UOI v. Shri Duli Chand

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008,titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IN THE •HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November iS, 2011 Fronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRJD-A) LA./\PP.n95/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA Appellant rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.ll.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohias, Advocate. Mr.Ragliuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mi'.PankajVivek, AdA-;ocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Mr.Deepalc KJiosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and IVIr.Dhananjay Mchlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rauieki, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripachi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates Ibr respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus U'NIONOFINDIA& ANR. ' Respondems-I'hruugh; Mr.SanjayPoddav,SenioryVdyocatewitu Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.MohitraG .Vadhas'and Ms.NavHn Swain. Ms.K.Kaiimiidi KirfiirLAdvocate;^ t1)r LA.C/lIOI Mr.AJay Venna, Ms.Becnashaw Sorii, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr S,K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA !.A..APP.412/2008 & CM.No,4096/2008. (Cross-Objections),f..'\.APP..452/2008; I.A.APP.453./2008;LA.APP.688/2008^ CMMo.5990/20Jo' (Cross-Objeciionsj; i.A.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/200S& CMNo,510/2009 (Cross-Objectioau); 1. APJ'.768/200R; l.A.APP.770/2008; iy..App.N'o. iiyV500>la connected/""ppoiilsofVilliigi;Bharihul IA.Afjp.No./94/7010 corniLT'edAppc-il.sofvillaj^cjBijwiiwn ' IA.Anp.\'o..1.1.1730.10&cor.nra'?dAppc;i!iof Village1'oc.hanpiir _ Pa{iclof29 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No,425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008& CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.AFP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008 &. CM.lMo.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.S18/2008; LA.APP.819/2008;• LA.APP.820/2008; l.A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.AFP.951/2008 & ' CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; .LA,APP.974/2008 & CM'!No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572,'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.Nb.17340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) I.A.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP-.1046/2008 l..A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008 LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l052/2008; LA.APIM 053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.I7259/2008(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081./2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1084/2008(&' CM.No.l7302,'2008(Cros.s-Objections);LA.APP.1086./2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094,/2008; LA.AP,P.1095/2008; r.A.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009(Cross-Objections);LAiAPP.i108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009(Cross-Objections);lA.APP.l 109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CM;No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA..APP.1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 . (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.ll 16/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; LAAPP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM,No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); LA.APP.II30/2008; LA:APP.l 131/200S & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP. 1135./200S & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP.l 156/2008; LA.APP.l 157./2008; LA.APP.1158/2008 & CM.No.7774.'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008; LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/20Q9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP. 1171/2008; LA.APP. 1172/2008; LA.APP.l 173/2008; LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.M79/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008; LA.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP.H83/2008& CM.No.6933./2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA:APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 I.A.App.No.5195/2008 & r.onneclcd Appeals of Villagenharlhal ' . ' iy\ApD. No. ?.9V?-010 connoctcdAppealsofVillageBijvvasan l7\.App.No. n..1.l/.'!niO& connRctecfAppealsofVillagePoch'aiiDur' Page2or29 % (Cross-Objcclions); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008;LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.l 193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008; LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections);• LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CiVI.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201I (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.135/2009 LA.APP.136/2009 LA.APP. 140/2009 lA.APP. 162/2009 LA.APP; 197/2009 LA.APP.202/2009 (Cross-Objcctions; •lA.APP.2 11/2009 LA.APP.224/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.249/2009 LA.APP.367/2009 LA.APP.459/2009 LA.APP.489/2009 LA.APP.494/2009 LA.APP.507/2009 LA.APP.5n/2009 i.A.APP.572/2009 LA.APP.404/2010 LA.APP.137/2009; O^rXl'P.143/2009; XA.APP. 187/2009: LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.138/2009 LA.APP.144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245./2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2Q09; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.I5/2010; LA.APP.13/2011: LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447./2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA. APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009: LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP .45/2010; LA.APP.n38/2008; LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/20.09 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 . LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 l.A.APP.1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/'L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002;.Village Bharthai; Delhi) (GRID-B) kesei^ed on: December 08, 201} Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). i:)iiyHNpr-K KUMAR Through: ...... Appellant .Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh iy\.App. No 1195/^008 & conneclcd Appeals of VillageBhiirUial 'A.App.No. 294/2010& conncclodAppoalsofVillageDijwasan lA.App No. 111/2010 & conncctcjdAppealsof VillagePocbanpur Advocates Mr.S.K.SolaiiIci 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 UOI & ANR I.AAPP i-A.APP, LA:APP. . LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. •lA.APP. i^A.APP. LAAPP. LA.APP: LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .52/2010 '. 56/2010 . 100/2010 . 242/2010 .282/2010 .287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao JadhaA% and Ms.NavIin Swain, Advocates forLlOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solaiiki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LAAPP. U/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP.-57/2010 LA.APP. 221./20JO LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 35 L'2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LAAPP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 361/2010 LAAPP. 406/201-0 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LAAPP. 286/2010 .LAAPP' 80/20.10 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Gi LA.APP. 49/2010 LAAPP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LAAPP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010" LA.APP. 226/2010 LAAPP. 277/2010 LA.APP'.281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP.289/2010 LA.APP.29,4/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 . LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 ' LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 • LA.y\PP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2010 J.A.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 ' .LAAPP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & •oss-objections) Olclatingto NotificationNo. Fa0{30)96-L&'B.'LA/13417dated 13:12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND lA.App.No 119^2008&conncctodAppealsof VillageBhannnl ' lAApp.No. 291/7010&conmjctcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan . IvVApp. No. 113/2(310i connoctodAppealsofVillagePochanpL;r /- • •. S ' - , .Pago4of29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 l.A.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Tlii-ough: Appellants Mr.B.b.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solanldand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to49, 59, 63 to71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,-Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocateforappellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents ' Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.NavIin Swain. Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA; •LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. la.app: LAA]>P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . LA.APP. LA.APP. la.app: LA.APP. LA.APJ\ 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011. 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.APP, LA.APiP, • LA.APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. ,LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2D10 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 ' .1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 '433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011. 526/2011 591/2011 ,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. . 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 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. i-A.App.No. 3,195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal A-^pp.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageDijwasan l-A./\pp No 111/2010&conncclcdAppealsofVillagfiPochanpur. (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/I3417 dated

13.12.2000issued-LinderSection4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL €;AUR 0 R-'D E R %

06.01.2012 J. Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/IA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-IJ' in Delhi, commenced with ihe issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of ihe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. j. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesvStood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@^13.82 lacs per acre for l^lock 'A' (level field with top soil) and @" ?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheii-acquired LA.App. No. 1195/2008a connnctedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal. I/V-App.No. 29J/7.010&connuciedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. Ul/201.0&connnctftdAppealsof Villapc?Pochanpur ' " . ^ ; _ • Page 6of29 agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed. .

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by • the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer^ Karnataka Housing Board V5. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr.,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) S: Ors.y (2010) 3 SeC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs v5. Union ofIndia & Anr.^ 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass State of Haryana Ors., 2010(9) SCALR 41; Chakas vs. Stviie of Punjab Ors., 2011 (9)' SCAlJi 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer S. Anr V5. MJL Rafiq Saheby (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsihhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineerj lA.App. No. J.l5f>/7008 & connccied Appeals of VillagRSharlha! :.A.App.No. 7.94/7.010 connociod Appeals of Village Bijwasan .'A.App.No 111/2010& connnctfidAppf;alsofVillagePocfianpur ' ' ' • Page7 of29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 200T SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 175; RisalSingh & Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr.. AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar V5. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead) by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors w. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union of India, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedIcecping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of tune and the same cannotbe limitedto tlie near fixturealone.

¶7(t was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwaylineis the IGI Airport,New Delhi lJ\.App.No. lID5/20Ca&conncctedAppealsofVillageBharthai 1A./\pp.No. 21>1/2010&connoctcdAppealsof VillageUijwasan lAApp.No. 111/2010 connectedAppealsofVillaROPochynpu' Page a of 29 V and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Aii-portis located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses ai-e located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samallcha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension ol IGI Aiiport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndian Oil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands of VillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for development 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-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawn to the akssizrasiuv^j^to highlightthat the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It 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 16^'' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land of VillageBharthal, had ceasedto be rural inviewofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama IA.App. No. 13535,0.008& connfictedAppealsofVillageBharthal lAApp..No.29/l/?.01oaconnoctcdAppealsofVillageBijwasan lAiApp.{Jo. lll/;!010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page9of25 ReMi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, {1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Vdho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepmg in view the developmentin the area over aperiodoftime and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put tlie land to any use, it wouldnot mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the' appellantsupon the sevenSale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pncc reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs 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 there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluDessaivs. StateofGoa andAm-., (2010) 13 SCO 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerateslor determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. - n. Assessmentofmarketvalue of (he acquired land was sought by Mr.R..(iodara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates hxed by the Government and' also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Governmentfor'allotmentof alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is lAApp.No. n£)5/200«&cnnn(.ctedAppealsofVfllagGBhartlial ' • •App-No 294/7.010& connoctodAppealsofVillageBi^asan -A.App ND.llJ/^OlOaconnnctedAppealsafVillagcPochdnpur • • sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samallchaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited ofJ.A. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the . following grounds;- a) "Ignores the aclcnowledgementon the part of the respondent about the A^'ard No.26/2002-2003 dated

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

7.7.2007) - b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area for more than 15years before the Notification under Section '5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital - Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid doMm by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in_ Sangunthalaversus tahsildar. 2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to he consideredbeforeascertaining the value ofthe land under.acquisition. e) Does noi deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law established by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in the recent case of Chlnda Fakirci Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate should-not be disregardedin lA.App.No. ii9'i/2008 & conru?ctodAppealsofVillage IJharlhal - I.A.App.No. 294/2010& connoctndAppfialsofVillagG Bijvvasan lA.App.No. 111/2010&c'jnnscledAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page11of 29 case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai 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 adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 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^l3,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'hle Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haiyana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.l framed on 27.2.2007. . g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed, and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of. Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential,_ commercial _and_ other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74^^ amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 FX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and' the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the mumcipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser would pay for the-subject land.

i) Ignored the fact thit Respondent 'No. 2 - had also l-A.App.No. 1195/2008 & connoclod Appealsof VillagoBharthal l.A.App.No. IM/IQU)& conncctedAppealsofVillaBCiBijwa.san ,LA.App. No. 111/2010&connfictndAppealsof VillagePochanpur , Page12 of 29 aiiciioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdeveloped,land. j) The valuationof thesubject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange of the use of the land althoughthe land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase

¶11It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthesaid land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was heldthat thepurposefor-which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact' whetherthe landhasgot buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in nearfuture needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion 6j the land is beingconsideredas house site,- the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesitesin the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsofthe otherappealsinthesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargLimentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,Mtwas urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethatthe effectof LA.App. No. ,119S/2008& conncjctedAppealsofVillageOliarthal l-A.App. No. 294/2010&connoctedAppealsof VillageBijwassn l-A.App.No. 111/2020&connmedAppealsof Vlllagftpochanpur " . • - p 1= fio urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapU Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Detcrmined Rates, Resei*ved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon bythe appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequate market value for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled bythe Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learnedSeniorCounselurgedthat though as per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant"evidence foi" determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the ReferenceCourt and while placingrelianceuponthe decisionsin Jai Lai vi". Union oj India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal &. Ors V5. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand V5. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009). 15 SCC 769; l.A. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09,2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for SLich sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008& connected AppealsofVillageBharthal IVV.App. No. zg'l/P.OlO& connRctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lAApf).No. 1U/.?010&connectedAppealsofVillaRePQchanpur •" * Pagel4of29 'vi) m and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendmthe marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector tliat adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be countenanced,in view of the decision of Apex Court mLai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench ofthis Courtin SushilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So fat 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 minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted ^ tliatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReicrcnccCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon 1ccoid and the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling lAApp.No. llf)5/?008&connoctQdAppealsof VillaReBharthal AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagel]ijwa,«n lA.App. No. U1/2C'10& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur seller and the best evidence is .the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass V5. State of Haryana iSi Ors,j 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- \ * I "(i) ihe situation ofthe acquired land vis-a-visthe 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 ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityof the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or ' industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibility of obtaining water and electric supplyfor occupants ofbuildings to beput up on that land;

(iv) absence ofstatutory impedimentsor the likefor using the acquired landfor huildingpurpose; r'

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity ofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the •' acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few. "

18.- Ihe potentialityof land for thepuiposcof developmentas 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 lA.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageDharlhal lA.App.No 7.fJ4/2010& connected AppealsofVillageUijwasan LVApp. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur i Page16 of 29 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 Aima Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court-in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference 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 justillcation for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Stipra)can be referred to with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (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 observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- LA.App. i\'o. 11S5/200S& connccied AppealsofVillageBharlhal lA.App.No. & fionncctodAppealsofVillageRijwasan lAApp.No. 111/2010&connecfodAppealsof Village?Pochanpur Page 17 of29 "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 he considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar larids whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obsei-vations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakmi Patil (Supra), which are as . follows:- '7/ is M^ell settled that' genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acqiured lands possessing similar value or utility taken place betyi>een a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determinethe market;value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil ami Natural Gas Corporation Ltd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as linder:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability^ of land for development in the area, and'the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, Increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts orjumps. iy\.App. No.1195/2008 & connncted Appfialsof Village Bharlltal i.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connocted Appeals of Village Bijwasan lA.App.No. in/2'0105t connectedAppealsofVillaRePochar.pur - Pagel8of29 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 escalatiofis-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year; during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of. any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% • per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in •urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to '15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied 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 ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe w^here the_ relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few yedr^, that is upto four to-fiveyears. 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 few 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 LA.App.No. ll95/200fi & connocied Appoalsof VillageBhartha! . ' '.yV-Apo,No. 291/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ' ... L^.ApD No. 111/2010& conneciodAppealsofVillagePochanpur - ' ' Page19of29 m acquisition in 1970 or 1980. may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the Vate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts inprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24'lliisCourtis mindfulofthe dictum ofthe Apex Court in Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods:What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 'When different,categoriesoflands (or lands with different situaiional advantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav 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 uniformrate of compensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredimderthe same notification,"

¶25[Jndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e.,.the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Hx.PW-lMto Ex.PW-l/lO)which arc basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in lespectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhich is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e,. Sale Deeds iy\.App.No. 1195/2008& contuictedAppealsofVillageBharthal U.App. No. 254/20.10& conncctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan iy\.App,No. 131/2030& conncclfidAppealsofVillagePochanpur '3M (Bx.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars ~ Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-I/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/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited Irom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these jands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^' March, 2000 was also subjectmatter in LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of Indian decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions,the sale exemplarof 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 acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpuiposetill their. acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having loiowledge of prevailing l^.Aop. No. 1J9S/2008& connectedAppealsofVillagenharthal ' • U.App. No. 29'}/2niO& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pagen of29 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 (I-x.PW-1/4 to Iix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale-exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure 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 be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates Ibr the developed lands and Prc-Dctcrmined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. R Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. IJowever, in either of the said cases whether it be the determination ofthe market value of the acqitired land with buildingpotentiality with reference to theprice fetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood A.App. Mo. 3]f)!j/200a & conncctod AppcjalsofVillageBharthal A.App. No.294/.'i01.0& connccted AppoalsofVillaguBijw^san A.App. Nc. IJ1/V.OlOA Tonnc'ctcdAppealsofVillagePochanpiif Page 22 of29 * C -• or whether it he the determination ofthe market value ofthe acquired land, with building potentiality with reference to theprice fetched bysale ofbuildingplots 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 befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any oftheparties, with reference to the price which the'plots could havefetched ifsold on the date of the' publication of the preliminary notification 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 tofind out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication imder Section 4(1) 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 buildingpotentiality ascertained on the basis ofevidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage Increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of 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 buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired land, indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even ifformed in the. acquired land. " 31, In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate'of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held-thatit is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DetcrminedRates in detemiining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chand(Supra),a coordinateBench ofthis Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No.llOli/^.OOS& connfictndAppoalsofVillageBhartlial l-A,App.No. 791/2010& connc'ctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan lAApp.No. 111/2010&connecledAppealsofVillaRoPochanpur• Pa/je23of29 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueof the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhile takinginto considerationtlie earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondcnt/cross-objectorthat even if the escalation at the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is talcen 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 Notificationfor developmentof DwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice 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! Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land"only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,if the gap is of only of a fewyears, may becomeunsafe' and unreliable standardwhere the gap is larger..In the instantcase, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase~IIis oisixteenyears and therefore,itwould be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate l7\,App.No. 119:3/2008& connoctndAppealsof Viflcige Bharthal lA.App.No. 2.94/7.010& connnctodAppealsofVillageBijwasan I.A.App.No. 111/201.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur M escalation over tlie market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged. that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwan-anted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt-hasbeen grantedand so, by relying upon Sushi! Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by tlie Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsof tlie respondentare dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to he an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in" question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotiHcationofthe year 1994 the land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto IA.App. No. 1] & connectedAppniilsofVill.igeBliarthni IW.Afjp.No. .^'.M/20lb&, connoctodAppctilso( VillageBijwasan l-A.App. No. J1.1/2010&conneciodAppfialsof VillagePochanpiir presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. 1he evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami. Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.-

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been mcreasempricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeed appellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in VillagePochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsoiRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalUna(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands 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 compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of line afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State IndustnalDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculmral'land'in Delhi, which generally,factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.1aking.note of the fact that there is a gap between what 1A.App.No. 1195/2008&connoclcdAppealsofVillageBharthal ' ' LA.App.No. 294/2010&connocrcdAppeal?ofVillageBijwasan lAApp.No.lll/2010&connectcdAppealsofVillagePochanpui ' VO > would be cxpected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I fmd no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan lias rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquh-ed lands in question. I'inding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there 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 NIi-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Fam Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid 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 arid above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference•Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the I/vApp. No. 119Ii/2008 & connoctfid Appeals of Village;Bhiirlhal lA.App.No. 294/2010& connccledAppealsofVillugR Rijwasan IA.App. No; 111/2010&connechidAppcsl.iof VillafiGPoclianpur > settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mina NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion . would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto account the increasein price attributableI to such buildingpotentiality/."

3.9. Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto provide a definitevalue qua potential,and in view ofthe fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases, whichpersuadesme to treatthem with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices lor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands dilferentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with theij-counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decisionin Sushil Kumar(Supra),1am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands detejminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages . providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthaland Village Bijwasan.While treatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,.the appealsof I^.App No..U9V2D08&connoclcdAppealsOfVillageBharthal • . ' AApp, No. ?.9V1'010&conncclodAppealsofVillagdBijwasan • l-ft.App,No.l.Li/20.ic:&connoctedAppcalsofViNagoPochanpur ' '' Page 2S of 29 VV the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands ofthese lands in question. \-v- \\\^' threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^^^lbrthe Catcg0!7 'A* land and @?14,6'9,600/-per bi^a for the Category'B'

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siauitorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs, UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are gianted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is a delay in filingthe appeal, ioi ^^'hichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit die compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar General o[ this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared.- January 06, 2012 pk b l-A.App. No. 1195/2008& connoctcdAppealsofVillage!Bharthal l.A.App.No. 294/2010&conncctedApptjalsofVillaRoBijwasan iy\.App.No. 111/2010&connocledAppealsof VillagePochanpur n . r 0 v'- (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE n- /O;, n ='= IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPralcash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for . Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mi-.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanld and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavUn Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerraa,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mi'.BanlceyBihariShanna,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 0/,

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 CFor correction'). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6"' Januaiy,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page ^ uM i •7 •" ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6'" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the. aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'perbigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants!Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No! 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be cairied out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb TSUNIL GAUR) JUDGE AApp.No. 1195/2008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ^ Reserved on: November . 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 197/2009 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LACAJOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA versus SHRI DULI CHAND Respondent Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR