^ilearnedcounselfor the appellants that northern part ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first) acquiredfor the extension of IGI lAirport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for estabhshmgIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochaiipurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for develo|:)mfe:ntofDwarkaPhase-Iand the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/ma^to highlightthatthe boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous. : '

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.^4aan,learnedcounselfor 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 agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16^'^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from' al^ricultiiral to residential/ commerc^ial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24"' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence";by,Mi-.S.K.Rout,learned counselfpr the appellantsthatthe aforesaid^o Notificationshave been wrongly discardedby the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.Apri. No. 1195/2008&cpnnRctcd'AppeaisofVillageBharthal l.A.Apij.h;o. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. Wo. 111/2010a connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur . • Reddi& Qrs. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,\Byderabad& Ors, (1995) I 2 see 305, which has been consideredb}^ the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana4 Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired,land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area wer a period oftime and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,if the authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot mean that there is no buildingpotentiality. ' , ; • • i ^ '

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learnedcounsel for the appellants'upon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfi:om^52lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because theire is no basis to concludethat these sale'exemplarsare overvalued k because of any special advantagesand as per|ettledlegal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu''Dessaivs. State ofGoa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofjsaleexemplarsoughtto be I ; taken as representingthe marketprice of the| iLd which comes to ?57 ^ lacs per acre and sincethe sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore,relianceplaced by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for detenuiningthe ' I marketvalueofthe acquiredlandis patentlyeiToneous..

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and ajsd on the basis of pre-deteiminedlates fixed by the Government foF allotment of alternate plots mthe yeai-2000-2001.Keepingin view thfe location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is l-A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal i' LA.App. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan • l-A.App.No. 111/2010&conncctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the baksiofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or |op the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto abdye.

¶12In ithe writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe iinpugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- a) "ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003dated \23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition N,o.l9012 of 2006 (Referred to in cross-examinatioriof appellant dated

7.7.2007) , ; b) Does not accountfor the fact thfit the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis| the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'blJ Supreme Court in SangunthalaversusTahsildar,201q($) SCC 661. \ d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) E)oes not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds pi^oducedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcqumtionOfficer, Civil Apeal N6.5475 of2007. The Hon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin LA,App.No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageI3harthal i./\.ADp.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan i.A,App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pags 11 of 29 I , case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Adolu Dessai vs. State of Goa, Wl0(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by. averagingofdifferent t)pes of sales transactions should be •. considered while adjudicatingupon compensation'upona certanland. ,/); 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 landis much higherthan 15 lacper • acre in BlockAand^l3,36,000\in.BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the tJon'ble Supreme Court A ; including in Subh Ram vs. State ofHaiyana 2010(1) W ' SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment-refused to return an actualfindir^ on the issue No.l 'framedon 27.2.2007. \ 'I I I g). Eyaluatedthe land as agricultur.al land although vide ISotificqtionofthe MunicipalCoi^porationofDelhi, 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 Notifications'• of Governmentfor ,land use change show that in\ future land can' be subjected to residential, con^mercial and other •permissible uses. It is alsopertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74''^amendment .of the Constitutionof India, w.e^f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by :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 Panbh'gyatelections were heldin the area. \ K h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme \Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr kv. Union ofIndia '.andrefusedto considerthefact tAat-the developm.entin the area has a direct effecton tlie price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjecthnd.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l.A.Ap|j.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. a.ll/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I i,- auctionedsimilarlysituatedland!«/commercialblocks at the rate ofabout X2.6 laldt aU concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectland is eA?en lowerthan the pre-determinedauction rates set RespondentNo 2 jor similarly situated land. \ '] k) Does nottake into accountthepossibilityofchangeof the use ofthe landalthoughthe was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarkal Phase II It is Dhool Siras and Bharthalwas changedand these\a)-easceased to be • "rban boundaries Of Delhi State. \ I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 101994 a//to«gA they clearly establish•the commercial ^"f"S""thalav.Tahsildar ((2010) 5see 661 It was heldthatthepurposefor ; IC .and IS acquired is a relevantfactor. While determmng value of the propertj,^ acquired the fact ^^ferthelandhasgotbuildingpctentialityto be used ZedT <''• in nearfuture needs to he considered. \ m) The presence of a number-of buitdtngs on the lands b^r u occupied by the buildings are to be treatedas hoiis4sUes. The lands wje acquiredfor purpose ofputting up residential hoZ , 7°'''^" -consideredas house site, the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteruse as housesitesin thenea.rfuture.

¶13In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pa! and iothers of LA. App. No 347/2009,tlie factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with the eo-appellantsof tl,e otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals. i

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsakv»acedon behalfofthe appellants,it>asurgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectof • pp. ^o.m/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur i , f Ih I.A., U\. r K uibanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Thirthkarvs. Stale ofMahaKoshtm,AIR 2009 SC 2238;KapUMehm (MajorGeneml)& Ors. Vs.: Union ofIndia 'Anr, 176(2o'll)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuctionRatel 9f the area are relevantto determinethe market value of the acqiiirJdlands and infact the sale instancesTeheduponby the appellantsai'ecomparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt io assess the correctmarket value of the acquired lands. Tlius, enhjn&ment of compensation reflectmg;just, fair and adequatemarketva(ue for the acquiredlands is soughtin ^theseappeals. !

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby theRespondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselm-gedthatthoughas perSection51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is an admis.sibleevidencebut tlie same cannot be! lalcen as relevant'evidence tor determinationof the market value unlfesS and until the same is properly connectedwith tlie land-in questiUand elementof special fancy ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsnamelinature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are alsi requiredto be considered and the saleinstancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquiredlands have bera illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceUf)onthe decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRl 227, S<^tpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Udion ofIndia andAnr.,

(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SmhilKumar V4'. Unionoflitdia,decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat siiaipincrease in price in ashortperiodcannotbe takento bi realisticuntil reasonsfor such «har|D iincreaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan LA.App. No. lU/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir age 14 of 29 and the purchaseras no prudentpersonhaving loiowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendin themarketwouldpay such a higherpay as reflectedin the sale:instance of Swami Satsang,.,Beas, relied upon by the I 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 Chanel (supra) which has been followed bv a ! coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKufimr(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is|concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on April,' 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lan^ds has been erroneously . determined by the Reference Court, as |in'' Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancement'from the priceofacquired lands as fixed b}^ the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting;the enhancementby the ReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deservesto be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per armum and tliefeby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and:upon closeperusalofthe impugnedJudgment,the evidenceon recordand the'decisionscited,what emergesisthatthe true marketvalue of the comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto avs^illing LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal U.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ! U.App.No. 111/20108, connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur . • • V' # # seller and fiie best evidence is the comjiar,abIesale instances. While dealing,witlithe questionofpotentialvalyejofthe acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the liiaxket value thereof, stands reiteratedby the Apex Couit in IJdho vs. Stale ofHaryam & Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords:- t • I '(i) the situationofthe acquiredlanclvis-a-visthe cityor the town or villagewhich haA been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofImportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation; ; I

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredImdforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the case may be;

(iii) possibilityofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland; I

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence, of highways, publics-roads, layouts of buildingplots,or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland; \

(vi) bene-fits or advantages of educational institutions, •health care centres, or the like h'the surrounding areas of the acquired land '•which may become availableto the occupiersqfbuiJSrigs,ifbuilton the acquiredland;and \ ;

(vii), landsaroundthe acquiredlandon the acquiredland ; Itself being in demandfor building purposes, to , specify afew. " ' ' ' lhe|potentialityoflandfor the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsuponalargenumperoffactors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear,inmind the purpose for

¶18I^A.App. !Mo. 1195/2008&conriectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal IA.App. No. ;.fM/;M10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i-A.App No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur # lA which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Comt in Avinash'{sM\-)m).Whilereiteratingthe rele\|arjtfactorsfor detemiination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmall piecesofland relied I \ upon by the appellantscouldnot be agroundto discardthem especial^ when exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwer^not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictumstands reiteratedbj the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. M.K. \RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7SCC I

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrpm the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof 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 justificationfor reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands andthe acquiredland. I •

¶20It is a well establishedpropositionlof law that the burden of I y provingthe true marketvalue of the acquired^land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is i equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy,of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be|re|^rredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),ivtiiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc;, had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent ,observationsmade by the Apex Court in Anjani'MoluDessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- ! App No. 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App. IMo. :^94/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App fJo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur m "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, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilarlandswhoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken] as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect of twp sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or' otherprice depressingreasons. Cpnsequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. " I '

¶22It jwouldbe worthwhileto take note pfthe clinchingobsei'vations pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Pdfil (Supra), which are as follows:- : ; I ;; "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 .possessingsimilar value or utility/ takenplace between^,aiwillingvendee and the willing vendor which could be Expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. " ' Principlesto detemiinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as

¶23leiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and NaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra),are as under:- | . i 'i' I ; "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilit)/of landfor developmentin the area, and the demandfor land\in: the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of;^evelopmentin the vicinit)/, increase in prices would jie slow, steady and gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjiimps. I.A.A|)p.Mo.:195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBhartbal I.A.App. Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan i..A./*pp.No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu'- m On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the developmentisfaster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a'much higher rate, as comparedto rural areas. In somepqckets in big cities, due to rapid development and high (^emajnd for land, the escalations in prices have touched more per year, during the nineties. C remote rural areas where there, was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, ike prices stagnated for years or rose marginallyat a nominalrate of1% 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 df lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase \in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10%'to 15%per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the \general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceif clearand specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependupon the same. ; Normally,recourseis taken to the mode, ofdeterminingthe marketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearby lands\ in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there is no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in theneighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by'.onlyafew-years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ifit relates, to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardhfthe gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market-valueof a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or even 30% to 50% or n the other extreme, in % i.A,App. No. .nH5/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No, 294/2010S connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan ;.A,App. l>Jo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur m I I acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypilfalls. This is because, over the course of.yearsyate' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrastic chdnge apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease." I

¶24This Courtis mind&lofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtinHaryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation\h^IDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods.What was saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is:as under:- "Whendifferentcategoriesoflands fqr lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination their value with referenceto previousstatusorsituation'shouldbe avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

¶25Undisputedly,in these appeals sale e|emplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village B|wasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied ^ upon by the appellantsis of Village Pochenpur.i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,PiadhaSyvamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at a price whichvariedfrom?52 lacs,to ?62 lacsperacre.' • • 26. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW^Mto Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetween;one set of co-ownersmiA Radha SwamiSatsang, Beasmrespectofthecompactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassitualedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvaJue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootIquestionv/hichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds W.App. No 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal W.App. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.APP. No. J11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I 't\ \ l' f / Page ZO of 29 fi (lix.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetliat its price varies from ?=52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby,jth^ entire laad of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.pW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice:It was dependentuponthe natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish!the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemjjlls with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exei^iplarscannotbe treatedas disclosmgrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-lMto! Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof thdse agriculturalland has not been got ;examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid,sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay suchahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas^Nhohad purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide,sileDeed executedon 25"^ March,20,00 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh 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 mthe aforesaiddecisions,thp gale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingliiatfhe same cannotbe treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.I ' 27: In the instantmatters,thoughthe lan4 of the acquiredlands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlandswere beingused for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat thb acquiredlands were not developed lands. No pmdent person havingjknowledge of prevailing lA.App. No. U95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •J ./.pp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ••A.App. iMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur " I : I, marketprice of the land in questionwouldpay such a high price unless and until'suchpurchaseis meant for special!considerationand so, in the consideredopinion of this Court the sale jexemplars,i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been! rightly discarded by the Reference Court. • ,

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11) reliedupon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'^ January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale ^xepplar(Ex.PW-1/11)was situated on the National Highway - 8 arid .because vide Sale Deed (lix.PW-l/ll) vendorhadsoldnot onlythelandbutthe structurethereon including;tube well, boring,fitting,fixture,la^e, 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.

¶29Left >vith no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determinethe true market valueiof the acquired lands in question. i .

¶30Parametersgoverningfixationofmarketvalue ofacquiredlands highlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand I • I Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderaihd\Urban Development Authority,Hyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalueoftheiacquiredlandwith buildingpotentialitywith referenceto. thepricefetchedby saleofplots in a welldevelopedlayoutin tl^e neighborhood lA.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal i LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan i ' . l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page22of29 or whetherit be the determinationofMmarketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout ofbuildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts, 1ehedupon by anyoftheparties,withreferenceto theprice which theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe preliminarynotificationunder Section () ofthe Act Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched ythe sales oftheplots in layouts of^buildingplots in the . neighborhoodof the acquired lands, becomes available, -len what couldbe done is tofind out ike marketvalueof ^ the acqmredland with reference to \the relevantdate of publicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to whichitwasputandincreaseits valueby a small percentage having regard to .'the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon thk basisofevidenceto }e made available in that regard \£-smallpercentage value of the landfound out according.to its actual user .ince resort to the method ofgiving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only 'when there is'no evidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof demand '"dicitingthat there was no immediate acqu-redZT' eye. ifformed in the

¶31In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionpfrate ofland chargedby the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands;developingthe same,and transferringperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai (hand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DetenninedRates in determining th^ market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Follqwingithe dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketJalueof I ' |.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' ^ "pp. N., 2s,/2010S c."".c,cd of • .App. No. 11V2010&connected/AppealsofVillagePochanpur the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I fin& that the ReferenceCourt I has lightlynot adoptedthe DDA ratesfor allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates fot alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question. i I

¶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-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of10%]pfrarmum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., foritlj,e period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhas,e-II,stillthe pricefixed by the LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethant|e aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted ^by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the 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 of4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring'land. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka Ihase-II^s ofsixteeii'yearsand therefore,it woUldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value| by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan ' h I.A',App.Mo, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochahpur Page 24 of29 ! I escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe neafbylandofthe previousyears. i

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that ''the Reference Court has gianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwaiTanted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After halirig perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10% i]icreaseon account of higher potentiaHty of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been grantedand so, by'relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @12%) per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%) per annum.In this viewof the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed. I

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether .^option of Government's mmniiumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt IS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%;per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationoflhe minimumprice for the agriculturallandby the Governmentw.e.f.|l®'April,2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not. ' i:

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by the learnedcounsel for:appellantsbecausetheiacquiredland had ceasedto be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto liV.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan 17\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 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 mquestion. Not only this, even the sale| exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpo^;

¶37Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pricedue to higherdemand,on,accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their usb post the year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur'and the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparalSlewiththe acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired lan|d with the sale instance of Village Samalldia (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 afqre-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial,DevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)X^M^ra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum'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 lA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Page26 f29 would be expected to be the market growt^i and what the market had actuallygrown,Govermnent'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe;marketvalue of the; acquired landsin Jai (Supra)as well as in SuskilKumar(Supra)andIfmd no reasonto take adifferentviewthan the! one whichhad been taken by coordinateBench'of this Court in the ifpresaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra)and (Supra). ' >

¶38I'his Court is of the consideredvieAy that the ReferenceCourt in the matters pertainingto Village BharthM.and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government'sminiiiium price for agricultural •lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue oftheAcquiredlands in question. Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situation of the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record..ButIfmd thatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and BharatPetroleumDepots and of Railwayline passingthrough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vi|de;road starting from NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there! being Farm Houses in the vicinityofthe acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion!ofthis Court, on accountof aforesaid,locationaladvantages,the acquiredlandsin question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin; viciiiityofDwarkaPhase-L Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% incre^l^eover and abovemarket value of the acquired lands as assessed by;'the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the ' I lAApp.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal ' > LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan . . • l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur : ! I, m settled legal position aptly highlightedby the Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, inthesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached.^ that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being'usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the^ acquiredland hada buildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseHn priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality." ' |

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be veiy difficultto provide a definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalenceby uniformly applying tho Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computid?^the fair marketvalue of I ! the acquiredlands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants:',of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.However,while relyingjupon the decisionin Sushil Kumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%jincreaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby 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 awarding:10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan:Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof LA.App, No. 1195/2008&connccledAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur [•' M the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@j?l6,50,000/-per^JjJ&forthe Category 'A' land and @^=14,69,600/-per bmha for the Category 'B' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. 'UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor'theperiodwherethere is adelayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid.Iheseappellantswouldbe entitled'toproportionatecosts. I

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby!eitherside withthe Registrar General ofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordiiiglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb U.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App.No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur JUDGE r> C o%r Jo- \ + / • % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT 'NEWDELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 ' RANBIRSH^A : ^ Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R!.S:Verma,Mr.Jitiii Tewathia, Advocates ! Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas,Advocate.| , Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand Alr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Rdutray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mi-.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar,jAdvocatefor Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.SlK.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR }• tp Ti ^ ^ Respondents Through: :Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathak,Mr.KiohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UC)I . .MrAjayVerma,Mr.S.K.fJ,etl,i,Ms. AmitaSingh, ^.BankeyBihariSharAia,Mr.KunaISharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: i • HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR order'

12.01o2012 : i ' i £AAbd1-No. 752/21)12 This is an applicationfor seekingtjipographicalcorrectionin Orderof6''Vanuary,2012. ' ; I Counsel appearingfor the appellants^have acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 "fy f ofthe appHcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. I The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the ' ^ • decision of 6" January, 2012 is that in; paragrapli no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmenttiie rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants,Accorclingly,this applicationis allowed:and it is orderedthatthe referenceito,'perbigha' inparagraph no: 40 of LA.App^No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe carriedout forthwith. ' In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12, 2012 .pkb JUDGE LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

•V r * IN THE HIQH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 78/2012 IQBALSINGH& ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate versus I UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,Advocatefor R-l/UOI Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR